Sky v BBC

by LadyPutt Wed 22 Jul 2015 - 15:04

First topic message reminder :

Now that The Open has finally finished (more on that later) I thought I'd start the discussion thread that several suggested we should have. Here's my initial two-penn'orth.

1. The BBC coverage on the commentary side seemingly aimed at people who have never watched golf on TV - or anywhere else - before. Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious!!
2. The editing and camera work were dreadful. Many times the pictures cut from someone just about to putt (having lingered on them lining it up for 30 seconds or so) only to cut away to someone else lining up a shot. Time and again we saw a tee shot, only for the cameraman to miss where it ended up. The classic was one of Sergio's shots which Mark James was convinced must have landed in a greenside bunker because no-one could see it, only for them to be puzzled that Sergio's putt from the back of the green was his second shot. He'd obviously overshot the green and everyone had missed it. And you can't blame the poor visibility with the modern technology at their disposal - unless they haven't invested in any.
3. Who on earth where the numpties who were doing the interviews and on-course bits (apart from Ken Brown and his bloody rubber duck)? They certainly don't appear to have any golfing credentials and had no credibility in my eyes. At least I was able to record it on Sky+ (or pause the live coverage to do something else) and then whizz through the boring bits. Why did they bother to charter a plane to give those pointless overhead shots (mostly obliterated by clouds)? That must have cost the licence fee-payers a pretty penny!
4. The timing of the coverage was pretty poor - if they can clear the schedules for tennis at Wimbledon, why can't they do the same for The Open? Peter Alliss was trumpeting that they will be showing highlights once Sky take over the coverage in 2017 (I read in my paper yesterday that there are suggestions the BBC don't want it next year so may pass it to Sky a year early) so why didn't they show highlights this time, especially on the days when most people work? I had to go out on Monday evening for a previous engagement and so set Sky+ to record the coverage only to discover that they had swapped channels for the play-off so I missed it completely!!!!!

Anyone else want to have a gripe?

by GunsGerms Wed 30 Sep 2015 - 16:58

Well in fairness it has been a while since there was a British winner. Its a shame though. I always enjoy the BBCs coverage which I receive free to air.

by super_realist Wed 30 Sep 2015 - 17:04

GunsGerms wrote:Well in fairness it has been a while since there was a British winner. Its a shame though. I always enjoy the BBCs coverage which I receive free to air.

Bottom line is people aren't interested in golf, I think we saw that last year when Mcilroy had a far better year than Hamilton in his two horse engineering competition and still lost by a mile.

by McLaren Wed 30 Sep 2015 - 17:10

Super are you a moron?

How can you have missed the Torries anti bbc agenda?

by Eyetoldyouso Wed 30 Sep 2015 - 17:11

It is simply preposterous to believe that the BBC cutting its golf coverage is something that the Tory party supports. I would hazard an informed guess that the vast majority of golf watchers are Tory voters and not in accord with the Islington and Hampstead chatteratti.

There is no argument that very many Tory MPs see the BBC as an over staffed, wasteful "leftie" supporting organisation.

by super_realist Wed 30 Sep 2015 - 17:17

McLaren wrote:Super are you a moron?

How can you have missed the Torries anti bbc agenda?

Mac, did I ever say that? I'm saying that whatever party is in power, they've got no interest in regards as to whether Golf, Eastenders, Strictly or any other programme stays on or not.

Programmes which get poor ratings and cost a lot of money are axed, simple as that. To blame any party for the decline of golf viewship is retarded.

No one was blaming a political party when the SCottish Open, Ryder Cup, British Masters, Wentworth Matchplay, BMW all went off the beeb.

by beninho Wed 30 Sep 2015 - 17:30

Eyetoldyouso wrote:It is simply preposterous to believe that the BBC cutting its golf coverage is something that the Tory party supports. I would hazard an informed guess that the vast majority of golf watchers are Tory voters and not in accord with the Islington and Hampstead chatteratti.

There is no argument that very many Tory MPs see the BBC as an over staffed, wasteful "leftie" supporting organisation.

I do not think anyone has said that. Just that it is likely a side effect of the BBC being cut back. Golf is something that can be lost. I read that the changes to the over 75s having the BBC fund their licence fee will be 650million, though I am unsure over how long a period. Sport is so expensive, due to Sky and BT ramping up the prices, it is taken away from free to air broadcasters. I do wonder how people would feel if BT had secured the Open rights, would people be willing to pay the extra £25pm costs.

by McLaren Wed 30 Sep 2015 - 17:40

But you do understand that regardless of what caused the BBC to drop the open that the Torries would eliminate the bbc tomorrow if they could?

by raycastleunited Wed 30 Sep 2015 - 22:08

Quite frankly Mac it is you who is coming across as a total moron here. Why don't you read Super's posts. I mean actually read them and try to understand what he's written and what it means.

