When I worked at the BBC, many moons ago admittedly, the main justification for the licence fee was that people actually watched BBC shows. Peak time audience share for BBC1 regularly nudged the 40% mark, and over a week, most people actually tuned in to the channel for a significant amount of time. Latest official figures, however, show that BBC1’s overall audience share during December was down to 21.5%, and that the peak average (between 7pm and 10pm) during the month – even though BBC shows easily dominated Christmas Day – was only 23.4%, down a whopping 4.7%. So millions of viewers are deserting the BBC’s flagship shows. In an internal BBC meeting yesterday, director general Mark Thompson reportedly vigorously defended his salary of £834,000 a year on the ground that he was worth it. On these latest viewing figures the case for his monstrous level of pay – and the BBC licence fee at all – is vanishing almost as fast as snow in summer. If ever there was one. Even his own staff think Thompson’s salary is “corrosive and wrong”.
BBC1 AUDIENCE PLUMMETS…
Bookmark the permalink.
This stat should not come as any surprise to anyone who looks at BBC programmes without the aid of rose tinted glasses.
The BBC intends to increase its popularity in 2010 by putting out TV series (in six weekly reports), featuring burqa driving instruction, such as:
“Muslim Driving School”
-which is proving quite popular with some of Blackburn’s inhabitants
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8449262.stm
BUT, so far the BBC has shown no interest in showing a TV series on:
“Hizb ut-Tahrir School of Economics”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6988778.ece
and:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6988753.ece
Radio 5 phone in is a leftie wank fest about Haiti, lots of callers slagging off the west and no one allowed to highlight that nearly all these black run Countries are shit holes full of corrupt leaders. For example why did every single public building in Haiti collapse, don’t they know they live on a major fault line? But no it’s full of wet liberals including one dopey cow (a nanny) who was giving us the Guardian view of the world after one sensible callers suggested perhaps these people should stop breeding for a while and sort their countries out.
” nearly all these black run Countries are shit holes full of corrupt leaders.”
Yes Martin. Isn’t it about time all the articulate, intelligent white people like yourself were put back in charge?
I’d do a better job that mincing leftie queens like you for sure.
Martin, individuals like yourself really do have only one standard paragraph to ANY problem we have in this country, or indeed the World.
Blame the blacks. Check.
Blame the left. Check.
Blame the liberal builders in foreign countries. Check.
Blame reproduction (This has to be your best). Check.
Attach any blame to people who breed ignorance, stupidity and hatred throughout the communities they live. “No way. Its the blacks fault.”
I wish a political party would rise up and promise to repatriate people like yourself to the stone or cave you crawled from.
So another mincing leftie appears. Explain why almost every shithole Country in the world is run by a black Government or Muslims? Why is it that wet liberals like YOU don’t go over there and show them the right way to do it? COWARD.
So everyone who disagrees with you that ‘blacks’ are incapable of running a country is a ‘mincing leftie’.
There is no point in explaining to you the socio-economic history of the world and why some regions struggle more than others, it would take too long and you wouldn’t understand anyway. However, if you think its due to the colour of their skin then you are just wrong. And racist.
Keep your Social Studies lesson for the 6th form and the Guardian.
Give me a list of well run black Countires or Muslim ones? I’m sure the list will be endless.
The only well run Countries in Africa WERE Rhodesia and South Africa before St Nelson got hold of it.
The ‘socio-economic history of the world’ wow how long did it take you to type that out?
I look forward to you long list.
Don’t be ridiculous. How do you define ‘well run’, how do you even define a ‘black country’? I’m not engaging in such a pointless debate with racist scum like you.
Interesting that you think Rhodesia and South Africa used to be well run. Well run for whom exactly? Not the majority black population, that’s for sure.
Tell me what exactly it is about ‘blacks’ that you believe makes them incapable of running a county?
So you can’t pick one Country from Africa then? Rwanda is a good Country is it not? Or the Sudan or Somalia, Zimbabwe. These are great nations for wet liberals to live in.
I don’t care if YOU want to debate or not, I don’t care who you are I don’t care about you your family your views or anything about you.
