NG
This is where print media and hyperlocal websites still have the advantage over broadcast media. They have contacts within the London boroughs.
I doubt the BBC, ITV or London Live which is based in Kensington had those contacts at Kensington & Chelsea Council before the Grenfell Tower disaster. The only local authority which got regular coverage on BBC London for example is Westminster which covers an area from the West End to inner parts of NW and W London.
Sounds like a weak or inadequate local broadcast media operation if thats the case.
The BBC and ITV don't run a local broadcast operation. They run a regional one. The BBC - after a trial of local broadcasting - decided not to pursue it, and has left it to local papers and local TV operations.
Also I don't think you grasp how granular local government is here, and how big the London region is. The population of London is around 8.6million people, and BBC London's coverage extends further out than that. I'd be surprised if it didn't cover more than 10million viewers. That's more than 15% of the UK population.
London Live has a much weaker signal, and even though it broadcasts at a much lower data rate and in a much more robust mode (QPSK rather than 64QAM - delivering 8Mbs instead of 24Mbs+) it has a smaller coverage area by a bit (it doesn't really cover outside the M25, unlike BBC and ITV London)
London has around 33 borough councils in it, but then add all the surrounding areas as well, and you're probably well over 40 (possibly over 50) borough councils that you have to cover. The BBC and ITV London output is less than an hour and a half per day (longest bulletin is about 25-30'00") I simply don't understand how you think a single Local Government journalist will have multiple close contacts on more than 40 (probably more than 50) local councils?
noggin
Founding member
This is where print media and hyperlocal websites still have the advantage over broadcast media. They have contacts within the London boroughs.
I doubt the BBC, ITV or London Live which is based in Kensington had those contacts at Kensington & Chelsea Council before the Grenfell Tower disaster. The only local authority which got regular coverage on BBC London for example is Westminster which covers an area from the West End to inner parts of NW and W London.
Sounds like a weak or inadequate local broadcast media operation if thats the case.
The BBC and ITV don't run a local broadcast operation. They run a regional one. The BBC - after a trial of local broadcasting - decided not to pursue it, and has left it to local papers and local TV operations.
Also I don't think you grasp how granular local government is here, and how big the London region is. The population of London is around 8.6million people, and BBC London's coverage extends further out than that. I'd be surprised if it didn't cover more than 10million viewers. That's more than 15% of the UK population.
London Live has a much weaker signal, and even though it broadcasts at a much lower data rate and in a much more robust mode (QPSK rather than 64QAM - delivering 8Mbs instead of 24Mbs+) it has a smaller coverage area by a bit (it doesn't really cover outside the M25, unlike BBC and ITV London)
London has around 33 borough councils in it, but then add all the surrounding areas as well, and you're probably well over 40 (possibly over 50) borough councils that you have to cover. The BBC and ITV London output is less than an hour and a half per day (longest bulletin is about 25-30'00") I simply don't understand how you think a single Local Government journalist will have multiple close contacts on more than 40 (probably more than 50) local councils?
LL
London Lite
Founding member
London is so big that by using public transport that it takes me the same time from where I live in south London to get to Brighton as it does to get to Uxbridge in the far west of the city. Gatwick Airport is closer to me, despite being in West Sussex (and on the fringe of the BBC London tv region) than Heathrow which is within Greater London.
I remember when the BBC in their wise wisdom didn't schedule regional news at weekends to London and the South East and we'd have a cartoon instead of Look North, South Today which went out elsewhere.
Going back to the Paris comparison, it was the last city in France to receive regional television with BFMTV Paris. Like London, anything that happens in the French capital is covered by the national bulletins and news channels as well as the regional Île-de-France bulletin on France 3.
I remember when the BBC in their wise wisdom didn't schedule regional news at weekends to London and the South East and we'd have a cartoon instead of Look North, South Today which went out elsewhere.
Going back to the Paris comparison, it was the last city in France to receive regional television with BFMTV Paris. Like London, anything that happens in the French capital is covered by the national bulletins and news channels as well as the regional Île-de-France bulletin on France 3.
FB
This is where print media and hyperlocal websites still have the advantage over broadcast media. They have contacts within the London boroughs.
I doubt the BBC, ITV or London Live which is based in Kensington had those contacts at Kensington & Chelsea Council before the Grenfell Tower disaster. The only local authority which got regular coverage on BBC London for example is Westminster which covers an area from the West End to inner parts of NW and W London.
Sounds like a weak or inadequate local broadcast media operation if thats the case.
