11 ms·

How can traditional British TV survive the US streaming giants

90 points by asplake 1y ago

thaumasiotes 1y ago
How can traditional British TV survive anything? Four episodes is considered a reasonable annual output.
- all2 1y ago
  I didn't realize it was this bad. Though, the last British TV show I consumed was Dr. Who, and I quit watching about the time Capaldi took the stage. I cannot think of another show that I've watched... There was a David Tennant murder mystery show that was quite dark, but I didn't finish that one, either.
  - mobtrain 1y ago
    Broadchurch
- TMWNN 1y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w09YzTMY1qk#t=62s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w09YzTMY1qk#t=62s
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- bcraven 1y ago
  Anything from the Natural World unit is second-to-none. Green Planet, Asia, Wild Isles, etc are all gob smacking.
- lmm 1y ago
  If you want quality it takes time and focus. Given how much content there is and how little free time we all have, the fact that traditional British TV shows stop when they're good rather than running any successful show into the ground is a point in their favour IMO.
rex_lupi 1y ago
'Traditional british tv' has produced some of the best shows to be ever made. The writing, acting and production quality of the 70s-80s classic british shows surpasses anything being produced these days in 4k. Spent so many delectable hours watching old shows from that era, some of them quite obscure. Modern shows feel like mass-produced in an assembly line, devoid of what one would call 'class'.
- cadamsdotcom 1y ago
  Is it fair to compare 20 years' worth of TV to the past few years' worth? Survivorship bias is also likely involved.
- socalgal2 1y ago
  i think you'd find lots of people disagree. Were there some great BBC shows in the 70s and 80s? Sure. I think you'd find lots pf people who find some relatively recent streaming shows to be amazing. You may not like them but there are many fans of shows like Stranger Things, The Crown, The Handmaid's Tale, The Queen's Gambit, Silo, Severance, Succession, ....
  - pixxel 1y ago
    [dead]
- permo-w 1y ago
  this kind of take is usually the preserve of nostalgic old men who've just discovered YouTube comments, so I'm surprised to see it rephrased so many times here. if you aren't finding high quality modern British-made TV shows it's because you're not looking or you're unwilling to try new things. Wolf Hall, Line of Duty, Slow Horses, Rivals, Fleabag, Adolescence, Inside no 9, Veep, etc etc etc etc. I could name 10 more. TV is more stratified and yes there are a lot of worthless filler game shows and talk shows, but just as it was in the 70s and 80s, there are plenty of stand-out shows that will last the test of time
  - mellosouls 1y ago
zeristor 1y ago
The BBC won’t enable 4K on AppleTV, so I don’t bother.
globalise83 1y ago
Given that the BBC has failed to offer their own solution for the many British and other people living abroad or with second homes abroad who would be interested in accessing their content, and instead driven us to consume a small subset of their content through Netflix, my sympathy is limited.
- ViscountPenguin 1y ago
  Is Britbox not available in your country? Here in Australia it has relatively high market penetration even.
  - fy20 1y ago
    No OP, but I'm in a smallish EU country and it's not available here.
    - amelius 1y ago
      https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.britbox.us https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.britbox.us
      - telesilla 1y ago
        Not available in my country (where I am today)
  - rubitxxx3 1y ago
    In the US and watch Britbox and Acorn at least as much as other providers now. We watch a lot of Aussie and British shows, new and old, color and B/W. The BBC made really great shows. If they go under, it’s a shame. I would pay tax to help the BBC keep going. I’d pay the Aussies, too, if they’re not getting comp’d.
  - arp242 1y ago
    BritBox is available in a very limited set of countries: Australia, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United States.
verisimi 1y ago
I hope it doesn't survive. But I'm sure it will. It is a propaganda outfit (and was from inception). It has special legislation to force TV owners to pay - this tax is called the 'license fee'. In the past only people who had been 'cleared' could work there. While people think that the UK's recent legislation is dystopian, the reality is it was ever thus as we see with the bbc. I would be very glad to see it go, but that won't happen because - it's utility as a megaphone to the governance system remains very high. Here is the bbc admitting it lied for -50-, sorry, 70 (!) years, to members of parliament even, about the vetting: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-43754737 https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-43754737 I certainly suspect this is only a partial disclosure - not only political outlooks would be considered. Simply a lying, propagandising institution.
- graemep 1y ago
  I do not know why you are being downvoted - there is some hyperbole in your comment but your link (to the BBC itself!) is shocking and certainly justifies calling it a lying institution. I do not think it is as dystopian as recent legislation. It did not intrude into our private lives!
  - nprateem 1y ago
    All media is propaganda. At least it's not the made up right wing shit that runs America. 1 downvote explained.
    - genewitch 1y ago
      It is funny to hear the US M5M declared "right wing" - it just isn't true. Right now broadcasters are in a bit of a minefield. Viewership is down, most broadcast stations are owned by a couple of companies, and rumor has it the administration may ban pharmaceutical advertising on television (which won't have teeth unless they explicitly ban native advertising). The pharma ads bankroll most mainstream media in the US, billions a year. (Note, I worked at one of the largest media empires in the US and watched the internal livestreams of the advertiser banquets) And most pharma ads are not aimed at you and I, it's aimed at medical providers. That's how lucrative pharma marketing is for pharma. And I completely disagree with your claim that all media is propaganda. Propaganda is a word that is defined. So I'll chalk that up to hyperbole. As in: if my objective is to make a nice song that people tap their feet to, is that propaganda because it has an objective? If so, then the word "propaganda" is diluted to the point of meaninglessness. You may as well say "all media is media."
