MEDIA based in the Newcastle Area - Radio Stations, Television Stations, Regional Newspapers, Local Personalities, etc

[newcastlepubs]

Originally Posted by WilfBurnsFan

Me too. That used to enliven a weekly drive to Consett; then to my astonishment and horror they disappeared and listeners were treated to (iirc) Sue Sweeney instead.

Must admit my car radio is:

• 5 live
• Radio 4
• Talksport
• RTE [252 longwave - Irish Radio4/5 type]

I ve appeared on Radio Ncl a few times but really don't get it. However I was wrong on listening figures. RAJAR shows it's doing relatively well.

[thenorthumbrian]

Originally Posted by WilfBurnsFan

BBC4 alone is worth it!

Totally agree with that WilfBurnsFan.
BBC 4 is an astonishing station and represents the best of public service broadcasting.

[Steve Ellwood]

Originally Posted by newcastlepubs

I ve appeared on Radio Ncl a few times but really don't get it.

I always looked at it in good old League of Gentleman parlance as This is a local shop for local people - replace shop with radio station

[newcastlepubs]

Originally Posted by Steve Ellwood

I always looked at it in good old League of Gentleman parlance as This is a local shop for local people - replace shop with radio station

I'd be interested to know the age profile of the station's listeners.

[Seamaster]

Originally Posted by WilfBurnsFan

BBC4 alone is worth it!

Why do you hate choice?

[Adrian_Swall]

Originally Posted by Steve Ellwood

The Weather Man is Paul Mooney not Sweeney

I stopped listening to Radio Newcastle when they ditched Local History and got rid of Paul Wappat and Ian Robinson - now Radio 5 Live and Radio 4.

You are right Steve. He should just be arrested by the Sweeney!! Carter! lets 'ave him!!

[WilfBurnsFan]

Originally Posted by Seamaster

Why do you hate choice?

Eh? You've lost me there, I'm afraid.

[Seamaster]

Originally Posted by WilfBurnsFan

Eh? You've lost me there, I'm afraid.

If you want to consume BBC product, fine, pay a subscription for it. If it's so great, no doubt you'd happily queue up to do so. But those who don't want to should be free to spend their money elsewhere. Choice is good.

[WilfBurnsFan]

I don't claim the BBC is perfect, but I do believe that there is a role for nationally funded public service broadcasting (of which BBC4 is the Reithian epitome), just as I believe we should have nationally (or municipally) funded schools, colleges, universities, libraries, galleries and museums. That doesn't inhibit choice at all - people are free to subscribe to Sky or Virgin, buy their own books and education etc etc. But it gives a bedrock of cultural provision that's vital for a modern civilised society. Opening everything to so-called 'market forces' leads to lowest common denominator provision - have you seen ITV o a Saturday evening? To its shame, BBC1 goes down the same route - but it doesn't have to, and that can be changed. But ony if it stays a public trust.

In the same mould, stations like Radio Newcastle should ditch the 'pop and chat' model and sacrifice listener numbers for more intelligent, locally-relevant broadcasting. This doesn't need to be expensive.

[Newcastle Historian]

Originally Posted by WilfBurnsFan

I don't claim the BBC is perfect, but I do believe that there is a role for nationally funded public service broadcasting (of which BBC4 is the Reithian epitome), just as I believe we should have nationally (or municipally) funded schools, colleges, universities, libraries, galleries and museums. That doesn't inhibit choice at all - people are free to subscribe to Sky or Virgin, buy their own books and education etc etc. But it gives a bedrock of cultural provision that's vital for a modern civilised society. Opening everything to so-called 'market forces' leads to lowest common denominator provision - have you seen ITV o a Saturday evening? To its shame, BBC1 goes down the same route - but it doesn't have to, and that can be changed. But ony if it stays a public trust.

In the same mould, stations like Radio Newcastle should ditch the 'pop and chat' model and sacrifice listener numbers for more intelligent, locally-relevant broadcasting. This doesn't need to be expensive.

Good post, agree entirely.

I believe very strongly in having as much 'choice' as possible, and a lot of people choose to support the idea of and the fact of (because of the benefits it brings to them) the BBC.

[Seamaster]

Originally Posted by Newcastle Historian

Good post, agree entirely. I believe very strongly in having as much 'choice' as possible, and a lot of people choose to support the idea of and the fact of (because of the benefits it brings to them) the BBC.

I would like to choose not to. What choice do I have? None.