The BBC and ITV don't run a local broadcast operation. They run a regional one. The BBC - after a trial of local broadcasting - decided not to pursue it, and has left it to local papers and local TV operations.
Also I don't think you grasp how granular local government is here, and how big the London region is. The population of London is around 8.6million people, and BBC London's coverage extends further out than that. I'd be surprised if it didn't cover more than 10million viewers. That's more than 15% of the UK population.
London Live has a much weaker signal, and even though it broadcasts at a much lower data rate and in a much more robust mode (QPSK rather than 64QAM - delivering 8Mbs instead of 24Mbs+) it has a smaller coverage area by a bit (it doesn't really cover outside the M25, unlike BBC and ITV London)
London has around 33 borough councils in it, but then add all the surrounding areas as well, and you're probably well over 40 (possibly over 50) borough councils that you have to cover. The BBC and ITV London output is less than an hour and a half per day (longest bulletin is about 25-30'00") I simply don't understand how you think a single Local Government journalist will have multiple close contacts on more than 40 (probably more than 50) local councils?
Well, as a former west Londoner living in the regions using scale of numbers as a reason for not covering events is just appalling. London has an economy of scale that other regions would envy.
It's down to resources - if they think it's too big a patch, employ more staff strategically placed. It's easier than before to move data around than ever before. If they are not prepared to cover the patch then give it up. Also don't forget the local licence was given to a news organisation - where are their contacts books?
This is where print media and hyperlocal websites still have the advantage over broadcast media. They have contacts within the London boroughs.
I doubt the BBC, ITV or London Live which is based in Kensington had those contacts at Kensington & Chelsea Council before the Grenfell Tower disaster. The only local authority which got regular coverage on BBC London for example is Westminster which covers an area from the West End to inner parts of NW and W London.
Sounds like a weak or inadequate local broadcast media operation if thats the case.
The BBC and ITV don't run a local broadcast operation. They run a regional one. The BBC - after a trial of local broadcasting - decided not to pursue it, and has left it to local papers and local TV operations.
Also I don't think you grasp how granular local government is here, and how big the London region is. The population of London is around 8.6million people, and BBC London's coverage extends further out than that. I'd be surprised if it didn't cover more than 10million viewers. That's more than 15% of the UK population.
London Live has a much weaker signal, and even though it broadcasts at a much lower data rate and in a much more robust mode (QPSK rather than 64QAM - delivering 8Mbs instead of 24Mbs+) it has a smaller coverage area by a bit (it doesn't really cover outside the M25, unlike BBC and ITV London)
London has around 33 borough councils in it, but then add all the surrounding areas as well, and you're probably well over 40 (possibly over 50) borough councils that you have to cover. The BBC and ITV London output is less than an hour and a half per day (longest bulletin is about 25-30'00") I simply don't understand how you think a single Local Government journalist will have multiple close contacts on more than 40 (probably more than 50) local councils?
Well, as a former west Londoner living in the regions using scale of numbers as a reason for not covering events is just appalling. London has an economy of scale that other regions would envy.
It's down to resources - if they think it's too big a patch, employ more staff strategically placed. It's easier than before to move data around than ever before. If they are not prepared to cover the patch then give it up. Also don't forget the local licence was given to a news organisation - where are their contacts books?
JO
You may understand if you lived in London. It's a unique market. London Live, Channel One etc have tried and failed with this. Viewers are used to scheduled bulletins on the BBC and ITV which is more than enough than long winded US style local bulletins.
Channel One was in a totally different time, anyone who claims London is somehow different to Paris or New York is simply wrong.
An easy to run news and info service would have its place and be watched everywhere if they got it right.
I'm going to agree to disagree with you here Jon. You might as well say Dublin could have a city wide news channel, despite not having the market to support it.
LBC London News barely survives by only operating a part-time day rolling news service and that's only due to having Global and the LBC speech brand supporting it.
Nobody watches London Live with it's sub-standard mix of repeats and low budget news, so who is going to watch a local news tv channel? Pure fantasy.
I think LBC London News is a bad example, you can't leave LBC London News on in thousands of the cities bars and offices, it's medium doesn't allow that, it's platform is AM and DAB neither of which is as prominent Freeview channel 7 etc.
I wouldn't suggest a city the size of Birmingham has a 24/7 news service just because it's a capital city (Dublin). But the truth is no one knows, because no one has tried it yet.
The potential for a very cheap news and info service needs to be tested, and probably should have been what the initial round of licensing should have tested out in London.
