devil's advocate, in response to Hillary Shaw, says"

>A few points, 
>1) All those repeats, yes I know theyre supposed to benefit those 
>who m issed it the ifrst time around, but with videos, just how big 
>an audience is this? Surely more of a "time filler" for the schedules?

I personally would prefer to have the last series of e.g. Frost repeated
than have money spent on a new one in all honesty. And let's not forget
the immense satisfaction that certain sectors of the population get from
not watching particular shows. I like NOT watching Frost....I thus
positively welcome the opportunity to NOT watch it over and over again.I
also, however, welcome the opportunity to watch it should I suffer a
change of heart. Perhaps it is worth watching again ? Perhaps people have
short memories ? What could be more decadent than waking up at tea time
and watching again the same episode of neighbours you initially passed out
drunk during at lunch time ? Opportunity ! 

>2) Standard of the news. Very "single issue", rarely any in depth 
>coverage of the issues behind the issues, a lot of yacking between 
>the 2 news presenters as opposed to real news coverage, but quite 
>heavy coverage of sport - this may suit many but surely we're  not 
>ALL interested ion football, rugby, cricket, motor racing, golf, 
>snooker, tiddleywinks etc etc all the time.

Other services are available.  Has anyone ever wondered what is happening
with Scottish football ? Difficult to know when in England (I sense
myself opening a tired debate and step back). 

>3) While on about the news, how come it is that on say Tues you 
>get the weather covered for upt till Fri, when many of us really want 
>to know what the weekend will do, but on Thurs it still goes up 
>to.....Friday! Nothing to do with those premium rate weather lines is 
>it? But a lot of yacky coverage, eg "a front wriggling its way up and 
>rain trying to force its way into the North", or "and this is  what the 
>weather was doing on 2 May 1953..."

I think on this one you are right to suspect a conspiracy... I think the
whole culture of weather broadcasting is premised on a difficult to
support notion that the majority of people actually care anyway. I don't -
I am indoors for a start...

>4) Did you realise that, if there are about 24million TV licences in 
>the UK, each paying say 100, that is, for the 2 BBC channels, 
>equivalent to about 40 per second of TV time. Think of that next 
>time you sit through a 60 second plus long intro to a programme 
>rather than the programme itself.

That IS very expensive. Couldn't they show more repeats or perhaps some
cheaper to produce shows instead ? 

>5) Ever wondered why the schedules contain so many chat 
>showes, quiz shows, sporting events, cookery programmes, 
>"edutainment/docusoap" shows like Police Action Camera, 
>recycling CCTV etc footage, etc....it wouldnt be becuase these are 
>cheap to show, requiring little more than a camera, a studio or 
>single location outside, and little else would it?

Because they are good ? Because people like them ? I do not think that
many licence payers would be willing to, for instance, see more in-depth
news coverage at the expense of the "Wheel of Fortune". 

>Well if you agree with some of the above there is an answer, copy 
>DtP and boycott TV for one specified evening a week. Say Friday, 
>when the schedules can be pretty dire and there's other things to 
>do.

i.e. stop watching telly at those times when you dont watch it anyway ?And
always bear in mind that for many there are not other things to do on a
Friday evening.

> Even watch a video if you must, but not the scheduled TV. If 
>you don't think its dire, many OAPs in Britain do, which is a bit of a 
>betrayal for a lifelong licence payer even if they do get free licences 
>now.

betrayal ? This is a very emotive word...had never thought of it in those
terms really. 

>This is even better than DtP because with that, motorists simply 
>filled up the day after but once an advertising slot has passed, 
>unwatched, its gone forever.

True enough....remember though that, as evidenced on low budget tv
channels, when advertising prices drop we are bombarded with rubbish ads
for rubbish products. Imagine the horrors of returning to your TV
post-boycott to find that every advertising break is filled with reg
holdsworth type-characters, northern comedians and faintly sinister
techno-cats exhorting the virtues of "buy one get one free" double-glazing
offers in a frankly unamusing fashion. It is at this kind of danger point
that those with low self-esteem, faced with dull TV shows and duller ads,
often serioulsy contemplate going bowling in Inverness or similar. 

>If the advertisers knew or even worried that the audience on a 
>certain night would be drastically cut, in term this would cut the 
>channel 3,4,5's ad revenue, by anything up to 14%. If they did 
>improve their schedules, this in turn would force the BBC to. 
>So feel free to pass this message on to any other lists you can 
>think of. You have nothing to lose but your crass TV schedules.

Ok

>If DtP can work, so can TtT.

Did DtP work then ? I forget. Give the tv stations their due though, the
coverage of Dump the Pump and the recent petrol protests was very
good...without it I would have felt entirely uninvolved.

Incidentally, i note that policemen are getting younger these days..."


***************************
Dan Knox
Research Postgraduate
University of Durham
***************************






%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%