jemmyw 1y ago
It has already pretty much died, and I don't think it was by the hand of streaming. It was whatever process put a stop to new shows in the template of the really great shows we had in the past. At some point the risk taking stopped and everything just became the same drudge. Of course, there was always plenty of drudge. It was the comedies that were particularly good and very British. Some were very unusual and bizarre, the late night shows. But they were also where writers and comedians got a break and then became mainstream. I would guess that kind of thing is now made for the internet, and its a shame to see everything go so niche. An article I came across a couple of years ago (wish I could find it!) talked about how there was this period of time when British TV started to diversify the source of talent, around the 80s and 90s. You got shows like Red Dwarf where the cast were not all from the same small set of drama schools. But it has now reverted and that kind of low budget, take a chance show doesn't get shown on the main channels.
- ramenbytes 1y ago
  Probably too recent, but any chance it was this? https://www.voicemag.uk/blog/14186/red-dwarf-diversity-in-space https://www.voicemag.uk/blog/14186/red-dwarf-diversity-in-sp...
  - jemmyw 1y ago
    No, it was longer and wasn't concentrated on red dwarf. It started on the casting for Sherlock.
- JFingleton 1y ago
  From Matt Lucas himself regarding Little Britain: 'Speaking in October 2017, Lucas stated that if he were to remake Little Britain he would avoid making jokes about transvestites and would not play the role of a black character, saying, "Basically, I wouldn't make that show now. It would upset people. We made a more cruel kind of comedy than I'd do now... Society has moved on a lot since then and my own views have evolved".' Basically the risk taking has gone in modern comedy.
  - 1y ago
nprateem 1y ago
I like the beeb, but I don't watch it since I can only buy an annual licence and if they can afford to pay millions on individual presenters they don't need my money. Bring in monthly subs and cap presenter salaries and I'll dip in from time to time.
- permo-w 1y ago
  I agree that they should let people subscribe monthly, but this is a completely illogical take. you might as well say you don't want to go to the cinema because the lead actor was paid the market rate for the job. if you don't like Gary Lineker, just say that, don't come out with this sideways attempt at nobility
  - nprateem 1y ago
    Gary Lineker, the radio presenters, news readers. Fine if you're commercial but in no world is it justified to pay the likes of Huw Edwards £600k to read the news, then whinge about not having enough money as a public broadcaster. "Oh, but if we don't pay them they'll leave" Let them go! I'd happily read some words for a few hours each day for a mere £200k.
    - fragmede 1y ago
      The world we live in, apparently, since they're getting that much money to do those jobs as we speak. Might as well complain about executive pay and the Royal estates while you're at it.
    - robbomacrae 1y ago
      Footballers make 300k a week and no one complains. This is a post about the slim survival chances of British media.. well salary caps will be the nail in the coffin as talent will simply go whey get the best deal.
      - zimpenfish 1y ago
        > Footballers make 300k a week and no one complains To be fair, plenty of fans (and the occasional pundit) complain (and have been complaining for years) but unless the authorities get involved (FA, UEFA, FIFA, etc.) and implement proper financial controls (there's some coming in 2025/26 around player salaries but we also need controls on money coming from TV rights, self-sponsorships, etc.) with actual transparent penalties (they're still soft-pedalling City whilst kicking Everton and Forest), nothing will happen.
aaron695 1y ago
[dead]
bigiain 1y ago
The US streaming giants seem to be doing a pretty good job of ensuring they themselves do not survive. Perhaps all British TV needs to do is wait out the enshittification that's already in play.
- martin_ky 1y ago
  My thinking exactly. Got Netflix couple of years ago because of the Witcher and since then I'm finding it hard to find anything watchable. I was going to say that they heavily favor quantity over quality. But not even that is true, since their selection is rather limited. The search result "we don't have X, but you might like A, B, C" which are usually the same and unrelated things over and over, appears way too often.
  - rightbyte 1y ago
    The "Is it cake" made me cancel Netflix. That and some shows about car restoration with focus on drama. I don't want to pay and end up supporting such dreg. It is funny though. For some reason I almost watched 5 episodes of is it cake and a lot of the car restoration shows. It is like you default to time wasting when you have nothing you want to see. And I don't want that exposure ...
    - dylan604 1y ago
      What you describe is exactly how I felt about regular broadcast/cable. What you wanted to watch when you had time to watch might not have been on, so you channel surf until you find something. Maybe it was something you found interesting, or maybe you just got tired of surfing and just left it on whatever pissed you off the least. Very similar to doom scrolling a streaming platform’s listings where you realize you’ve just spent 15 minutes looking at the menu but not actually watching anything.
      - bombcar 1y ago
        At least with YouTube you can end up in weird and interesting rabbit holes (I recommend “moving large things with trucks” and “blowing up buildings” and “railway snow clearing”). Sometimes you even learn something. All the cable/Netflix slop ends up being basically the same story.