I would accept the public service argument if the state broadcaster wasn't just another ratings-chasing lowest common denominator whorehouse like the rest of them. And don't bother posting the odd David Attenborough programme/Radio 3 as a figleaf of respectability. Heard all that guff a hundred times.

The only way the licence fee will survive is if it is separated from the state broadcaster, and apportioned to all broadcasters based on what percentage of genuine public service broadcasting they provide. For example, Sky Arts 1 and 2 and Sky Movies Classics and Indie put the BBC to shame in terms of the number of hours of genuinely high quality broadcasting they provide. If they got a share of the licence fee that reflected this, they could be broadcast free-to-air. If nothing else, it would be a hell of a shot in the arm to the state broadcaster and those who blithely support its otherwise untenable monopolistic position.

Otherwise, abolish the licence fee, and let the I HEART THE BBC types exercise their "choice" by paying a subscription.

[Newcastle Historian]

Originally Posted by Seamaster

The only way the licence fee will survive is if it is separated from the state broadcaster and apportioned to all broadcasters based on what percentage of genuine public service broadcasting they provide.

That is a potentially interesting idea!

[Stagknight]

But don't we already pay enough to Rupert Murdock for tv. He has just stolen formula one racing from the general public, this means we will need to pay him even more to subscribe to his sports channels in order to see it.

[Newcastle Historian]

Originally Posted by Newcastle Historian

That is a potentially interesting idea!

Originally Posted by Stagknight

But don't we already pay enough to Rupert Murdock for tv. He has just stolen formula one racing from the general public, this means we will need to pay him even more to subscribe to his sports channels in order to see it.

There's a flaw in every good idea!!

[Seamaster]

On the contrary, we need a strong Sky — they're the only media organisation big enough to balance the unparalleled power the UK gives its state broadcaster.

[newcastlepubs]

Not to suggest... because everyone else does it but:

• Croatia - state run TV funded by a licence fee
• Estonia - state run channels
• France has a number of state run channels [France 2,3,4, and 5] and the national broadcaster has significant interests in a number of other channels. The significant ones are probably France 24, Euronews and TV5Mode. The first certainly gives a France-centric world view, the others slightly less so.
• Germany, 9 regional channels, a national channel and a radio network. Licence funded
• Ireland - 2 main 'state' channels [plus others]. Fuding is complicated but from a mix of a licence fee and advertising
• Netherlands. State funded channels. Received around 750mil euro last year
• Poland. TVP operates three nationwide channels: TVP 1, TVP 2 and TVP Info. It also broadcasts digital channels via satellite and 16 regional affiliate stattions. Polskie Radio operates four radio stations available throughout the country. There are also 17 state-owned radio stations broadcasting to the Polish regions.
• Scandanavia - Finland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden all use a licence fee. Averages about 230euro a year [more than here FWIW]
• Spain. A combination of state funding and advertising.
• Canada - a combination of state funding and advertising
• Australia. State funded

Oh lord I ve lost the will to live.....

It's also often forgotten that Channel 4 is essentially a state owned broadcaster - though until recently it was pretty much self funding.

However if you want to blow a gasket on state funded TV can I recommend S4C as a suitable target. Over the 20-day period from February 15 to March 6, 196 of the 890 programmes put out by S4C were rated as having zero viewers. [In practice, that means they had less than 1,000].

Currently S4C receives [brace yourself] more than £100mil per year from DCMS. From 2013 funding for S4C will begin to transfer to the BBC, with the DCMS reducing its contribution by 94% by 2015. The BBC will provide around £76m of funding to S4C by this date, resulting in a cut of around 25% to S4C's annual budget. IMHO with their viewing figures a cut of say 99% might be more appropriate - though with 22% of their output having zero viewers I m not sure who would notice.

Now if I wanted to start cutting BBC expenditure [or even to pay for all of the F1 races] I think I know where I'd start. Off to replace blown fuse [and take calming tablets], normal service will be resumed soon....

The only way the licence fee will survive is if it is separated from the state broadcaster, and apportioned to all broadcasters based on what percentage of genuine public service broadcasting they provide. For example, Sky Arts 1 and 2 and Sky Movies Classics and Indie put the BBC to shame in terms of the number of hours of genuinely high quality broadcasting they provide.

Not completely left field; and yes Sky Arts 1 and 2 are excellent [but IMHO badly placed in the EPG which will effect their viewing figures for what it s worth]. There are some technical/practical problems - not least what is public service broadcasting - see S4C above, is News 24 public service, what about BBC Parliament ? I'd say BBC parliament for sure, in which case on the apportionment based on 'public service' it would remain 100% funded but with almost no viewers, so do you fund on a formula based on audience, or quality + audience.... you can see where this is going.