The BBC is a fantastic concept, but is hugely inefficient - just ask anyone who has ever worked there.

The BBC also has billions of pounds of income, both from the licence fee and selling its content. It also earns money from advertising internationally.

It could easily afford to outbid Sky for the golf but instead chooses to fritter away millions on developing its own versions of dumbed down ITV shows like the Voice. Sadly (I think), this is the drivel that the majority of the country seem to want to watch.

by SmithersJones Wed 30 Sep 2015 - 22:32

There was an experiment recently where families who objected to the licence fee were asked to do without the beeb. Over 70% changed their minds within a week.

by McLaren Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 10:23

Ray

What has any perceived inefficiency got to do with the torries(the rights) ideological stance on the bbc?

The right would like to see an end to the NHS, the bbc, most of the welfare state and state funded education. Do not be fooled by any argument about massive cost cutting to these services as improved "efficiency" (whatever that means?), it is only about cutting the size of government and the public sector.

by super_realist Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 10:28

McLaren wrote:Ray

What has any perceived inefficiency got to do with the torries(the rights) ideological stance on the bbc?

The right would like to see an end to the NHS, the bbc, most of the welfare state and state funded education. Do not be fooled by any argument about massive cost cutting to these services as improved "efficiency" (whatever that means?), it is only about cutting the size of government and the public sector.

Mac, are you just being dense for the sake of it? Every political party in control has sought to make the BBC more efficient and less management heavy, much like they have all intended to do with Education and NHS.

Getting rid of high cost, low viewership programmes is simply an example of them doing that. To say that Labour are any less intent on improving the BBC in terms of it's cost/income ratio is Guardian reading tin foil hat conspiracy nonsense.

The BBC is a public service, but it is not a charity to provide everything YOU might want.

Who cares what the Tories ideology is, ALL parties have attempted to reform the BBC. Stop being so one eyed.

by McLaren Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 10:33

Lets start again.

Ideologically the torries would like to get rid of the BBC.

Now you respond.

by super_realist Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 10:35

What evidence have you for that Mac?, and even if they did want to get rid of it, what would that have to do with the BBC losing golf?

For your information, it's Tories, not "torries"

by GunsGerms Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 10:44

super_realist wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:Well in fairness it has been a while since there was a British winner. Its a shame though. I always enjoy the BBCs coverage which I receive free to air.

Bottom line is people aren't interested in golf, I think we saw that last year when Mcilroy had a far better year than Hamilton in his two horse engineering competition and still lost by a mile.

Probably because McIlroy declared for Ireland. Either way it is wierd to me that more people would be interested in F1.

by super_realist Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 10:45

He hadn't declared at that point though.

You're right about F1 though, turgid dross.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 14:59

super_realist wrote:...Getting rid of high cost, low viewership programmes is simply an example of them doing that. To say that Labour are any less intent on improving the BBC in terms of it's cost/income ratio is Guardian reading tin foil hat conspiracy nonsense.

The BBC is a public service, but it is not a charity to provide everything YOU might want...

Isn't that what the BBC's meant to champion/preserve? It shouldn't be all about high viewership/low cost. I thought that was part of the point. As a 'public service', it should be showing a broad spectrum, whether something's for a niche audience or not.

by super_realist Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 15:12

It's a public broadcasting corporation, but that doesn't mean it panders to extremely low demand.

It does show a broad spectrum, but golf, sadly for the minority that like it, is too niche, reflected by the viewership. There has to be a limit on "loss leader" programmes.

There are a sack of sports/events that get no coverage these days. Golf is no different to them, and if you make a special case for golf, then where do you stop? Dressage, Diving, Tiddlywinks, Tug O War, Squash? I'm sure there are members of those sports that would like coverage, but you simply can't please anyone, which is why something owned by the entire country has to go mass market, like it or not.

Why would such a corporation spend millions making something no one wants to watch? That's like a Soviet factory making only left shoes.

Imagine where the likes of British Gas, BT, BP, Rail, etc would be if they were still state owned. They'd be a mess like the BBC.

Had golf been a sport that was over in the time it took to play a game of football, I'm certain they would have kept it, but to monopolise the broadcast schedule with so much coverage over 4 days for 1.4m viewers is probably too much for the management to sanction.

by McLaren Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 16:33

Is that the same british gas that is part of something resembling cartel/oligopoly?

And the same BP that totally destroyed large portions of the gulf coast?

by super_realist Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 16:55

No Mac, you can get your gas from any number of providers.

Whilst it was actually Transocean whose rig was contracted to BP that blew at Macondo.

Nothing like a bit of sensationalism and not knowing anything about the facts though eh Mac?