019182839 1y ago
[flagged]
- permo-w 1y ago
  it wasn't just the BBC, it was the police, hospitals, the royal family, the prime minister, the music industry, etc etc etc
  - anthk 1y ago
    That reminds me on Belgium.
    - permo-w 1y ago
      in what sense?
  - zimpenfish 1y ago
    "In Plain Sight: The Life and Lies of Jimmy Savile" is a good (modulo the horror of what he was doing) read. People were aware of his penchant for the young and his predatory nature in the mid-50s - almost a decade before he was on the BBC.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- hn_throw2025 1y ago
  It should at least not be allowed to police itself in the first instance, as we saw with the Edwards case.
3036e4 1y ago
Here in Sweden the public service SVT has had its streaming service for years and I watch that more than I watch any of the commecial services I pay for (currently three of them).Incidentally that means mostly watching BBC (crime) series as SVT buy the rights to ridiculous numbers of those and many are very good. I would not mind if broadcast tv was shut down, but some older people would probably complain.
- lawn 1y ago
  We watch svtplay with our kids so much and it's much better than the garbage YouTube and other streaming services try to push onto kids.
anthk 1y ago
Good TV programmers against a 90% reality TV turds/mediocre series even on paid networks.
Simon_O_Rourke 1y ago
Simple, by being much better and well written perhaps?
- TheChaplain 1y ago
  This is way too far down among the replies, and I think it hits the nail on the head. Offer something people want to watch, and they'll come.
- badgersnake 1y ago
  They’re still limited because they don’t have the budgets. If you have a great script where are you going to take it? Netflix with a massive budget or the BBC / Channel 4 with a tiny one. Black mirror did not start on Netflix for example.
RenThraysk 1y ago
Feel this is a disingenuous question, as British TV will do just fine on streaming giants. Just the BBC cannot and will not make them, and struggling to survive. Mobland on Paramount+ Grand Tour on Amazon Clarkson's Farm on Amazon
- OJFord 1y ago
  Peaky Blinders on Netflix was made (and also broadcast) by the BBC.
  - RenThraysk 1y ago
    Back in 2013, when BBC still was airing Top Gear with Hammond, May & Clarkson, and things like Bake Off. Recent seasons of Dr Who were made with Disney+. They have killed a 60 year old franchise.
    - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
      Hardly killed. I've been watching Doctor Who since the 1970s and there's been a lot of variation in quality over that time. I stopped watching it sometime around the Colin Baker era as I lost interest in it, but started watching it again with the Christopher Eccleston reboot. Then, I started getting disillusioned with the Peter Capaldi episodes - possibly the best actor for playing the Doctor, but given awful scripts (except "Heaven Sent" which is possibly the best ever episode). I struggled through Jodie Whittaker's seasons as I didn't like her portrayal nor the stories, but now I have to say that I really enjoy Ncuti Gatwa's Doctor even though there's been good and bad episodes of his. I actively dislike Disney (except maybe TRON and the Black Hole), but I don't think they've killed Doctor Who.
      - RenThraysk 1y ago
        I watched in the 70s too. But never got onboard with the Eccleston reboot. There are no plans to make more Doctor Who, if it was good they would continue making more. So it's being shelved is probably a more an appropriate phrase. Someone might take a chance again in several years.
sunrunner 1y ago
It always seems crazy to me that in the early 1980s the BBC undertook the Computer literacy project, commissioned Acorn Computers to manufacture the BBC Micro, and produced educational content to support learning and use around said system itself. I understand why the chances of that being a profitable enterprise now given the development of computing hardware are practically zero, but even the idea that the BBC would produce interesting educational content now seems wild (not counting documentaries as that's not often something that provides information you can act on and use). If I want that kind of content now it's pretty much a guarantee that I'll end up on YouTube. Nowadays they're a non-neutral-seeming news outlet and producer of low-risk dreck that also demands I pay the UK TV Licence fee even just to watch _other_ channels. Do I need a reading licence to read books written by other people? Didn't think so. At this point it's simply a subscription fee for a service I don't want, and so I don't subscribe. Bring back quality content (subjective of course, but some variety would go a long way), perhaps some risk-taking (something on par with Channel 4's Utopia seems like a good goal). Oh, and perhaps cut the salaries of some of the unnecessarily highly-paid reporters. Just a thought.
- throaway1989 1y ago
  It's the same with Canadian television. Pre-2000 its full of interesting, educational programming, post-2000 its a wasteland (not including Pre-Netflix Trailer Park Boys).
  - b112 1y ago
    TV was seen as a great learning tool in the day. The idea that you could cheaply and affordably replay lectures with video, demonstrate concepts visually, show foreign lands and peoples, all with low cost of production was captivating to many. Computers were initially seen by educators as a path to interactive TV. Making it easy to find video info, and to index it, even rotate images (repair videos and part assemble for example). Point is, TV was seen a more than entertainment, it was a tool that could be employed to teach. Computers more so. Then the Internet came, and it was at first mostly educational, intellectual. Sort of the inverse of what it is now. Once everything exploded, it became entertainment primarily. Sort of like TV. The educational aspect is there, but muted.
pakigrapeparty 1y ago
[dead]
gadders 1y ago
