Why is Holby City being axed?
Are they making space for a bigger EastEnders Set? Or will they film stuff like Star Wars at Elstree again?
46-50, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Very sad really. The theory was that opening up broadcasting as widely as possible woulod encourage new talent and quality; but no-one thought far enough ahead to realise even without the Internet, it would simply dilute everything and drag it all down to cheap and cheerful at best.
Look what happened with commercial radio. Short of becoming a rich tapestry of local stations, as envisaged, it sank into just a few, small central studios tacking together pop-singles play-lists to please the adverising-agencies. The local station simply adds some local news and advertising.
And they won't learn. The Govt. want to privatise Channel Four for no clear reasons, and have admitted no objection to selling it abroad. To whom? Disney? Murdoch? RT? China's broadcasting service?
People who learn I have no TV recover from their surprise then often say, "You're not missing much!"
Look what happened with commercial radio. Short of becoming a rich tapestry of local stations, as envisaged, it sank into just a few, small central studios tacking together pop-singles play-lists to please the adverising-agencies. The local station simply adds some local news and advertising.
And they won't learn. The Govt. want to privatise Channel Four for no clear reasons, and have admitted no objection to selling it abroad. To whom? Disney? Murdoch? RT? China's broadcasting service?
People who learn I have no TV recover from their surprise then often say, "You're not missing much!"
VirginMatchmaker · 46-50, M
@ArishMell No you aren't missing much. There's much better programming away from the traditional channels. As somebody who has all the Sky, BT and Netflix, Amazon and Disney. I do like TV but I much prefer a movie.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@VirginMatchmaker My parents held out for years until our uncle bought them a google-box as a Christmas present! I would watch certain programmes by choice, a few others now and then for relaxation; but over the years I watched less and less. That was by my losing, not due to any drop in programme choice and quality. (Though I did not like the way that the style of worthwhile programmes like Horizon was being cheapened more and more by the media-studies types!)
Once I bought my own home I did not bother with a TV and have never bothered since, even though I know that as entertainment goes the the TV Licence is ridiculously cheap for what it buys - less than a pint of ale a week. I listen to the radio instead, and that quite selectively, Radio Times to hand as the only listing magazine that knows there are such things as radio programmes.
Once I bought my own home I did not bother with a TV and have never bothered since, even though I know that as entertainment goes the the TV Licence is ridiculously cheap for what it buys - less than a pint of ale a week. I listen to the radio instead, and that quite selectively, Radio Times to hand as the only listing magazine that knows there are such things as radio programmes.
VirginMatchmaker · 46-50, M
@ArishMell I've not seen a Radio Times in years. I hardly ever listen to radio, actually today I've not watched any TV at all. But I do have a tendency to watch videos on YouTube, especially for stuff I don't know how to do. It's very good for instructions.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@VirginMatchmaker I did start watching YouTube videos cited on a forum dedicated to one of my interests - with the caveat that YT can be addictive!
I gave up though because althougth I did see some very interesting rather than instructive ones, its owner, Google, has ruined the service. Once you've managed to circumvent its barriers designed to make you obey its advertising-agency clients, it ruins the videos themselves with irrelevant, peurile ad breaks every minute or so. You can "skip" the ads but only after they have run for about 10 seconds, it is not always easy to tell if the break is a simple interruption or has cut out part of the video, and you cannot stop them in the first place.
I say "rather than instructive" because correspondents on the forum concerned, for a creative hobby, sometimes warns of them showing poor and occasionally even dangerous workshop practices.
My radios spend their time on BBC Radio Three or Four with occasional forays into Two. I don't listen to One and Five. To know properly what will be on though, and to obtain details about the programmes, you do need a listings magazine and RT seems to be the only one that includes radio. The rest, and the newspapers, assume "We all" only ever watch TV. The most they offer for radio are times and titles. No previews. No information, not even clues to the programmes's subjects.
I gave up though because althougth I did see some very interesting rather than instructive ones, its owner, Google, has ruined the service. Once you've managed to circumvent its barriers designed to make you obey its advertising-agency clients, it ruins the videos themselves with irrelevant, peurile ad breaks every minute or so. You can "skip" the ads but only after they have run for about 10 seconds, it is not always easy to tell if the break is a simple interruption or has cut out part of the video, and you cannot stop them in the first place.
I say "rather than instructive" because correspondents on the forum concerned, for a creative hobby, sometimes warns of them showing poor and occasionally even dangerous workshop practices.
My radios spend their time on BBC Radio Three or Four with occasional forays into Two. I don't listen to One and Five. To know properly what will be on though, and to obtain details about the programmes, you do need a listings magazine and RT seems to be the only one that includes radio. The rest, and the newspapers, assume "We all" only ever watch TV. The most they offer for radio are times and titles. No previews. No information, not even clues to the programmes's subjects.