Jonathon Ross quits BBC

No, it’s the rules under which the Corporation operates.

Moggy

Rules are bent for cash.

As said, next time I see one I’ll post. But the BBC has got to win me over from NatG or History or Dave.

Is that the official statement?

No, it’s the rules under which the Corporation operates.

Moggy

There is no paid-for product placement on the BBC networks. It of course appears in movies and US shows broadcast on the Beeb, but this does not constitute an income stream for the Corporation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8252901.stm

Moggy

Is that the official statement?
I’ve seen blatent placements on Live BBC Shows. I’ll post reference next time.
If there is money involved, there will be people that will bend the rules to have some of it. The BBC is not above that.

But I agree it probably doesn’t put a spike on the income graph. But there is an inflow rather than an outflow.

And then there is product-placement, I have no idea how much that brings in but it must be significant. It’s not as obvious as it was a few years ago, but is still clearly visible.

There is no paid-for product placement on the BBC networks. It of course appears in movies and US shows broadcast on the Beeb, but this does not constitute an income stream for the Corporation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8252901.stm

Moggy

That’s a one sided lump of tory trash.

The BBC earns bazillians more from other areas than we “The licence payer” puts in. Top gear sells worldwide, and all the books/DVD’s that go with it. Dickie Attenborough stuff likewise. All the Drama’s, a lot of the Sports. All sold around the world for a healthy fee. And then there is product-placement, I have no idea how much that brings in but it must be significant. It’s not as obvious as it was a few years ago, but is still clearly visible.
In essence, it is indeed the ratings that make the Stars, and the Stars create this worldwide interest and income. The Goose that lays the golden eggs springs to mind.
I’m afraid thet we have to suffer BBC1 being targetted at the bottom of the bell curve, ratings overtake quality. Thankfully, the BBC still produces outstanding quality programmes.

No idea what you mean by “one-sided lump of Tory trash”. In fact the abolishen of the Trust was proposed by the current Culture Minister.

The report tells the truth, unpalatable though it may be and BBC Worldwide, which is the beneficiary of the large income from BBC sales should be sold and be a quite separate entity. The BBC should not be a commercial trading organisation at all. It is not meeting its public remit and it is throwing its money ( our money ) at ratings lead programmes, digital channels, new premises, and a host of other items whereas the money should be spent on the highest quality, drama, current affairs, documentary and childrens’ programming.

I don’t know what is Tory trash about it. But do enlighten me.

This is interesting reading and bears out what a number of us have been saying.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/6983003/BBC-wasting-money-on-big-name-presenters.html

That’s a one sided lump of tory trash.

The BBC earns bazillians more from other areas than we “The licence payer” puts in. Top gear sells worldwide, and all the books/DVD’s that go with it. Dickie Attenborough stuff likewise. All the Drama’s, a lot of the Sports. All sold around the world for a healthy fee. And then there is product-placement, I have no idea how much that brings in but it must be significant. It’s not as obvious as it was a few years ago, but is still clearly visible.
In essence, it is indeed the ratings that make the Stars, and the Stars create this worldwide interest and income. The Goose that lays the golden eggs springs to mind.
I’m afraid thet we have to suffer BBC1 being targetted at the bottom of the bell curve, ratings overtake quality. Thankfully, the BBC still produces outstanding quality programmes.

This is interesting reading and bears out what a number of us have been saying.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/6983003/BBC-wasting-money-on-big-name-presenters.html

I reckon Rocketeer has got just about right. But try convincing that twerp Thompson and the Trust. Whatever happened to the Board of Governors? Or was it yet another of Blair’s “I know we’ll change it – it works well now, but we’ll still change it ‘cos we are Noolabour the party of change!”.?

The only fault in my logic is that i like one thing while others don’t as for paying for what we don’t like we are all in the same boat albeit for different things.