Whatever happens, they need to decriminalise the license fee. "Almost a third of women’s convictions are for not paying the TV licence fee, figures have revealed. Women are ten times more likely to be convicted for not paying the £157.50 annual fee than men – with growing numbers of women then being slapped with criminal records, Ministry of Justice data shows." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tv-licence-fee-women-convictions-b1763192.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tv-licence-f...
- gsky 1y ago
  BBC would do anything to keep it going sadly
- harvey9 1y ago
  Some remarkable doublethink from the BBC in that article: "The BBC said licence fee avoidance did not bring with it a criminal record. A spokesperson said: “Details of the offence are not held on the Police National Computer – so while there is a criminal conviction there is no criminal record.”" So yeah, people, mainly women, go to prison but I guess it's not a big deal on paper.
  - permo-w 1y ago
    no one is going to prison for not paying the license fee. the article brings up prison, but only as a way to sneakily associate it with non-license fee payment in a way that clearly worked on you
    - harvey9 1y ago
      And yet many people (mainly women) go to prison for, in essence, not paying the licence fee. The fact that they technically go to prison for not complying with a court order is merely splitting hairs. I cancelled my license in the wake of the Saville scandal when it was finally admitted what was common knowledge inside the BBC: that they had been covering up a sex offender on their payroll for years. Obviously 'lessons were learned' so when Huw Edwards came along they repeated all the same mistakes.
blibble 1y ago
they could start by producing things people want to watch...
nottorp 1y ago
What I really don't understand is: The UK is one of the few countries (among the countries with universal health care) that doesn't have a separate tax for health care. That means they can handle earmarking huge amounts of money for a public service out of the general taxation. Why do they need to use this tv license thing for BBC then?
- calcifer 1y ago
  > Why do they need to use this tv license thing for BBC then? Even with horrendously massive cuts to public services and the Civil Service, the government has a tiny headroom in its budget, in the single-digit billions. The BBC cannot be funded from general taxation without the licence fee.
  - johannes1234321 1y ago
    > The BBC cannot be funded from general taxation without the licence fee. The question also is whether Ou want to directly pay it from taxes. Taxes fully depend on the current mood of the government. The fee does a bit of indirection limiting the direct influence.
    - calcifer 1y ago
      > Taxes fully depend on the current mood of the government. The fee does a bit of indirection limiting the direct influence. Yes. In fact, that was the whole point of various "arms length" bodies - publicly owned, but largely shielded from political influence. Of course, this government took a gleeful sledgehammer to that principle by abolishing NHS England and assuming direct control via the Ministry of Health. We'll see how many institutions will be similarly butchered in the remaining 4 years.
- notahacker 1y ago
  The licence was introduced when television sets were an exotic luxury so adding it to the tax rises used to pay for the NHS wasn't the obvious move for a Labour government. Radio licenses existed before the NHS or most other benefits were a thing. As for why it hasn't been abolished like the radio licence... well any government that does that loses the ability to indirectly threaten it when they don't like the tone of the nation's most watched news channel by muttering darkly about how it's iniquitous funding model needs abolishing, and gets blamed for the changes people don't like.
fdb345 1y ago
[flagged]
- tomhow 1y ago
  We've banned this account – not only for this comment, it drew our attention to the comment history which includes several egregious comments, including some that are abusive towards other members of the community.
myrandomcomment 1y ago
My wife and I agree that we would happily pay $400 a year to be able to use the iPlayer in the US. We are not alone. Just open up the TV license to anyone.
M_bara 1y ago
I’d pay more for bbc content than i do for Netflix or prime. It’s typically very good content that is strongly geo locked behind iplayer and you have to play whack a mole to get it…
sansnomme 1y ago
They can try making more of what people want and charging for it with ads. People liked The Office, Mr Bean, Doctor Who. The BBC can produce perfectly good telly if they want to be competitive. Don't be Canada and subsidize mediocrity and bad art with public money. Soft power should be earned, not bought and paid by public coffers.
synecdoche 1y ago
They can do like Sweden's public service, steal everyone's money, wheter you watch the garbage or not. Great service that.
subpixel 1y ago
The answer is to become a digital-only, subscription service, and to keep producing the good stuff. Basically, combine what Britbox does today in some countries and what TheBox used to do for BitTorrent. First and foremost, be the only place current British tv can be seen. On top of that, have a deep, exhaustive archive of past British content. NYTimes.com is a good model. If you want what they got, you subscribe, no matter who or where you are. The model works.
wesleyd 1y ago
British TV is doing _great_ in the streaming era: black mirror, adolescence, peaky blinders, the crown, call the midwife, derry girls, downtown abbey; and so many great police procedurals: line of duty, endeavour, the bay, Sherlock, grace; even those Harlan coben miniserieses - the ones with at least one absurd plot twist per episode - are great fun! While I’ll be among the first to moan that we’ll never see another red dwarf, python, tinker tailor/smiley’s people, yes minister, father ted [0] .. British tv is still producing great stuff. It’s the “bureaucrats” in the bbc who are under threat from streaming. I’m not losing sleep! [0] made in Britain; simply could not have been made in Ireland as was.

