The shipyard functionally is, you’ve got a layer of separation.
No actually it DOES mean the government controls it. Because any time the BBC does something the government doesn’t like the government has the power to choke them off. We had this discussion in FR extensively back when Bush put forth his “faith based” initiative that was going to funnel government money through church groups. All the smart ones knew it was a bad idea for the church groups because money never comes from the government without strings. Control CAN be implemented, they just gotta choke off the money supply, it doesn’t have to be official, they don’t have to say “because you did this we’re punishing you”, they can just say “the economy is tough, revenues are down, and on an unrelated note we didn’t like that program”. No money ever comes from the government free of influence, it’s the government, it’s not your friend.
Actually in the case of BBC programing making fun of the crap on there is plain ol truth telling. You ever actually looked at a BBC schedule? Especially 2, 3, or 4? Yeesh. It’s like the worst of PBS.
Sorry but you’re wrong. Giving the government control of the communications medium is like giving a loaded gun to a drunk 5 year old. You can become a member of that unelected board of suits.
And you’re wrong again. That formula is ENTIRELY beholden to public taste. If the public doesn’t like the shows then they don’t turn their eyeballs to the show, and the company can’t sell commercials. It’s just like fishing, the shows are the bait, if your bait is not to the taste of the fish you don’t get any fish. We’re actually very much in charge of what’s on TV, anything we don’t watch goes away. Unlike when the government is in charge, they don’t really care if people watch, they already got the tax money.
Except that the shipyard is our only customer.
No actually it DOES mean the government controls it. Because any time the BBC does something the government doesn’t like the government has the power to choke them off.
Look, any government has the practical power to choke ANY TV station off if they do something they don't like! Do you think the US government can't put the squeeze on Fox news? Well we know they can. They deny them interviews because they are "biased". How is that not a control? If the UK government disapproved of something the BBC did, they could find some way of "punishing" them - but the BBC would retaliate in the same way Fox news did. They simply announce what the Government has done publically and wait for the political bomb to explode! And that has happened on several occasions that I can think of. The BBC and the UK government have had some massive rows.
...All the smart ones knew it was a bad idea for the church groups because money never comes from the government without strings. Control CAN be implemented, they just gotta choke off the money supply, it doesn’t have to be official, they don’t have to say “because you did this we’re punishing you”, they can just say “the economy is tough, revenues are down, and on an unrelated note we didn’t like that program”. No money ever comes from the government free of influence, it’s the government, it’s not your friend.
Why are you singling out Government for your objection? Surely you could say money never comes from ANYWHERE without strings. No money ever comes from ANYWHERE free of influence. You think that the advertisers who finance US TV dont have an agenda, don't tamper with creative decisions, or even commercial ones? Do you think that a commercial TV consumer program is going to criticise the products of a major sponsor? US TV may claim to be independent, but it isn't really. It just has a different master. At least there is more transparency with the licence fee, because I am going to be personally affected if the BBC wastes it, or doesn't provide good programs. In a commercial TV situation, you are one step removed from the process.
Actually in the case of BBC programing making fun of the crap on there is plain ol truth telling. You ever actually looked at a BBC schedule? Especially 2, 3, or 4? Yeesh. It’s like the worst of PBS.
Well obviously. As PBS gets a substantial proportion of its products from the BBC, and they are only going to pick the cream of the crop, then sure all the duds are left. But the point is at least they are prepared to take chances with programming. The problem with US TV is not that it is all bad - indeed there are some very good US programs - but that it is very derivative. When a good program manages to make US TV screens (the sheer volume of them means some good ones get made occasionally) they are absolutely milked to death, and there will be umpteen copies of the format in the next six months. Buffy the vampire slayer was a big hit a few years back, and now you can't move for supernatural series.
Sorry but you’re wrong. Giving the government control of the communications medium is like giving a loaded gun to a drunk 5 year old.
I dont think it is. And the last seventy years in the UK bear that out.
You can become a member of that unelected board of suits.
You can. But you probably won't. And for sure we can't ALL become members of it.
And you’re wrong again. That formula is ENTIRELY beholden to public taste. If the public doesn’t like the shows then they don’t turn their eyeballs to the show, and the company can’t sell commercials. It’s just like fishing, the shows are the bait, if your bait is not to the taste of the fish you don’t get any fish. We’re actually very much in charge of what’s on TV, anything we don’t watch goes away.
The problem with that argument is that TV programs, or any other creative products, are not like purchasing candy bars, or shoe polish, or jewelery. They sometimes take time to get established - particularly if they are very original. It takes time to develop characters, plots, storylines and so on. It takes time for actors to work into parts, for writers to figure out how everything interacts. But the commercial TV situation demands instant results. How many very promising US TV series have there been which started off a bit shaky, but then settled down, just started to get interesting and generally good, and then get cancelled? Far too many.
This has other bad consequences. To try and get round that producers rely far too much on sudden shock tactics, especially in the opening episodes of new series. And they almost never finish story arcs - there is always an unresolved situation at the end of a season, not for a creative reason, but just to try and stop from being cancelled. And if the series does become popular, the demand for more and more is immense, and inevitably quality declines.
Yes of course you are in control of what is seen on TV, and for the reasons that you specify, but its a plural "you". Its all based on numbers. The advertisers don't care how much you enjoy the show, just how many of you are prepared to watch it. In other words, in a commercial TV setup, the tendency is towards shows that everyone will put up with, rather than towards shows that some people will really enjoy.
Unlike when the government is in charge, they don’t really care if people watch, they already got the tax money.
But the government does not have that tax money. The licence fee is used solely for the BBC. The BBC decides how to spend it, not the UK government. The BBC does not care as much if people do not watch their shows, but they cannot afford to be complacent because if there programs are completely unwatchable people start to complain - and not just to the BBC, but to their own elected representatives.