On Jun 13, 5:13*pm, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Bruce wrote:

As a prime example of this, how can the BBC justify paying £20 million
a year of licence payers' money to screen The Voice? *Competing talent
shows on channels other than the BBC don't receive a penny from
licence payers.

Surely you could apply that argument to any programme produced by the BBC?
Why bother with soaps, other channels do them. Why bother with quiz shows,
breakfast shows, daytime tv? Why bother with news when the other channels
have news too?

Because by focussing on the areas that the commercial outlets do not
broadcast, or do not broadcast well, the BBC can do better for less
cost to the Llicence payer.

Among my friends who watch it, The Voice seems to be considered better than
the competing talent shows; better format, better talent.

But the BBC could excel at News, Current Affairs, Commedy,
Documentaries Costume Dramas, etc.

On Jun 13, 6:39*pm, MB wrote:
On 13/06/2012 17:43, 77002 wrote:

Because by focussing on the areas that the commercial outlets do not
broadcast, or do not broadcast well, the BBC can do better for less
cost to the Llicence payer.

*Among my friends who watch it, The Voice seems to be considered better than
*the competing talent shows; better format, better talent.

But the BBC could excel at News, Current Affairs, Commedy,
Documentaries Costume Dramas, etc.

I thought that they did excel at News, Current Affairs, Comedy,
Documentaries, Costume Dramas etc despite the repeated cuts in finances
for as long as I can remember (and having to pay $ky to allow $ky to
transmit its most popular channel).

If the BBC only broadcast unpopular programmes then it would get more
and more difficult to justify the licence but that is what some anti-BBC
$ky supporters want. *I don't see why I should have to be subjected to
adverts when watching TV or listening to the radio.

Have you seen the PBS Newshour, or documentaries like Lewis and
Clark? PBS does not carry advertising.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:59:01 -0700 (PDT), e27002
wrote:

On Jun 13, 6:39*pm, MB wrote:
On 13/06/2012 17:43, 77002 wrote:

Because by focussing on the areas that the commercial outlets do not
broadcast, or do not broadcast well, the BBC can do better for less
cost to the Llicence payer.

*Among my friends who watch it, The Voice seems to be considered better than
*the competing talent shows; better format, better talent.

But the BBC could excel at News, Current Affairs, Commedy,
Documentaries Costume Dramas, etc.

I thought that they did excel at News, Current Affairs, Comedy,
Documentaries, Costume Dramas etc despite the repeated cuts in finances
for as long as I can remember (and having to pay $ky to allow $ky to
transmit its most popular channel).

If the BBC only broadcast unpopular programmes then it would get more
and more difficult to justify the licence but that is what some anti-BBC
$ky supporters want. *I don't see why I should have to be subjected to
adverts when watching TV or listening to the radio.

Have you seen the PBS Newshour, or documentaries like Lewis and
Clark? PBS does not carry advertising.

Technically no but they note major donors and they do have enough so
that you know something about BNSF which helps pay for the 6 PM news
show on WBGH Boston, (it seems to be a national show). Home Depot and
GMC Trucks are among the providers of money for "This Old House".

Clark Morris

On Jun 13, 7:55*pm, Clark F Morris wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:59:01 -0700 (PDT), e27002





wrote:
On Jun 13, 6:39 pm, MB wrote:
On 13/06/2012 17:43, 77002 wrote:

Because by focussing on the areas that the commercial outlets do not
broadcast, or do not broadcast well, the BBC can do better for less
cost to the Llicence payer.

Among my friends who watch it, The Voice seems to be considered better than
the competing talent shows; better format, better talent.

But the BBC could excel at News, Current Affairs, Commedy,
Documentaries Costume Dramas, etc.

I thought that they did excel at News, Current Affairs, Comedy,
Documentaries, Costume Dramas etc despite the repeated cuts in finances
for as long as I can remember (and having to pay $ky to allow $ky to
transmit its most popular channel).

If the BBC only broadcast unpopular programmes then it would get more
and more difficult to justify the licence but that is what some anti-BBC
$ky supporters want. I don't see why I should have to be subjected to
adverts when watching TV or listening to the radio.

Have you seen the PBS Newshour, or documentaries like Lewis and
Clark? *PBS does not carry advertising.

Technically no but they note major donors and they do have enough so
that you know something about BNSF which helps pay for the 6 PM news
show on WBGH Boston, (it seems to be a national show). *Home Depot and
GMC Trucks are among the providers of money for "This Old House".

There is always the debate about sponsorship and advertising. The
dividing line is a little hazy.