Over at The Quacks of Life, Pete has written a piece about the news of cutbacks at the BBC in which he echoes my own thoughts about the matter. There was a time when the BBC could be relied upon to provide programming that was entertaining, but high quality. Sadly, in the last few years all that has changed. Yes, there are still some gems, but they produce far too much inane, formulaic dross.
I realise that in order to remain competitive they have to compete with dozens of other channels. I realise that due the licence fee they have to try to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. But, I feel that in their attempts to do this, they have actually become a pale, insipid clone of certain, more commercial channels.
At this point you may be thinking something along the lines of ‘but all that dross is hugely popular’. But is it? Or is it really popular only with a small number of viewers, while the vast majority watch it because it all that is available? Wouldn’t people really prefer comedies of the calibre of Blackadder or Porridge? Or David Attenborough style wildlife programmes? Or more dramas and book adaptations? Those genres were the ones the BBC were most successful in, and the programmes they made are still being repeated because people want to see them. The fact that so many viewers tune in to the nostalgia channels to watch repeats of BBC series, often for the umpteenth time, rather than watch something new on BBC1 says quite a lot!
I appreciate you dropping by,
Please leave a comment, don’t be shy
Recent Comments