I have no problems paying for things that others like and I don’t per se (and vice versa). The BBC’s mandate was and should be to provide viewing that is not always available anywhere else. It says nothing about ratings etc. They have been the purveyors of quirky programming in the past which provides (usually) advert free stuff, some of which will appeal to all at some time. They seem to be too wrapped up with ratings and keeping up with others. The fact is we pay a licence fee anyway. It should not be frittered away on high salaries and trash TV that is available elsewhere. Hard decisions, either BBC stick to their mandate and stop trash TV (and invite people saying the quality TV is not seen by so many and not worth the licence fee) OR sell out completely and just go for a ‘attract the masses’ rating war with more trash soaps/cookery/chat shows/celebrity praising/awards/reality bollox and scrap the licence fee!

That said, I would prefer a BBC that goes back to its roots and keeps producing the programs that often get sold around the world because they are that good. These programs may not be that popular but they are quality and drag the box up from the usual trash!

Regarding JR, he is entertaining (some times) but was not worth 6million a year.
Rant over!!!!! I am off back to the freezing workshop to bash metal!

If I was still living in the UK I would be a lot more disappointed. I really enjoyed Friday Night. The thing about it was: it was fun. He engaged with the guests in an entertaining manner that they all responed to. He interviewed the biggest entertainers (film, music etc) in the world and a lot of ‘other’ folk (sports, political etc) and they all looked like they were having a good time. You often find out more about them that way by some dull and droll “so what is your next book/film/song going to be called” Parkie……

I’m just glad I’m not still there in case I had the missfortune of switching on to that (borderline) intollerable Norton present. Does he not already have a chat show anyway?

Judging by some of the comments on this thread he comes across as compulsive viewing..the Aussie’s will love him :rolleyes:

Would it?

The evidence of the interminably boring ‘star’ in some naff old car chat (before they show you the equally boring film of the ‘star’ trying to drive a circuit) suggests it wouldn’t actually be riveting television.

But yes, probably better than Norton. Precious small praise though that is.

Moggy

The evidence of his own chat show in the late 90’s is good enough. He was rude to those that needed to be rude to, built bombs and stuff. A super show.

The fault with your logic is that whilst we all can (and in my case ‘do’ ) avoid watching or listening to him, we can’t (couldn’t) avoid paying for him.

Moggy

EDIT: OMG They wouldn’t give the chat show to Clarkson? Would they? 😮

The only fault in my logic is that i like one thing while others don’t as for paying for what we don’t like we are all in the same boat albeit for different things.

At least it would be entertaining.

Would it?

The evidence of the interminably boring ‘star’ in some naff old car chat (before they show you the equally boring film of the ‘star’ trying to drive a circuit) suggests it wouldn’t actually be riveting television.

But yes, probably better than Norton. Precious small praise though that is.

Moggy

Good ridance to the overpaid no talent ignorant ar++++le

The fault with your logic is that whilst we all can (and in my case ‘do’ ) avoid watching or listening to him, we can’t (couldn’t) avoid paying for him.

With commercial TV in its parlous financial state and no competition from the Beeb for his services, his next pay packet will inevitably be significantly reduced. (But still dwarfing we normal mortals’ I’d guess)

Moggy

EDIT: OMG They wouldn’t give the chat show to Clarkson? Would they? 😮

At least it would be entertaining. I’d rather have the future SIR JC than that Irish idiot Norton.

I think BBC senior-executive salaries have just been published…..but not the salaries of the…er…‘talent’. :diablo:

I just read a story on it on a US news website (must be a slow news day).
Anyway, they said he got 6 million pounds a year…
but the BBC wouldn’t confirm it.

Why not?
Aren’t BBC employees government..or at least quasi-government since they’re paid for by a tax…employees?

Anyone else see it as a big deal? (I know you have a different concept of “right to know” and government “secrets”:D )

Or is it just me, rebelious colonial raging against the Queen and Empire?

Have a preview now. (Moggy should like this clip! ;))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S37c6DmJl4Q

His show has only just started in this country on ABC2 ..so I’ll tune in next week and see what all the kerfuffle is about :confused: