Theoretically yes, but it’s a lot easier when all of a network’s money comes from the government. You’re damn right I’m paranoid about the power of the State, anybody that isn’t paranoid about the power of the State needs to PAY $%^&ING ATTENTION. You’d be surprised what kind of restrictions population will not only tolerate but BEG for. Look up some of the freedoms America has lost, thrown away actually, in the name of the drug war. I’m not underestimating anything, you’re underestimating the plain facts of history.
Sorry but you’ve got it exactly backwards. Corporations are temporary, governments are forever. There’s not a single corporation in America that’s been here since the revolution. And no government in HISTORY has ever voluntarily given up power. Someday you just might have an evil nasty Soviet style government in the UK, and boy will they be happy that they already have control of TV and radio. Governments are much bigger and longer that 1 president, just look at hows little has actually changed from Bush to Obama.
They don’t all show the same programs. They might show programs that are similar, but they aren’t the same. And saying they are is just trying to win the argument with silly hyperbole.
There’s TONS of minority interest in the TV market. Heck just look at the network this very thread is about. They’re average program has 1 million viewers. That’s it, less than 1/3 of 1% of the population of America. You can’t get much more minority interest than that.
We’ve got tons of odd ball programs about subjects like 18th century French pottery, in the deep cable channels where they belong.
There’s no nonsense to it at all. Cliffhanger endings have been used to try to get the audience to blackmail the network into renewing since the earliest days of TV. I will now list for you every single time it’s worked, are you ready, pay close attention this is going by fast:
Jericho
And all Jericho managed to get renewed for was half a season to wrap it up. Any TV producer that tries the cliffhanger trick is trying to game the system in a way that’s well proven to NOT work. It’s lazy writing. People aren’t surprised when their TV shows get canceled, they know what the show costs, they know how much ad time in their show will have to sell for to make a profit, they know the ratings necessary to sell at that rate, and they know their ratings. Any idiot can put those numbers together by mid-season and say if the show will be renewed or canceled, that’s WHY these guys go the cliffhanger route in the first place, because they know the numbers are against them. When you get to that point the producer has 4 options:
flee
be a professional and keep plugging away
be nice to the audience and wrap it up
be a douche and try to get the audience to strong arm the network for them
Every one that takes option 4 is lazy. And they tend to have a hard time getting future jobs, because the networks don’t like producers that try to turn the audience against them.
The numbers aren’t always your friend. But the numbers are how things should be run. And really if Bush hadn’t sucked so bad at getting his message across 2008 could have gone differently, he poisoned the well for the GOP. Innovation and creativity happen all the time on American TV, lookup what’s going on with AMC these days: Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead. This is all HOLY CRAP good TV. And it ain’t just there either, Starz has Spartacus and Camalot; USA has Burn Notice, Covert Affairs and Psych; A&E has The Glades; SyFy has Eureka and had BSG. Playing to the audience is kicking ass, AND doesn’t have to worry about a tyrannical government screwing it all up... at least not as much as the Beeb does.
Theoretically I agree, but practical experience seems to indicate it doesn't make a lot of difference. You complain that the BBC is "state-owned", but according to every post I've ever seen on Free Republic it is generally acknowledged that the US media is almost completely in the pocket of the left, and certainly almost totally supportative of the current administration. Conservative media outlets have been systematically marginalised, and there are concerted attempts to destroy even what is left!
I guess the different way we do things just means a different strategy is implemented by the Statists.
You’d be surprised what kind of restrictions population will not only tolerate but BEG for. Look up some of the freedoms America has lost, thrown away actually, in the name of the drug war.
Which is why you need to clearly set our the rights, responsibilities and restrictions for all parties. Which is essentially what the BBC charter is. It's like the US constitution of broadcasting!
I’m not underestimating anything, you’re underestimating the plain facts of history.
I'm not underestimating anything. If a tyrannical, elitist dictatorial government determined to completely filch the rights and liberties of the people ever came to power in the US (God forbid) do you really, honestly believe they are going to let legal nuances like "private ownership" stop them? And, excuse me, do you really think they are going to let the constitution stop them? It's a great document, but in the final analysis its words on a page. What's really important is the will of the people to support the principles that it outlines, not what it actually is.
Sorry but you’ve got it exactly backwards. Corporations are temporary, governments are forever. There’s not a single corporation in America that’s been here since the revolution. And no government in HISTORY has ever voluntarily given up power. Someday you just might have an evil nasty Soviet style government in the UK, and boy will they be happy that they already have control of TV and radio. Governments are much bigger and longer that 1 president, just look at hows little has actually changed from Bush to Obama.