You may understand if you lived in London. It's a unique market. London Live, Channel One etc have tried and failed with this. Viewers are used to scheduled bulletins on the BBC and ITV which is more than enough than long winded US style local bulletins.
Channel One was in a totally different time, anyone who claims London is somehow different to Paris or New York is simply wrong.
An easy to run news and info service would have its place and be watched everywhere if they got it right.
I'm going to agree to disagree with you here Jon. You might as well say Dublin could have a city wide news channel, despite not having the market to support it.
LBC London News barely survives by only operating a part-time day rolling news service and that's only due to having Global and the LBC speech brand supporting it.
Nobody watches London Live with it's sub-standard mix of repeats and low budget news, so who is going to watch a local news tv channel? Pure fantasy.
I think LBC London News is a bad example, you can't leave LBC London News on in thousands of the cities bars and offices, it's medium doesn't allow that, it's platform is AM and DAB neither of which is as prominent Freeview channel 7 etc.
I wouldn't suggest a city the size of Birmingham has a 24/7 news service just because it's a capital city (Dublin). But the truth is no one knows, because no one has tried it yet.
The potential for a very cheap news and info service needs to be tested, and probably should have been what the initial round of licensing should have tested out in London.
Last edited by Jon on 3 July 2017 3:18pm
JO
It's irrelevant really, no one is saying they're not interested just that they don't think it could work and we're not proposing a service that these members may personally want to watch either.
I think 24/7 London news and info, could be relatively cheap to run if done in the correct way in this day and age and would be more popular in the capital eventually than Sky News or the BBC News Channel.
The fact is we're never going to know whether it's right or wrong as no one is going to try it who are in a position to and no one else is in a position too.
I do find it interesting that the main proponents for these local services on here are from non-UK members, while those members who are actually in the service area are uninterested.
It's irrelevant really, no one is saying they're not interested just that they don't think it could work and we're not proposing a service that these members may personally want to watch either.
I think 24/7 London news and info, could be relatively cheap to run if done in the correct way in this day and age and would be more popular in the capital eventually than Sky News or the BBC News Channel.
The fact is we're never going to know whether it's right or wrong as no one is going to try it who are in a position to and no one else is in a position too.
JO
Is that not true of Paris too?
Just asking someone to go on a night out across the city (i.e. West to East / North to South) is considered a bit of a trek, that's London in a nutshell.
Is that not true of Paris too?
MO
The BBC and ITV don't run a local broadcast operation. They run a regional one. The BBC - after a trial of local broadcasting - decided not to pursue it, and has left it to local papers and local TV operations.
Also I don't think you grasp how granular local government is here, and how big the London region is. The population of London is around 8.6million people, and BBC London's coverage extends further out than that. I'd be surprised if it didn't cover more than 10million viewers. That's more than 15% of the UK population.
London Live has a much weaker signal, and even though it broadcasts at a much lower data rate and in a much more robust mode (QPSK rather than 64QAM - delivering 8Mbs instead of 24Mbs+) it has a smaller coverage area by a bit (it doesn't really cover outside the M25, unlike BBC and ITV London)
London has around 33 borough councils in it, but then add all the surrounding areas as well, and you're probably well over 40 (possibly over 50) borough councils that you have to cover. The BBC and ITV London output is less than an hour and a half per day (longest bulletin is about 25-30'00") I simply don't understand how you think a single Local Government journalist will have multiple close contacts on more than 40 (probably more than 50) local councils?
Im sorry but the London is big and covers multiple councils and governments is such a weak argument. The DMA's covered by most US and Canadian stations are far larger and covers more people and multiple small communities with their own councils and mayors, police,fire, sanitation depts. So this supposed "coverage complexity" issue is weak. LA covers a large region of Southern California and this includes 18 million people hundreds of small suburbs and cities apart from the city of LA. As does NYC, Chicago, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Miami, Edmonton etc. Sorry but thats a weak argument.
The BBC and ITV don't run a local broadcast operation. They run a regional one. The BBC - after a trial of local broadcasting - decided not to pursue it, and has left it to local papers and local TV operations.
Also I don't think you grasp how granular local government is here, and how big the London region is. The population of London is around 8.6million people, and BBC London's coverage extends further out than that. I'd be surprised if it didn't cover more than 10million viewers. That's more than 15% of the UK population.