Perhaps you shouldn't be so flippant, as it's companies like those you mentioned in which your pension is invested.

by beninho Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 17:11

Bp were guilty of gross negligence and wilful misconduct in the gulf coast at a cost of 54bn so far. They seem heavily to blame for the gulf coast disaster. A Google of bp explosion brings other incidents to light. Don't think you can gloss over and blame someone else. When bp have taken the blame themselves.

by beninho Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 17:12

Bp were guilty of gross negligence and wilful misconduct in the gulf coast at a cost of 54bn so far. They seem heavily to blame for the gulf coast disaster. A Google of bp explosion brings other incidents to light. Don't think you can gloss over and blame someone else. When bp have taken the blame themselves.

by super_realist Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 17:21

They were the Operator of the field, and are thus liable for the cost of their contractors (Transocean) errors. They are legally bound to take the responsibility, even though directly, it was not technically them who actually did it. BP sought collective responsibility in line with their contractual partners.

Accidents happen, it's how you deal with them

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the amount paid is well in excess of the actual damage, and I don't think it's anywhere near 54bn

by Davie Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 20:28

It really scares me that some people can tap a few keywords into Google and come up with completely uninformed decisions

by McLaren Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 21:00

It really worries me that people show such little skeptical thought when judging BP.

Super

I know you are an atheist but how did you come to that position? I ask because it is increasingly clear it was not from a humanist or skeptical position that you arrived at your atheism. Would you mind sharing with me your route to atheism.

by SmithersJones Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 21:50

And if anyone thinks BT are in better shape than when they were government owned they're sadly mistaken. They're a f'king joke of an organisation.

by JAS Thu 1 Oct 2015 - 22:14

Just out of interest what were the viewing figures for the BBC's election coverage?. Blanket all night coverage which I'm sure they won't drop in 2020.

The Tories clearly do have an ideological and pathological hatred of the BBC but Super's right I don't think that has anything to do with the BBC's (lack of) golf coverage - unless they know their state funding is going to drop drastically and so are looking to make drastic cuts to survive.

by Bob_the_Job Fri 2 Oct 2015 - 9:08

SmithersJones wrote:And if anyone thinks BT are in better shape than when they were government owned they're sadly mistaken. They're a f'king joke of an organisation.

Not picking on you per se - and I agree that BT have "issues". However, to compare BT now with BT back then is not relevant. Market conditions are so vastly different that it makes comparison pointless. We can never know what state BT would be in now were it still nationalised, but we can say for sure they wouldn't have BT Sport competing somewhat with the BBC

(see how I brought that back to the main topic Smile

)

by JAS Fri 2 Oct 2015 - 20:55

McLaren wrote:It really worries me that people show such little skeptical thought when judging BP.

.

Ever consider the fact that most of us just might not be as effin judgemental as your good self???

by super_realist Mon 5 Oct 2015 - 7:04

McLaren wrote:It really worries me that people show such little skeptical thought when judging BP.

Super

I know you are an atheist but how did you come to that position? I ask because it is increasingly clear it was not from a humanist or skeptical position that you arrived at your atheism. Would you mind sharing with me your route to atheism.

Mac, If you want an analogy in regards to BP, Transocean and Halliburton are the child who breaks the neighbours window with their football, BP are the parent who pays for the repair. Simple enough for you?

Why am I an atheist? Because it's a ridiculous concept for there to be a god, because it's unscientific, because to believe in an invisible sky zombie is as stupid and credulous as believing in Bigfoot, Leprechauns, Loch Ness Monsters and Alien abductions, because there's no evidence for one, and to NOT believe until there is evidence for anything is the default position. That's why. Not sure why you think it would be anything other than that.

Why would there be a route? I've never believed in such ridiculous fanciful fantasies. How could I?

by Bob_the_Job Mon 5 Oct 2015 - 8:58

Ricky Gervais wrote:"Why don't you believe in God"

No, no, no.

Why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer - you started all this?

If I came up to you and said "Why don't you believe I can fly?"
You'd say "Why would I?"
I'd reply "Because it's a matter of faith"

If I then said "Prove I can't fly. Go on, prove I can't fly. See? See? You can't can you?!" you'd either walk away, call security or throw me out the window and shout "f*ing fly then you lunatic!"

by MontysMerkin Mon 5 Oct 2015 - 9:10

super_realist wrote:

Imagine where the likes of British Gas, BT, BP, Rail, etc would be if they were still state owned. They'd be a mess like the BBC.

berk

by super_realist Mon 5 Oct 2015 - 9:15

British Gas, BT, and British Rail were hopelessly bloated and unprofitable organisations before privatisation. There's no incentive to be efficient under public ownership, hence why the BBC is so overstaffed.

by MontysMerkin Mon 5 Oct 2015 - 9:17

British Gas, BT, and British Rail are hopeless and profitable organisations after privatisation.

by super_realist Mon 5 Oct 2015 - 9:24

British Rail has always struggled, hard to polish a turd, but British Gas and BT have improved hugely.

by Sponsored content

Sky v BBC

Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC

Re: Sky v BBC