But can you please use the word racist a few more times? The leftie types who come here normally do, it’s always the word they use when they have no coherent argument. The BBC and the Liebour party throw it around like Cocaine at a BBC rent boy orgy.
Rhodesia used to be called the bread basket of Africa it was a huge producer of food, now it’s a shit hole. What changed? Have a guess.
So, ‘racist’ is a word you often hear directed at you is it? Funny that…
It’s not a word I’d ‘throw about’ lightly and I wouldn’t call anyone else on here it. But if you think the reason those countries are badly run is because of the colour of the skin of the people there then I think you should get used to hearing it.
No racist is used by left wing tools that flounce on here, expect everyone to agree with them get upset when their wet liberal views are ignored then bugger off again.
So a list of countries would suddenly give credence to the ridiculous suggestion you are making that the failure of Africa or nations with a black leader fail because of the colour of their skin.
Are you aware of science? Well in that little subject, they discovered one day that skin colour is just a evolutionary adaptation to the climate. Hence white skin in cold climates (Simple explanation for simple minds I know).
Cultural objections are fine.
I object to your culture and hope that future generations don’t have to deal with ignorance. Maybe evolution can come to our saviour again with cavemen like yourself Martin?
What a lot of drivel. No ‘skool’ today?
Sorry, I forgot about homophobia (Check.) Really though, explain to me where the hatred about my towel drying activities and the dampness of my clothes comes from?
Just thought it was a post about the BBC, and falling viewing figures. Not blacks, or radio. You managed it though. Clap clap.
Martin was blaming corrupt builders, not liberal ones.
Perhaps our new liberal friends might like to read this article about Haiti and then know why it’s such a shit hole.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/6992162/Haiti-enslaved-by-its-dark-history.html
David
I’ve got no argument with the ‘corrupt leaders/builders cause problems’ part. Its the ‘black run’ argument where he thinks there is a correlation between a county’s problems and the colour of its leader’s skin that is moronic.
You said “blame liberal builders”. That reads differently from what you’re saying now. It probably would have been better to begin a counterargument by pointing out that some black-run countries are not disasters, followed by discussing actual reasons why Haiti is different from, say, Trinidad. The problems are cultural, not skin color. But going down that path might get one called a racist as well, no?
David
I have never said anything about ‘liberal builders’. Perhaps you are confusing my posts with someone elses?
“The problems are cultural, not skin color.”
Exactly. And the reasons for the cultural problems are pretty complicated. But absolutely nothing to do with skin colour.
Sorry, you’re right. It was George Alwell who made the false claim. In any case, the PC myrmidons will tell you that culture = race anyway. Postmodern cultural relativism dictates that it’s bigoted and wrong to declare another culture – or aspect of another culture – inferior to one’s own. Anyone condemning the corrupt and magical-thinking African dictatorships will be called a racist, because those countries are all black-run.
An honest discussion of the complicated cultural problems will also draw condemnation from PC types. Africans didn’t suddenly start butchering each other over tribal differences the moment the colonizing power left them in charge. Tribal war has existed since before the days of australopithicus. Nor did they suddenly start believing things like the AIDS vaccine is intended to sterilize men, or that witchcraft would take care of it, just because they were a British or French colony. Magical thinking of this kind has existed since the dawn of mankind. African leaders before the Colonial Era were not generally egalitarian, or progressive, spreading their wealth amongst the citizenry. They have been just as dictatorial and corrupt for thousands of years, and all these problems didn’t start when the British or French or Dutch colonized them.
The fact that these people all have black skin is a coincidence of environment, yes. No sane person would blame the melanin or some genetic defect or anything absurd like that. But that won’t stop any of my or Martin’s criticisms as being labeled “racist”, as in this case skin color is inextricably tied in with culture.
Thompson. the illshaven one, is an easy target. Presumably he is doomed. Meanwhile the news and current affairs bias will quietly continue.
It is the institution not the chief that needs a change of attitude.
Another spectacular beeboid ‘own goal’, as fully explored on Guido – labour pariah damien mcbride invited back to give the pre-election pep talk to the faithfull.
Did no one see The One Show last night ,then? I thought it would be quite a lively topic here.