London Live has a much weaker signal, and even though it broadcasts at a much lower data rate and in a much more robust mode (QPSK rather than 64QAM - delivering 8Mbs instead of 24Mbs+) it has a smaller coverage area by a bit (it doesn't really cover outside the M25, unlike BBC and ITV London)
London has around 33 borough councils in it, but then add all the surrounding areas as well, and you're probably well over 40 (possibly over 50) borough councils that you have to cover. The BBC and ITV London output is less than an hour and a half per day (longest bulletin is about 25-30'00") I simply don't understand how you think a single Local Government journalist will have multiple close contacts on more than 40 (probably more than 50) local councils?
Im sorry but the London is big and covers multiple councils and governments is such a weak argument. The DMA's covered by most US and Canadian stations are far larger and covers more people and multiple small communities with their own councils and mayors, police,fire, sanitation depts. So this supposed "coverage complexity" issue is weak. LA covers a large region of Southern California and this includes 18 million people hundreds of small suburbs and cities apart from the city of LA. As does NYC, Chicago, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Miami, Edmonton etc. Sorry but thats a weak argument.
Last edited by Mouseboy33 on 3 July 2017 3:41pm
CR
I have always lived in hope that one day, Mouseboy, you would finally grasp that just because something works in America, it won't necessarily also work here. However, you seem hell bent on yet again delivering your sermon on how local TV channels here are missing the obvious because it works in America so it'll be a 100% success here. As many others before me have said, you are most likely wrong.
A large number of channels covering local audiences in the US are often affiliated to a big network like NBC, ABC or CBS, but we don't have that structure in the UK, meaning that any local channel will either be showing repeats or low budget in-house productions when they're not showing news. I know some channels in the US don't have any affiliation, and instead may show syndicated stuff, but we don't have that system here either.
The in-house stuff local TV in the UK produces will then be low budget, because unlike in the US people are not used to having these local channels, and so they don't turn to them. People are used to going to the ITV and BBC for local news, or the websites of local newspapers etc, because that's how it has always worked, and as much as you protest to the contrary old habits die hard.
Your point about 'coverage complexity' being a weak argument is rubbish. It is bloody difficult for any one service to cover an area such as London, because of how devolved all the councils are and how things don't happen consistently council to council. You talk of how LA is full of smaller cities, but how well covered are these smaller places? I suspect that, much like people living in rural parts of BBC and ITV regions, they also think that they aren't particularly well covered by big broadcasters covering a large patch. Likewise, because they're used to the system of good local news, they may be very well covered. But that isn't how it works here.
All in all, you can say as much as you like that local TV is awful here because US broadcasters are fantastic and wise and wonderful, but you're wasting your breath. You consistently fail to put across convincing arguments as to why local TV should work really well here, and when people disagree you tend to roll your eyes, belittle the member involved and repeat why you're right and everyone else is wrong. Give it a rest!
A large number of channels covering local audiences in the US are often affiliated to a big network like NBC, ABC or CBS, but we don't have that structure in the UK, meaning that any local channel will either be showing repeats or low budget in-house productions when they're not showing news. I know some channels in the US don't have any affiliation, and instead may show syndicated stuff, but we don't have that system here either.
The in-house stuff local TV in the UK produces will then be low budget, because unlike in the US people are not used to having these local channels, and so they don't turn to them. People are used to going to the ITV and BBC for local news, or the websites of local newspapers etc, because that's how it has always worked, and as much as you protest to the contrary old habits die hard.
Your point about 'coverage complexity' being a weak argument is rubbish. It is bloody difficult for any one service to cover an area such as London, because of how devolved all the councils are and how things don't happen consistently council to council. You talk of how LA is full of smaller cities, but how well covered are these smaller places? I suspect that, much like people living in rural parts of BBC and ITV regions, they also think that they aren't particularly well covered by big broadcasters covering a large patch. Likewise, because they're used to the system of good local news, they may be very well covered. But that isn't how it works here.
All in all, you can say as much as you like that local TV is awful here because US broadcasters are fantastic and wise and wonderful, but you're wasting your breath. You consistently fail to put across convincing arguments as to why local TV should work really well here, and when people disagree you tend to roll your eyes, belittle the member involved and repeat why you're right and everyone else is wrong. Give it a rest!
NG
The BBC and ITV don't run a local broadcast operation. They run a regional one. The BBC - after a trial of local broadcasting - decided not to pursue it, and has left it to local papers and local TV operations.
Also I don't think you grasp how granular local government is here, and how big the London region is. The population of London is around 8.6million people, and BBC London's coverage extends further out than that. I'd be surprised if it didn't cover more than 10million viewers. That's more than 15% of the UK population.
