chas@ihuxe.UUCP (Charles Lambert) (01/05/85)
> We DON'T want the government to pay for it. Who knows > what we will be watching??? I agree the pledge breaks > are in many cases very badly done, but it motivates the > station to play what we want, not what some conehead thinks > will offend the least ammount of people! But..... The BBC is entirely government-funded, by mandatory T.V. licence fee, and they MADE Dr. Who (and Monty Python). Charlie @ ATT "Going through hyperspace is unpleasantly like being drunk." "What's wrong with being drunk?" "Ask a glass of water."
ron@wjvax.UUCP (Ron Christian) (01/07/85)
Me: > We DON'T want the government to pay for it. Who knows > what we will be watching??? I agree the pledge breaks > are in many cases very badly done, but it motivates the > station to play what we want, not what some conehead thinks > will offend the least ammount of people! Charles Lambert: >But..... >The BBC is entirely government-funded, by mandatory T.V. licence fee, >and they MADE Dr. Who (and Monty Python). You're right! Amazing people, those Britishers. Now, do you *really* think that the US government would adhere to the same high standards as British television currently enjoys? I don't. I think we would have '3's company' on PBS without commercials. Or maybe *with* commercials. Who knows? The point is, if the government finances it, who decides what we watch? You're right, government intervention isn't always nasty, but I for one wouldn't want to take the chance of them mucking things up. -- Ron Christian (Watkins-Johnson Co. San Jose, Calif.) {pesnta,twg,ios,qubix,turtlevax,tymix}!wjvax!ron
bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery (the tame hacker on the North Coast)) (01/08/85)
[Original message commented that BBC is government-run]
Can you imagine Reagan's government supporting Dr. Who? Or NOVA, for
that matter? (Hmmm... I can't imagine ANY U.S. government supporting
it, at that; just barely possibly NOVA might make it by the skin of its
film...)
--bsa
--
Brandon Allbery @ decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!bsa (..ncoast!tdi1!bsa business)
6504 Chestnut Road, Independence, Ohio 44131 (216) 524-1416
Who said you had to be (a) a poor programmer or (b) a security hazard
to be a hacker?hughes@mother.DEC (Gary if I could walk that way Hughes - CSSE uVAX Systems) (01/08/85)
In Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (equivalent to the BBC)
is government funded and is supposed to operate free of government
intervention. For the most part, this works very well.
However, the ABC is answerable to nobody. Some years ago they announced that
they intended to provide programming that was 'culturally uplifting' and that
they 'would not pay attention to ratings' when choosing material. In the same
announcement they added that they were not going to buy ANY more Dr Who because
'it wasn't rating well enough'. This was in the series that ended with 'Revenge
of the Cybermen'. Of course they used to schedule Dr Who in a dead slot on
Sunday night, change the show time without preannouncing or preempt it for
World Championship Lawn Bowls just to help it along.
Although I loathe the PBS grovelathons, I prefer the concept of being able
to contribute a relatively small sum of $$$ towards seeing programs that
I want to see rather than have my tax dollars spent on something that a
non-elected Head of Corporation wants to see.
Gary Hughes
UUCP: ...{ decvax | allegra | ucbvax }!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mother!hughes
...!dec-godzla!hughes
ARPA: hughes%mother.DEC @decwrl.ARPA
hughes%godzla.DEC @decwrl.ARPA
reality?: DEC, ZKO1-2/C07, 110 Spit Brook Rd, Nashua NH 03062jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (01/08/85)
> [Original message commented that BBC is government-run] > > Can you imagine Reagan's government supporting Dr. Who? Or NOVA, for > that matter? But it doesn't, and that's the point. (British Gov't run the BBC, that is.) The BBC is Govt *supported*, via license fees, but it is a matter of great pride that it is independent in direction. Whether the American government would have the forbearance and wisdom to refrain from blackmailing PBS if it didn't like its tone is debatable. Look at France--they have a government-run TV setup, and people complain that it carries propaganda. The current (socialist, sort-of) government complained loudly when they were in opposition, but hasn't done much to change things, and the other parties are only complaining for ritual's sake, as they expect to be back in the driver's seat soon. Incidentally, am I the only person on the net who saw the original Dr Who premiere on the BBC in 1963(?), in glorious black&white? It was so popular that they repeated it the next week before starting episode 2.
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (01/10/85)
> Charles Lambert: > > >But..... > >The BBC is entirely government-funded, by mandatory T.V. licence fee, > >and they MADE Dr. Who (and Monty Python). > Ron Christian: > You're right! Amazing people, those Britishers. Now, do you *really* > think that the US government would adhere to the same high standards > as British television currently enjoys? I don't. I think we would > have '3's company' on PBS without commercials. Or maybe *with* commercials. > Who knows? The point is, if the government finances it, who decides > what we watch? ... In Canada we have the government-owned CBC and a number of smaller private networks, the largest of these being CTV. They compete for ratings in the usual way, and the CBC runs the usual number of commercials in most shows. However, the CBC also produces stuff that probably wouldn't get produced otherwise, the Canadian market being the size it is. Some people like it for this, others hate it because it loses tax money. (I'm not stating a preference either way, just providing information. I point out that the BBC's situation is not parallel since they do not run commercials, though they do also face private competition.) In Ontario we have something called TVOntario which looks to me very much like PBS, and even has pledge drives occasionally, but softer-toned. It is mostly paid for by provincial taxes. Mark Brader
msc@qubix.UUCP (Mark Callow) (01/16/85)
> Incidentally, am I the only person on the net who saw the original Dr Who > premiere on the BBC in 1963(?), in glorious black&white? It was so popular > that they repeated it the next week before starting episode 2. No you're not. It wasn't repeated because of popularity. It was repeated because the original broadcast was delayed and, as a result, a large number of people missed it. The BBC felt it important that the viewers see the first episode to be able to follow the story. The original broadcast (Sat. 23 Nov. 1963) was delayed due to news coverage of the assasination of President Kennedy which had happened the previous day. -- From the TARDIS of Mark Callow msc@qubix.UUCP, qubix!msc@decwrl.ARPA ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!qubix!msc, ...{amd,ihnp4,ittvax}!qubix!msc
hider@pica.DEC (Paul Hider) (01/18/85)
> >Incidentally, am I the only person on the net who saw the original Dr Who >premiere on the BBC in 1963(?), in glorious black&white? It was so popular >that they repeated it the next week before starting episode 2. > I too saw it, twice, and have been following the good doctor ever since. As I recall at that time "Dr. Who" was followed by "Dixon of Dock Green", which, I guess, one could class as a "crime drama" -- eat your heart out Starsky.. Paul Hider, DEC, Merrimack, NH, USA. {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pica!hider hider%pica.DEC@decwrl.ARPA