However in practice many European broadcasters operate public service/state TV which is partially funded by ad revenue; RTE [ROI] is a good example. However they have grown organically and with the market as it developed. In the current climate if [say] BBC1 started taking ads during Eastenders then [because of viewing figures] chances are it would pull cash away from other networks [C4 being the obvious one].

Personally I would not violently object to regulated advertising on the BBC, and it may be inevitable on BBC4 and the risible BBC3. However the risk is that in a pure marketplace you end up with 'another ratings-chasing lowest common denominator whorehouse' because that's what sells most. Over the next year or two you'll probably see the paradigm of this with the Desmond owned Channel 5; which I predict as they find their feet will become rather successful - by following the HL Mencken dictum that nobody ever went bust underestimating the taste of...

[Stagknight]

No matter how you look at it, in some ways more "state" control is needed. Sky are not regulated in any way and do as they wish. A cap needs to be put on the prices, all channels to be available for one price, they can keep the box office section for new films but film channels should be free under standard package, after all when they charge for wizard of oz, gone with the wind, sound of music, it gets a bit ridiculous.

[WilfBurnsFan]

Originally Posted by Seamaster

I would like to choose not to. What choice do I have? None.

I would accept the public service argument if the state broadcaster wasn't just another ratings-chasing lowest common denominator whorehouse like the rest of them. And don't bother posting the odd David Attenborough programme/Radio 3 as a figleaf of respectability. Heard all that guff a hundred times.

The only way the licence fee will survive is if it is separated from the state broadcaster, and apportioned to all broadcasters based on what percentage of genuine public service broadcasting they provide. For example, Sky Arts 1 and 2 and Sky Movies Classics and Indie put the BBC to shame in terms of the number of hours of genuinely high quality broadcasting they provide. If they got a share of the licence fee that reflected this, they could be broadcast free-to-air. If nothing else, it would be a hell of a shot in the arm to the state broadcaster and those who blithely support its otherwise untenable monopolistic position.

There's a lot of sense in that argument. I've not seen Sky Arts but from what I see in listings there appears to be good solid stuff on offer. And if EastEnders and the tripefest that is BBC3 (excluding Family Guy and American Dad) can be paid for by ads, I woudn't shed a tear. Much of what the BBC carries in its grimmer moments is advertising anyway - the atrocious National Lottery shows, the "documentaries' that mysteriously accompany the launches of Hollywood blockbusters, etc - so they might as well get some revenue from that. And hen they might better justify the money spent on whoever is the present-day equivalent of Wossy & Co.

BUT we need to preserve a bedrock of public service broadcasting.

<Hearts BBC>

[Newcastle Historian]

Award for Edge of Empire film
showing life on Hadrian's Wall
by Tony Henderson, The Journal, August 12th 2011


A FILM by Newcastle firm 'Dene Filmslooking' made in 3D, about what life was like for the troops on Hadrian’s Wall, has landed an international award.

The Edge of Empire – the Eagle’s Eye was part of a £6.2m revamp of visitor and exhibition facilities which opened earlier this year at Vindolanda Roman fort in Northumberland and its sister site the Carvoran Roman Army Museum at Greenhead, where it is shown daily.

It is the first 3D venture by Newcastle-based Dene Films, which was set up in 1992 and has turned out more than 5,000 commercials, TV programmes and corporate films.

At the 2011 US International Film and Video Awards, Edge of Empire was awarded the silver prize in the Specialty Production category, placing it in the top three productions of its kind worldwide.

There were more than 1,000 entrants from 22 different countries at the awards. Dene Films submitted two TV programmes – both scooped a gold award. One programme, the Last Cast, dealt with the mothballing of the Redcar steel plant on Teesside and the other focussed on stammering in children.

Dene, where there are 20 people involved in film production, makes a wide range of independent films, TV programmes, corporate and marketing films and commercials. Dene managing director Steve Salam said: “We were up against the world’s best and we proved we can make films of this quality in the region.


Read More - http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-e...#ixzz1Uni9UGZc

[AngerOfTheNorth]

For what it's worth, I <heart> the BBC too.

Ignoring all else, you must have at least one independent, unbiased news source (or as close as you can get, as both left and right will always find something to complain about). Sky and the rest of New Corp have been shown to be hugely biased and unscrupulous. Just look at the US and the affect Fox News is having on their now-paralysed politics.

Sod that.