15 ms·

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,

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.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    Obtaining information from potentially interactive websites is better in every way than via TV. It’s obsolete technology. Therefore, the BBC needs to transition to a website that happens to send signals out via TV for legacy users, but primarily, it’s competing with TikTok/Youtube/Khan Academy/Instagram/Whatsapp/Reddit/Disney/Comcast/Netflix/Sony/WarnerBros Discovery/etc. They all compete with each other, globally. BBC sells minutes of entertainment/education/etc, and there are a fixed number of minutes in a day.
    - b112 1y ago
      I think yes, but no. By this I mean, never compete directly with something that you cannot defeat. The BBC will never be Youtube, TikTok and the like. Just imaging what degree of state censorship will be required. Imagine all the content that will not be acceptable for a BBC Youtube like channel. So any open platform will almost surely be a no-win for them. (I don't see a lot of content yet from youtube, and none from tiktok which isn't submitted by endusers... even if they're streamers) The BBC can compete with some of the rest. But if you look at the studios you list, those all make longer, non-user submitted content. The BBC surely can compete here. And it has in the past. There's no reason it can't stream, as you say. Note that my prior post was all about "the way it was" and why we're here now. Why traditional broadcasters from the 70s through to the early 2000s behaved as they did. What they were thinking during those times. But outside of that, websites aren't better at some things. If they were, then we wouldn't be watching full screen video. There's something to be said for curated, created, static content in episodic format. Maybe you meant 'streaming' instead of 'websites' too?
PaulRobinson 1y ago
They still produce a huge amount of content in conjuction with the Open University, and most of that educational content you're referring to was OU content as well. The quality of it is much better than it was (trust me). The "non-neutral-seeming news" you refer to suggests you've bought into the narrative proposed by those who don't feel served by it - both the far right and the far left, which suggests it must be doing something right - and famously the BBC has some of the most stringent and well-thought through editorial guidelines on earth. If somebody is telling you the BBC is biased, they're also probably suggesting some other news source (their own? GB News? Fox? An anti-vaxx group on FB?), is not. The BBC could be doing a lot more to monetise through BBC Worldwide (their commercial arm), a massive, and massively popular, back catalogue to a point where the license fee could be reduced or even eliminated. The idea it becomes a generic streaming platform or relies on commercials regularly gets floated, but it's worth pointing out that the biggest supporters of that plan are owners of commercial media companies that feel they would win out and their narratives and perspectives would get to dominate. It is a ~£13 subscription, sure, but compare it to what you get compared to say Sky TV, which also has adverts, and think about whether clipping it back to an offering similar to C4 (also public sector owned, but ad funded), would be something that actually makes you happier, and whether that editorial integrity could be maintained and all that local radio and journalism could still get paid for - they're arguably the only organisation still doing local journalism in the UK given the dog's dinner Reach is making of local papers. I sense the future is going to a Reith-ian reset, and you'll see less investment in lower-rating, higher-cost programming (bye bye Eastenders or other soaps), sustained investment in audience favourites like Strictly, and perhaps a dial-up in drama to take on the commercial sector that they can then monetise through BBC Worldwide (including getting streamers to pay for access to it). As to the other broadcasters, the picture is a little less confusing: the studios and production companies are doing fine, even if they're now selling to Amazon, Netflix, Apple and Disney. The channels themselves will just use their brand to shift people into those channels. Unfortunately, they're miles behind on the tech (just go and try ITV X - it's awful from a UX perspective), but they'll figure it out.
- permo-w 1y ago
  this is a fantastic, well-thought-out analysis of the kind that is all too rare amongst people talking about the BBC. thank you

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.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  Obtaining information from potentially interactive websites is better in every way than via TV. It’s obsolete technology. Therefore, the BBC needs to transition to a website that happens to send signals out via TV for legacy users, but primarily, it’s competing with TikTok/Youtube/Khan Academy/Instagram/Whatsapp/Reddit/Disney/Comcast/Netflix/Sony/WarnerBros Discovery/etc. They all compete with each other, globally. BBC sells minutes of entertainment/education/etc, and there are a fixed number of minutes in a day.
  - b112 1y ago
    I think yes, but no. By this I mean, never compete directly with something that you cannot defeat. The BBC will never be Youtube, TikTok and the like. Just imaging what degree of state censorship will be required. Imagine all the content that will not be acceptable for a BBC Youtube like channel. So any open platform will almost surely be a no-win for them. (I don't see a lot of content yet from youtube, and none from tiktok which isn't submitted by endusers... even if they're streamers) The BBC can compete with some of the rest. But if you look at the studios you list, those all make longer, non-user submitted content. The BBC surely can compete here. And it has in the past. There's no reason it can't stream, as you say. Note that my prior post was all about "the way it was" and why we're here now. Why traditional broadcasters from the 70s through to the early 2000s behaved as they did. What they were thinking during those times. But outside of that, websites aren't better at some things. If they were, then we wouldn't be watching full screen video. There's something to be said for curated, created, static content in episodic format. Maybe you meant 'streaming' instead of 'websites' too?

PaulRobinson 1y ago

They still produce a huge amount of content in conjuction with the Open University, and most of that educational content you're referring to was OU content as well. The quality of it is much better than it was (trust me). The "non-neutral-seeming news" you refer to suggests you've bought into the narrative proposed by those who don't feel served by it - both the far right and the far left, which suggests it must be doing something right - and famously the BBC has some of the most stringent and well-thought through editorial guidelines on earth. If somebody is telling you the BBC is biased, they're also probably suggesting some other news source (their own? GB News? Fox? An anti-vaxx group on FB?), is not. The BBC could be doing a lot more to monetise through BBC Worldwide (their commercial arm), a massive, and massively popular, back catalogue to a point where the license fee could be reduced or even eliminated. The idea it becomes a generic streaming platform or relies on commercials regularly gets floated, but it's worth pointing out that the biggest supporters of that plan are owners of commercial media companies that feel they would win out and their narratives and perspectives would get to dominate. It is a ~£13 subscription, sure, but compare it to what you get compared to say Sky TV, which also has adverts, and think about whether clipping it back to an offering similar to C4 (also public sector owned, but ad funded), would be something that actually makes you happier, and whether that editorial integrity could be maintained and all that local radio and journalism could still get paid for - they're arguably the only organisation still doing local journalism in the UK given the dog's dinner Reach is making of local papers. I sense the future is going to a Reith-ian reset, and you'll see less investment in lower-rating, higher-cost programming (bye bye Eastenders or other soaps), sustained investment in audience favourites like Strictly, and perhaps a dial-up in drama to take on the commercial sector that they can then monetise through BBC Worldwide (including getting streamers to pay for access to it). As to the other broadcasters, the picture is a little less confusing: the studios and production companies are doing fine, even if they're now selling to Amazon, Netflix, Apple and Disney. The channels themselves will just use their brand to shift people into those channels. Unfortunately, they're miles behind on the tech (just go and try ITV X - it's awful from a UX perspective), but they'll figure it out.

permo-w 1y ago
this is a fantastic, well-thought-out analysis of the kind that is all too rare amongst people talking about the BBC. thank you