90 points by asplake 1y ago

thaumasiotes 1y ago

How can traditional British TV survive anything? Four episodes is considered a reasonable annual output.

all2 1y ago
I didn't realize it was this bad. Though, the last British TV show I consumed was Dr. Who, and I quit watching about the time Capaldi took the stage. I cannot think of another show that I've watched... There was a David Tennant murder mystery show that was quite dark, but I didn't finish that one, either.
- mobtrain 1y ago
  Broadchurch
TMWNN 1y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w09YzTMY1qk#t=62s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w09YzTMY1qk#t=62s
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bcraven 1y ago
Anything from the Natural World unit is second-to-none. Green Planet, Asia, Wild Isles, etc are all gob smacking.
lmm 1y ago
If you want quality it takes time and focus. Given how much content there is and how little free time we all have, the fact that traditional British TV shows stop when they're good rather than running any successful show into the ground is a point in their favour IMO.

rex_lupi 1y ago

'Traditional british tv' has produced some of the best shows to be ever made. The writing, acting and production quality of the 70s-80s classic british shows surpasses anything being produced these days in 4k. Spent so many delectable hours watching old shows from that era, some of them quite obscure. Modern shows feel like mass-produced in an assembly line, devoid of what one would call 'class'.

cadamsdotcom 1y ago
Is it fair to compare 20 years' worth of TV to the past few years' worth? Survivorship bias is also likely involved.
socalgal2 1y ago
i think you'd find lots of people disagree. Were there some great BBC shows in the 70s and 80s? Sure. I think you'd find lots pf people who find some relatively recent streaming shows to be amazing. You may not like them but there are many fans of shows like Stranger Things, The Crown, The Handmaid's Tale, The Queen's Gambit, Silo, Severance, Succession, ....
- pixxel 1y ago
  [dead]
permo-w 1y ago
this kind of take is usually the preserve of nostalgic old men who've just discovered YouTube comments, so I'm surprised to see it rephrased so many times here. if you aren't finding high quality modern British-made TV shows it's because you're not looking or you're unwilling to try new things. Wolf Hall, Line of Duty, Slow Horses, Rivals, Fleabag, Adolescence, Inside no 9, Veep, etc etc etc etc. I could name 10 more. TV is more stratified and yes there are a lot of worthless filler game shows and talk shows, but just as it was in the 70s and 80s, there are plenty of stand-out shows that will last the test of time
- mellosouls 1y ago

zeristor 1y ago

The BBC won’t enable 4K on AppleTV, so I don’t bother.

globalise83 1y ago

Given that the BBC has failed to offer their own solution for the many British and other people living abroad or with second homes abroad who would be interested in accessing their content, and instead driven us to consume a small subset of their content through Netflix, my sympathy is limited.

ViscountPenguin 1y ago
Is Britbox not available in your country? Here in Australia it has relatively high market penetration even.
- fy20 1y ago
  No OP, but I'm in a smallish EU country and it's not available here.
  - amelius 1y ago
    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.britbox.us https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.britbox.us
    - telesilla 1y ago
      Not available in my country (where I am today)
- rubitxxx3 1y ago
  In the US and watch Britbox and Acorn at least as much as other providers now. We watch a lot of Aussie and British shows, new and old, color and B/W. The BBC made really great shows. If they go under, it’s a shame. I would pay tax to help the BBC keep going. I’d pay the Aussies, too, if they’re not getting comp’d.
- arp242 1y ago
  BritBox is available in a very limited set of countries: Australia, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United States.

verisimi 1y ago

I hope it doesn't survive. But I'm sure it will. It is a propaganda outfit (and was from inception). It has special legislation to force TV owners to pay - this tax is called the 'license fee'. In the past only people who had been 'cleared' could work there. While people think that the UK's recent legislation is dystopian, the reality is it was ever thus as we see with the bbc. I would be very glad to see it go, but that won't happen because - it's utility as a megaphone to the governance system remains very high. Here is the bbc admitting it lied for -50-, sorry, 70 (!) years, to members of parliament even, about the vetting: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-43754737 https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-43754737 I certainly suspect this is only a partial disclosure - not only political outlooks would be considered. Simply a lying, propagandising institution.

graemep 1y ago
I do not know why you are being downvoted - there is some hyperbole in your comment but your link (to the BBC itself!) is shocking and certainly justifies calling it a lying institution. I do not think it is as dystopian as recent legislation. It did not intrude into our private lives!
- nprateem 1y ago
  All media is propaganda. At least it's not the made up right wing shit that runs America. 1 downvote explained.
  - genewitch 1y ago
    It is funny to hear the US M5M declared "right wing" - it just isn't true. Right now broadcasters are in a bit of a minefield. Viewership is down, most broadcast stations are owned by a couple of companies, and rumor has it the administration may ban pharmaceutical advertising on television (which won't have teeth unless they explicitly ban native advertising). The pharma ads bankroll most mainstream media in the US, billions a year. (Note, I worked at one of the largest media empires in the US and watched the internal livestreams of the advertiser banquets) And most pharma ads are not aimed at you and I, it's aimed at medical providers. That's how lucrative pharma marketing is for pharma. And I completely disagree with your claim that all media is propaganda. Propaganda is a word that is defined. So I'll chalk that up to hyperbole. As in: if my objective is to make a nice song that people tap their feet to, is that propaganda because it has an objective? If so, then the word "propaganda" is diluted to the point of meaninglessness. You may as well say "all media is media."