London Live has a much weaker signal, and even though it broadcasts at a much lower data rate and in a much more robust mode (QPSK rather than 64QAM - delivering 8Mbs instead of 24Mbs+) it has a smaller coverage area by a bit (it doesn't really cover outside the M25, unlike BBC and ITV London)
London has around 33 borough councils in it, but then add all the surrounding areas as well, and you're probably well over 40 (possibly over 50) borough councils that you have to cover. The BBC and ITV London output is less than an hour and a half per day (longest bulletin is about 25-30'00") I simply don't understand how you think a single Local Government journalist will have multiple close contacts on more than 40 (probably more than 50) local councils?
Im sorry but the London is big and covers multiple councils and governments is such a weak argument. The DMA's covered by most US and Canadian stations are far larger and covers more people and multiple small communities with their own councils and mayors, police,fire, sanitation depts. So this supposed "coverage complexity" issue is weak. LA covers a large region of Southern California and this includes 18 million people hundreds of small suburbs and cities apart from the city of LA. As does NYC, Chicago, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Miami, Edmonton etc. Sorry but thats a weak argument.
Why is it a weak argument? It isn't an argument at all. It's a reason...
How many producers, reporters and correspondents are employed at each local TV station in LA. What is their news departments annual operating budget - and how do they effectively cover the multiple towns and cities effectively? Do LA local government reporters have contacts on each and every town board that have developed the trust of those reporting their areas, and how is the split between crime/court reporting and local government, industry etc.
The major difference between the US and the UK (and Europe in general) - is that there are no network affiliated local stations. BBC One London is BBC One Network with just a small local news provision. It's not a standalone local station - it's simply a news opt-out operation. The whole model is very different.
Where the BBC model does often work is that the local radio stations feed stories into it - but unlike most BBC English regions, BBC London only really has one major radio station covering the bulk of it's patch.
BBC East in Norwich and Cambridge have 6 local radio stations (Radio Norfolk, Radio Suffolk, BBC Essex, Radio Cambridgeshire, Radio Northamptonshire and BBC Three Counties Radio - many of which have multiple offices) feeding into their local news operations, BBC London only really has one. (With a bit of overlap with BBC South, BBC South East and BBC East's radio stations around the edges)
noggin
Founding member
The BBC and ITV don't run a local broadcast operation. They run a regional one. The BBC - after a trial of local broadcasting - decided not to pursue it, and has left it to local papers and local TV operations.
Also I don't think you grasp how granular local government is here, and how big the London region is. The population of London is around 8.6million people, and BBC London's coverage extends further out than that. I'd be surprised if it didn't cover more than 10million viewers. That's more than 15% of the UK population.
London Live has a much weaker signal, and even though it broadcasts at a much lower data rate and in a much more robust mode (QPSK rather than 64QAM - delivering 8Mbs instead of 24Mbs+) it has a smaller coverage area by a bit (it doesn't really cover outside the M25, unlike BBC and ITV London)
London has around 33 borough councils in it, but then add all the surrounding areas as well, and you're probably well over 40 (possibly over 50) borough councils that you have to cover. The BBC and ITV London output is less than an hour and a half per day (longest bulletin is about 25-30'00") I simply don't understand how you think a single Local Government journalist will have multiple close contacts on more than 40 (probably more than 50) local councils?
Im sorry but the London is big and covers multiple councils and governments is such a weak argument. The DMA's covered by most US and Canadian stations are far larger and covers more people and multiple small communities with their own councils and mayors, police,fire, sanitation depts. So this supposed "coverage complexity" issue is weak. LA covers a large region of Southern California and this includes 18 million people hundreds of small suburbs and cities apart from the city of LA. As does NYC, Chicago, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Miami, Edmonton etc. Sorry but thats a weak argument.
Why is it a weak argument? It isn't an argument at all. It's a reason...
How many producers, reporters and correspondents are employed at each local TV station in LA. What is their news departments annual operating budget - and how do they effectively cover the multiple towns and cities effectively? Do LA local government reporters have contacts on each and every town board that have developed the trust of those reporting their areas, and how is the split between crime/court reporting and local government, industry etc.
The major difference between the US and the UK (and Europe in general) - is that there are no network affiliated local stations. BBC One London is BBC One Network with just a small local news provision. It's not a standalone local station - it's simply a news opt-out operation. The whole model is very different.
Where the BBC model does often work is that the local radio stations feed stories into it - but unlike most BBC English regions, BBC London only really has one major radio station covering the bulk of it's patch.