Kaye Adams asks: are we really ready for a (Conservative ) toff prime minister.Blatant bias.Go watch it on iplayer; it is near the beginning of the show.
A job change last year requires me to use the bus to travel into the town centre daily. Many of the other passengers are teenagers going to one of the better local schools. As I’m surrounded by them its hard not to overhear conversations which usually consist of who fancies who , football , music and Facebook. Not exactly interesting but I suddenly realised they appear to never (or hardly ever) mention TV its as if they just don’t bother with it. Many years ago when I made a similar journey to school what was on the night before was a big topic of conversation.
I could be wrong here but I wonder if the reason for these falling viewing figures is that the hardcore TV viewers are dying and not being replaced ? These teenagers seem to want to be entertained by something they can control and use for their own purposes and don’t want to be preached at by the one way medium that is TV. This might explain the return of the old style talent shows and the skating on ice type shows as these are more likely to be watched by older viewers. Whatever it is I’m glad I don’t work in TV because it doesn’t seem to have much of a future.
Good point, the BBC was criticised the other day for endlessly chasing the 18-30 viewer at the expense of older viewers, yet it’s the younger people who are not interested in the crap churned out by the BBC.
I guess ‘Muslim Driving School’ just doesn’t appeal to those nasty white racists that pay the TV licence.
I also wonder how many 18-30 year olds actually pay for the TV licence in thier own home?
I think that’s why the Beeb have put out iPlayer. Nothing to do with expanding the service they offer, but simply a way they can extend the TV license to personal computers.
Very good points. I know that my own children hardly ever watch the 4 main channels. The younger generation is entertaining itself differently. The pub trade( non binge drinking clubs and pubs) is likewise suffering and for the same reason. Young people are just not doing the same things as they used to.
When the advertising industry finally realises that viewing figures are going to continue to fall what then?
As for the BBC it will find justifying it’s tax very difficult.
Thanks for the replies this is an interesting subject.
Martin – The teenagers don’t seem to talk about any TV from any channel and yes it would be interesting to see the demographics on who actually has a TV licence.
Essemess – I fear you are spot on with the iPlayer. Lets see what the Beeb management push on “call me Dave” when he is power.
Dave S – Thanks for that I had wondered if these teenagers were unusual as they attend one of the better schools which is semi-selective in the way the better state schools are. Perhaps the dim ones spend their day licking windows and watching Celebrity Big Brother 🙂
I think you’re absolutely right. Do you think TV would have prospered if the internet had come first? Me neither.
Broadcast TV is a dying medium as technology provides ever widening ways to “consume content”. The more elderly still sit and watch TV as they sued to, but with the addition of VCR/DVD recorders to time shift programs to a more convenient slot. As you move down the age range people stop being passive “viewers” and become much more active “selectors” of what they watch. They use far less broadcast and an increasing amount of online content. As the recent report said, chasing the 18-35 year old viewers is pointless – they dont view. They create their own entertainment mix/schedule from a wide range of available sources.
The beeb have recognised this and are definitely preparing the ground with iPlayer and Canvas to expand the TV tax to all UK PCs. We need to try to stop the expansion of this Stalinist approach and move all content to some sort of “paid for” model i.e similar to Sky/Virgin. We don’t need state controlled content provision any more.
The slump in BBC viewing figures is also because the BBC has alienated many white, working English people who are sick of the BBC’s pro-Labour, pro-islam, pro-multicuturism and pro-MMGW propaganda. The other broadcasters are just as bad but do not enjoy the taxpayers’ largesse.
Do they count iPlayer viewings in these figures? It doesn’t look like it, which is possibly unfair. In any case, it’s not the DG’s salary that is the problem: it’s the guy who’s currently pocketing it. He doesn’t deserve to have the job, never mind the salary. A truly competent and visionary DG might deserve that kind of money, considering the massive responsibilities a proper DG would try to fulfill.
But you have to love the protest from Ben Stephenson. He wants the quality of his drama programming to be judged by something other than whether or not anyone watches it. Fair enough. Perhaps they could get the theater critic from the Guardian and a couple of celebrity dopes on a panel every week. Alternatively, maybe if he toned down the peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, and left-of-center thinking in the dramas he commissions…