jemmyw 1y ago

It has already pretty much died, and I don't think it was by the hand of streaming. It was whatever process put a stop to new shows in the template of the really great shows we had in the past. At some point the risk taking stopped and everything just became the same drudge. Of course, there was always plenty of drudge. It was the comedies that were particularly good and very British. Some were very unusual and bizarre, the late night shows. But they were also where writers and comedians got a break and then became mainstream. I would guess that kind of thing is now made for the internet, and its a shame to see everything go so niche. An article I came across a couple of years ago (wish I could find it!) talked about how there was this period of time when British TV started to diversify the source of talent, around the 80s and 90s. You got shows like Red Dwarf where the cast were not all from the same small set of drama schools. But it has now reverted and that kind of low budget, take a chance show doesn't get shown on the main channels.

ramenbytes 1y ago
Probably too recent, but any chance it was this? https://www.voicemag.uk/blog/14186/red-dwarf-diversity-in-space https://www.voicemag.uk/blog/14186/red-dwarf-diversity-in-sp...
- jemmyw 1y ago
  No, it was longer and wasn't concentrated on red dwarf. It started on the casting for Sherlock.
JFingleton 1y ago
From Matt Lucas himself regarding Little Britain: 'Speaking in October 2017, Lucas stated that if he were to remake Little Britain he would avoid making jokes about transvestites and would not play the role of a black character, saying, "Basically, I wouldn't make that show now. It would upset people. We made a more cruel kind of comedy than I'd do now... Society has moved on a lot since then and my own views have evolved".' Basically the risk taking has gone in modern comedy.
- 1y ago

nprateem 1y ago

I like the beeb, but I don't watch it since I can only buy an annual licence and if they can afford to pay millions on individual presenters they don't need my money. Bring in monthly subs and cap presenter salaries and I'll dip in from time to time.

permo-w 1y ago
I agree that they should let people subscribe monthly, but this is a completely illogical take. you might as well say you don't want to go to the cinema because the lead actor was paid the market rate for the job. if you don't like Gary Lineker, just say that, don't come out with this sideways attempt at nobility
- nprateem 1y ago
  Gary Lineker, the radio presenters, news readers. Fine if you're commercial but in no world is it justified to pay the likes of Huw Edwards £600k to read the news, then whinge about not having enough money as a public broadcaster. "Oh, but if we don't pay them they'll leave" Let them go! I'd happily read some words for a few hours each day for a mere £200k.
  - fragmede 1y ago
    The world we live in, apparently, since they're getting that much money to do those jobs as we speak. Might as well complain about executive pay and the Royal estates while you're at it.
  - robbomacrae 1y ago
    Footballers make 300k a week and no one complains. This is a post about the slim survival chances of British media.. well salary caps will be the nail in the coffin as talent will simply go whey get the best deal.
    - zimpenfish 1y ago
      > Footballers make 300k a week and no one complains To be fair, plenty of fans (and the occasional pundit) complain (and have been complaining for years) but unless the authorities get involved (FA, UEFA, FIFA, etc.) and implement proper financial controls (there's some coming in 2025/26 around player salaries but we also need controls on money coming from TV rights, self-sponsorships, etc.) with actual transparent penalties (they're still soft-pedalling City whilst kicking Everton and Forest), nothing will happen.

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]

bigiain 1y ago

The US streaming giants seem to be doing a pretty good job of ensuring they themselves do not survive. Perhaps all British TV needs to do is wait out the enshittification that's already in play.

martin_ky 1y ago
My thinking exactly. Got Netflix couple of years ago because of the Witcher and since then I'm finding it hard to find anything watchable. I was going to say that they heavily favor quantity over quality. But not even that is true, since their selection is rather limited. The search result "we don't have X, but you might like A, B, C" which are usually the same and unrelated things over and over, appears way too often.
- rightbyte 1y ago
  The "Is it cake" made me cancel Netflix. That and some shows about car restoration with focus on drama. I don't want to pay and end up supporting such dreg. It is funny though. For some reason I almost watched 5 episodes of is it cake and a lot of the car restoration shows. It is like you default to time wasting when you have nothing you want to see. And I don't want that exposure ...
  - dylan604 1y ago
    What you describe is exactly how I felt about regular broadcast/cable. What you wanted to watch when you had time to watch might not have been on, so you channel surf until you find something. Maybe it was something you found interesting, or maybe you just got tired of surfing and just left it on whatever pissed you off the least. Very similar to doom scrolling a streaming platform’s listings where you realize you’ve just spent 15 minutes looking at the menu but not actually watching anything.
    - bombcar 1y ago
      At least with YouTube you can end up in weird and interesting rabbit holes (I recommend “moving large things with trucks” and “blowing up buildings” and “railway snow clearing”). Sometimes you even learn something. All the cable/Netflix slop ends up being basically the same story.