BBC East in Norwich and Cambridge have 6 local radio stations (Radio Norfolk, Radio Suffolk, BBC Essex, Radio Cambridgeshire, Radio Northamptonshire and BBC Three Counties Radio - many of which have multiple offices) feeding into their local news operations, BBC London only really has one. (With a bit of overlap with BBC South, BBC South East and BBC East's radio stations around the edges)
MO
I will give my opinion and join the conversation just like you. I can choose to respond to a statement or agree with another poster if I so choose. Whilst I appreciate your 4 paragraph dissertation on why you think you're right and Im wrong, I dont agree. Thats why its a discussion forum. Yet you tell other specific posters to "give it rest" and their comments are "rubbish" they are "wasting their breath" when people disagree with you. Pot calling the kettle black. Its interesting that you know think you know everything about how North American broadcasting works, but posters from other countries cant know or understand how UK broadcasting works or anything about it. I disagree.
I hope your day gets better. [Hugs]
I have always lived in hope that one day, Mouseboy, you would finally grasp that just because something works in America, it won't necessarily also work here. However, you seem hell bent on yet again delivering your sermon on how local TV channels here are missing the obvious because it works in America so it'll be a 100% success here. As many others before me have said, you are most likely wrong.
A large number of channels covering local audiences in the US are often affiliated to a big network like NBC, ABC or CBS, but we don't have that structure in the UK, meaning that any local channel will either be showing repeats or low budget in-house productions when they're not showing news. I know some channels in the US don't have any affiliation, and instead may show syndicated stuff, but we don't have that system here either.
The in-house stuff local TV in the UK produces will then be low budget, because unlike in the US people are not used to having these local channels, and so they don't turn to them. People are used to going to the ITV and BBC for local news, or the websites of local newspapers etc, because that's how it has always worked, and as much as you protest to the contrary old habits die hard.
Your point about 'coverage complexity' being a weak argument is rubbish. It is bloody difficult for any one service to cover an area such as London, because of how devolved all the councils are and how things don't happen consistently council to council. You talk of how LA is full of smaller cities, but how well covered are these smaller places? I suspect that, much like people living in rural parts of BBC and ITV regions, they also think that they aren't particularly well covered by big broadcasters covering a large patch. Likewise, because they're used to the system of good local news, they may be very well covered. But that isn't how it works here.
All in all, you can say as much as you like that local TV is awful here because US broadcasters are fantastic and wise and wonderful, but you're wasting your breath. You consistently fail to put across convincing arguments as to why local TV should work really well here, and when people disagree you tend to roll your eyes, belittle the member involved and repeat why you're right and everyone else is wrong. Give it a rest!
A large number of channels covering local audiences in the US are often affiliated to a big network like NBC, ABC or CBS, but we don't have that structure in the UK, meaning that any local channel will either be showing repeats or low budget in-house productions when they're not showing news. I know some channels in the US don't have any affiliation, and instead may show syndicated stuff, but we don't have that system here either.
The in-house stuff local TV in the UK produces will then be low budget, because unlike in the US people are not used to having these local channels, and so they don't turn to them. People are used to going to the ITV and BBC for local news, or the websites of local newspapers etc, because that's how it has always worked, and as much as you protest to the contrary old habits die hard.
Your point about 'coverage complexity' being a weak argument is rubbish. It is bloody difficult for any one service to cover an area such as London, because of how devolved all the councils are and how things don't happen consistently council to council. You talk of how LA is full of smaller cities, but how well covered are these smaller places? I suspect that, much like people living in rural parts of BBC and ITV regions, they also think that they aren't particularly well covered by big broadcasters covering a large patch. Likewise, because they're used to the system of good local news, they may be very well covered. But that isn't how it works here.
All in all, you can say as much as you like that local TV is awful here because US broadcasters are fantastic and wise and wonderful, but you're wasting your breath. You consistently fail to put across convincing arguments as to why local TV should work really well here, and when people disagree you tend to roll your eyes, belittle the member involved and repeat why you're right and everyone else is wrong. Give it a rest!
I will give my opinion and join the conversation just like you. I can choose to respond to a statement or agree with another poster if I so choose. Whilst I appreciate your 4 paragraph dissertation on why you think you're right and Im wrong, I dont agree. Thats why its a discussion forum. Yet you tell other specific posters to "give it rest" and their comments are "rubbish" they are "wasting their breath" when people disagree with you. Pot calling the kettle black. Its interesting that you know think you know everything about how North American broadcasting works, but posters from other countries cant know or understand how UK broadcasting works or anything about it. I disagree.
I hope your day gets better. [Hugs]