That kind of depends on what you mean by "Government". If you want to define it broader than an administration, then I guess you are right.
They don’t all show the same programs. They might show programs that are similar, but they aren’t the same. And saying they are is just trying to win the argument with silly hyperbole.
What I meant by saying they are the same is that they are very derivative, not absolutely identical! To a certain extent, all TV programs do need to follow some set rules - but they also need to be innovative if they are going to be worthwhile. But innovation and experimentation are risky - and the accountants who run US TV don't like that.
There’s TONS of minority interest in the TV market. Heck just look at the network this very thread is about.
Yes let's look at SciFi, or ScyFi or whatever it is now. This was a channel set up to satisfy the minority (but still substantial) interest of science-fiction. How's that working out? They started off showing lots of the stuff, but slowly, gradually, they've moved away. At first it was a few shows from the allied field of fantasy, and then more horror - which they justified because a lot of it is now heavily techno-orientated, derived from cyberpunk and so on. Then they started showing wrestling, and then they changed their name (which stations do for one reason only, to alter image). Now there is hardly any sci-fi on it at all. Now, that MUST be a commercial decision. It is certainly not due to pressure from sci-fi fans. Put bluntly, they were not getting enough audiences from showing sci-fi, so they stopped doing it. And now they are little better than a thousand other small outfits on the rim of the US TV market.
Besides, even in its hey-day, SciFi did not actually make any sci-fi programs, they just bought it all in. They may have showcased the genre, but they never actually added to it.
They’re average program has 1 million viewers. That’s it, less than 1/3 of 1% of the population of America. You can’t get much more minority interest than that.
Except that it now no longer shows the minority interest programs it was set up to do. The low audience share of minority US TV channels has nothing to do with them supporting minority interests. It is almost all due to two factors. One, no-one has access to all channels. I don't know how many americans can even get SciFi but it is certainly nowhere near all of you. Secondly, and more importantly, there are so many TV channels that they divide the audience up. Because they are mostly all showing pretty much the same thing, it doesn't really matter to the audience whether they watch it on one or the other channel.
We’ve got tons of odd ball programs about subjects like 18th century French pottery, in the deep cable channels where they belong.
In other words, only if you specifically request them?
There’s no nonsense to it at all. Cliffhanger endings have been used to try to get the audience to blackmail the network into renewing since the earliest days of TV. I will now list for you every single time it’s worked, are you ready, pay close attention this is going by fast: Jericho And all Jericho managed to get renewed for was half a season to wrap it up. Any TV producer that tries the cliffhanger trick is trying to game the system in a way that’s well proven to NOT work. It’s lazy writing. People aren’t surprised when their TV shows get canceled, they know what the show costs, they know how much ad time in their show will have to sell for to make a profit, they know the ratings necessary to sell at that rate, and they know their ratings. Any idiot can put those numbers together by mid-season and say if the show will be renewed or canceled, that’s WHY these guys go the cliffhanger route in the first place, because they know the numbers are against them. When you get to that point the producer has 4 options: flee be a professional and keep plugging away be nice to the audience and wrap it up be a douche and try to get the audience to strong arm the network for them Every one that takes option 4 is lazy. And they tend to have a hard time getting future jobs, because the networks don’t like producers that try to turn the audience against them.
If it doesn't work, why do they keep trying it? Also you forgot one other way they try and get round it. If the audience figures fall below what cost of production calls for, they can reduce cost of production. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to make good quality television cheaply, and that usually starts a spiral that leads to even lower ratings.
Innovation and creativity happen all the time on American TV, lookup what’s going on with AMC these days: Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead. This is all HOLY CRAP good TV. And it ain’t just there either, Starz has Spartacus and Camalot; USA has Burn Notice, Covert Affairs and Psych; A&E has The Glades; SyFy has Eureka and had BSG.
Oh, there are some excellent US TV programs, I've never denied that. Unfortunately there is also a huge amount of dross. This is perfectly normal for everyone. The economics of films and TV programs (and books for that matter) are that they are high-risk, high-reward. Most TV programs and films flop. If one in ten is a smash hit success you are doing well. The "hit rate" for US TV programs however, is exceedingly low.
However, the US still pretty much controls the AV industry. Countries like India and Japan actually make more TV and films than you do, but no-one sells such a high proportion of their domestic product abroad as the US does. I would argue that the good US programs are more a function of just how much TV the US churns out. There's so much that some good ones are bound to appear occasionally! And of course, if you throw enough money at even a derivative idea it will probably work on at least one level, at least for a while. Eventually though, Star Trek comes up with Enterprise, and Star Gate comes up with Universe.