019182839 1y ago

[flagged]

permo-w 1y ago
it wasn't just the BBC, it was the police, hospitals, the royal family, the prime minister, the music industry, etc etc etc
- anthk 1y ago
  That reminds me on Belgium.
  - permo-w 1y ago
    in what sense?
- zimpenfish 1y ago
  "In Plain Sight: The Life and Lies of Jimmy Savile" is a good (modulo the horror of what he was doing) read. People were aware of his penchant for the young and his predatory nature in the mid-50s - almost a decade before he was on the BBC.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
hn_throw2025 1y ago
It should at least not be allowed to police itself in the first instance, as we saw with the Edwards case.

3036e4 1y ago

Here in Sweden the public service SVT has had its streaming service for years and I watch that more than I watch any of the commecial services I pay for (currently three of them).Incidentally that means mostly watching BBC (crime) series as SVT buy the rights to ridiculous numbers of those and many are very good. I would not mind if broadcast tv was shut down, but some older people would probably complain.

lawn 1y ago
We watch svtplay with our kids so much and it's much better than the garbage YouTube and other streaming services try to push onto kids.

anthk 1y ago

Good TV programmers against a 90% reality TV turds/mediocre series even on paid networks.

Simon_O_Rourke 1y ago

Simple, by being much better and well written perhaps?

TheChaplain 1y ago
This is way too far down among the replies, and I think it hits the nail on the head. Offer something people want to watch, and they'll come.
badgersnake 1y ago
They’re still limited because they don’t have the budgets. If you have a great script where are you going to take it? Netflix with a massive budget or the BBC / Channel 4 with a tiny one. Black mirror did not start on Netflix for example.

RenThraysk 1y ago

Feel this is a disingenuous question, as British TV will do just fine on streaming giants. Just the BBC cannot and will not make them, and struggling to survive. Mobland on Paramount+ Grand Tour on Amazon Clarkson's Farm on Amazon

OJFord 1y ago
Peaky Blinders on Netflix was made (and also broadcast) by the BBC.
- RenThraysk 1y ago
  Back in 2013, when BBC still was airing Top Gear with Hammond, May & Clarkson, and things like Bake Off. Recent seasons of Dr Who were made with Disney+. They have killed a 60 year old franchise.
  - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
    Hardly killed. I've been watching Doctor Who since the 1970s and there's been a lot of variation in quality over that time. I stopped watching it sometime around the Colin Baker era as I lost interest in it, but started watching it again with the Christopher Eccleston reboot. Then, I started getting disillusioned with the Peter Capaldi episodes - possibly the best actor for playing the Doctor, but given awful scripts (except "Heaven Sent" which is possibly the best ever episode). I struggled through Jodie Whittaker's seasons as I didn't like her portrayal nor the stories, but now I have to say that I really enjoy Ncuti Gatwa's Doctor even though there's been good and bad episodes of his. I actively dislike Disney (except maybe TRON and the Black Hole), but I don't think they've killed Doctor Who.
    - RenThraysk 1y ago
      I watched in the 70s too. But never got onboard with the Eccleston reboot. There are no plans to make more Doctor Who, if it was good they would continue making more. So it's being shelved is probably a more an appropriate phrase. Someone might take a chance again in several years.

sunrunner 1y ago

It always seems crazy to me that in the early 1980s the BBC undertook the Computer literacy project, commissioned Acorn Computers to manufacture the BBC Micro, and produced educational content to support learning and use around said system itself. I understand why the chances of that being a profitable enterprise now given the development of computing hardware are practically zero, but even the idea that the BBC would produce interesting educational content now seems wild (not counting documentaries as that's not often something that provides information you can act on and use). If I want that kind of content now it's pretty much a guarantee that I'll end up on YouTube. Nowadays they're a non-neutral-seeming news outlet and producer of low-risk dreck that also demands I pay the UK TV Licence fee even just to watch _other_ channels. Do I need a reading licence to read books written by other people? Didn't think so. At this point it's simply a subscription fee for a service I don't want, and so I don't subscribe. Bring back quality content (subjective of course, but some variety would go a long way), perhaps some risk-taking (something on par with Channel 4's Utopia seems like a good goal). Oh, and perhaps cut the salaries of some of the unnecessarily highly-paid reporters. Just a thought.

throaway1989 1y ago
It's the same with Canadian television. Pre-2000 its full of interesting, educational programming, post-2000 its a wasteland (not including Pre-Netflix Trailer Park Boys).
- b112 1y ago
  TV was seen as a great learning tool in the day. The idea that you could cheaply and affordably replay lectures with video, demonstrate concepts visually, show foreign lands and peoples, all with low cost of production was captivating to many. Computers were initially seen by educators as a path to interactive TV. Making it easy to find video info, and to index it, even rotate images (repair videos and part assemble for example). Point is, TV was seen a more than entertainment, it was a tool that could be employed to teach. Computers more so. Then the Internet came, and it was at first mostly educational, intellectual. Sort of the inverse of what it is now. Once everything exploded, it became entertainment primarily. Sort of like TV. The educational aspect is there, but muted.

pakigrapeparty 1y ago

[dead]

gadders 1y ago

Whatever happens, they need to decriminalise the license fee. "Almost a third of women’s convictions are for not paying the TV licence fee, figures have revealed. Women are ten times more likely to be convicted for not paying the £157.50 annual fee than men – with growing numbers of women then being slapped with criminal records, Ministry of Justice data shows." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tv-licence-fee-women-convictions-b1763192.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tv-licence-f...

gsky 1y ago
BBC would do anything to keep it going sadly
harvey9 1y ago
Some remarkable doublethink from the BBC in that article: "The BBC said licence fee avoidance did not bring with it a criminal record. A spokesperson said: “Details of the offence are not held on the Police National Computer – so while there is a criminal conviction there is no criminal record.”" So yeah, people, mainly women, go to prison but I guess it's not a big deal on paper.
- permo-w 1y ago
  no one is going to prison for not paying the license fee. the article brings up prison, but only as a way to sneakily associate it with non-license fee payment in a way that clearly worked on you
  - harvey9 1y ago
    And yet many people (mainly women) go to prison for, in essence, not paying the licence fee. The fact that they technically go to prison for not complying with a court order is merely splitting hairs. I cancelled my license in the wake of the Saville scandal when it was finally admitted what was common knowledge inside the BBC: that they had been covering up a sex offender on their payroll for years. Obviously 'lessons were learned' so when Huw Edwards came along they repeated all the same mistakes.

blibble 1y ago

they could start by producing things people want to watch...

nottorp 1y ago

What I really don't understand is: The UK is one of the few countries (among the countries with universal health care) that doesn't have a separate tax for health care. That means they can handle earmarking huge amounts of money for a public service out of the general taxation. Why do they need to use this tv license thing for BBC then?

calcifer 1y ago
> Why do they need to use this tv license thing for BBC then? Even with horrendously massive cuts to public services and the Civil Service, the government has a tiny headroom in its budget, in the single-digit billions. The BBC cannot be funded from general taxation without the licence fee.
- johannes1234321 1y ago
  > The BBC cannot be funded from general taxation without the licence fee. The question also is whether Ou want to directly pay it from taxes. Taxes fully depend on the current mood of the government. The fee does a bit of indirection limiting the direct influence.
  - calcifer 1y ago
    > Taxes fully depend on the current mood of the government. The fee does a bit of indirection limiting the direct influence. Yes. In fact, that was the whole point of various "arms length" bodies - publicly owned, but largely shielded from political influence. Of course, this government took a gleeful sledgehammer to that principle by abolishing NHS England and assuming direct control via the Ministry of Health. We'll see how many institutions will be similarly butchered in the remaining 4 years.
notahacker 1y ago
The licence was introduced when television sets were an exotic luxury so adding it to the tax rises used to pay for the NHS wasn't the obvious move for a Labour government. Radio licenses existed before the NHS or most other benefits were a thing. As for why it hasn't been abolished like the radio licence... well any government that does that loses the ability to indirectly threaten it when they don't like the tone of the nation's most watched news channel by muttering darkly about how it's iniquitous funding model needs abolishing, and gets blamed for the changes people don't like.

fdb345 1y ago

[flagged]

tomhow 1y ago
We've banned this account – not only for this comment, it drew our attention to the comment history which includes several egregious comments, including some that are abusive towards other members of the community.

myrandomcomment 1y ago

My wife and I agree that we would happily pay $400 a year to be able to use the iPlayer in the US. We are not alone. Just open up the TV license to anyone.

M_bara 1y ago

I’d pay more for bbc content than i do for Netflix or prime. It’s typically very good content that is strongly geo locked behind iplayer and you have to play whack a mole to get it…

sansnomme 1y ago

They can try making more of what people want and charging for it with ads. People liked The Office, Mr Bean, Doctor Who. The BBC can produce perfectly good telly if they want to be competitive. Don't be Canada and subsidize mediocrity and bad art with public money. Soft power should be earned, not bought and paid by public coffers.

synecdoche 1y ago

They can do like Sweden's public service, steal everyone's money, wheter you watch the garbage or not. Great service that.

subpixel 1y ago

The answer is to become a digital-only, subscription service, and to keep producing the good stuff. Basically, combine what Britbox does today in some countries and what TheBox used to do for BitTorrent. First and foremost, be the only place current British tv can be seen. On top of that, have a deep, exhaustive archive of past British content. NYTimes.com is a good model. If you want what they got, you subscribe, no matter who or where you are. The model works.

wesleyd 1y ago

British TV is doing _great_ in the streaming era: black mirror, adolescence, peaky blinders, the crown, call the midwife, derry girls, downtown abbey; and so many great police procedurals: line of duty, endeavour, the bay, Sherlock, grace; even those Harlan coben miniserieses - the ones with at least one absurd plot twist per episode - are great fun! While I’ll be among the first to moan that we’ll never see another red dwarf, python, tinker tailor/smiley’s people, yes minister, father ted [0] .. British tv is still producing great stuff. It’s the “bureaucrats” in the bbc who are under threat from streaming. I’m not losing sleep! [0] made in Britain; simply could not have been made in Ireland as was.