Saturday was best night on ITV1 in 2 Years

Hello Alistair! Honestly, you've been here less than one month and you think you know my complicated psychology? Being autistic, I have an enhanced ability to rote-memorise phenomenal amounts of material, be they of a visual nature. Betcha didn't know I was autistic, huh?

What I object to is having ITV forced on me by television manufacturers. I would love it if I could get a BBC-specific television licence. I don't patronise ITV's services, so why the heck should I or my parents pay for them, when it is surplus to requirements?

What is contemporary? Probably half of the list! Remember also that you can talk about the success of Millionaire all you like, but a major player and founder of Celador, the company that produces the programme is Jasper Carrott, a man whose career was started on the BBC!

Ha ha that is very funny. That's exactly what you do get Kat, a BBC-specific television licence. The proceeds of the licence fee goes to the BBC and the BBC alone. At least with commercial TV you have a choice to buy the products that are advertised, the BBC licence fee is a tax on television whether you watch the BBC or not.

The television licence fee is worst than the poll tax ever was, I would happily tune my TV away from the BBC channels and not pay the tax but I don't have that option. With the advent of multi-channel TV and even pay TV, the argument for abolishing the licence fee has never been so good. Either the BBC should be dismantled and be forced to play on a level playing field with the other broadcasters or the licence fee should remain, and BBC should become a niche broadcaster, providing the type of programme that is not available commercially.

Yes, but when you acquire a licence and get a television, the television (analogue or otherwise), will come equipped with both BBC channels, plus ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. You cannot avoid it at the moment. What I'd like ideally is a setup where on Channel 1, I get BBC1. Channel 2, BBC2. Channel 3, digital satellite with only the channels I am likely to need/want tuned in.

Thereby, I get a television channel setup more tailored to my individual needs and requirements, rather than being in possession of 3 channels (ITV, C4 and C5) which I do not need, do not use, could be tuned to a channel I would use and are therefore in my opinion surplus to my requirements.

Well you know there's no reason why you can't retune your (analogue) telly so that ITV/C4/C5 aren't there, and put your digisat channel on number 3 Kat....

I meant my analogue-only television in my bedroom. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear....

This all seems such a long way off from those halcyon days of 'ITV (3) - Britain's Most Popular Button'. You couldn't really say 103 was a popular 'button'. DTT has it on 3 of course, but it's promoted as 'ITV1' - not 3.

And ITV2 is on 6 on DTT - what it is on DSat I don't know.

The problem with BBC/Independent TV in general now is - where's the line? It's becoming fuzzier all the time. UKtv shows that the BBC can do commercial TV just the same as ITV/C4/C5, utilising facilities that were paid for by the license fee, but run by people who's salaries are paid, and showing programmes the rights for which are paid, for by commerical advertising.

Then BBC Enterprises sell videos, magazines, etc. etc.

But, ITV, through the ailing Digital service, have sought backing from the BBC and the Govt. for creating the new general DTT box that's supposedly on its way (I'm all for it when, and if, it arrives in the currently promised form).

----

Anyway - about the topic...

Although I didn't watch PopStars at all, because I just thought it would be searching for the next Spice Girls-cum-Westlife, I did get into Pop Idol, although I must admit, despite not disliking the over-use of the concept because it's not innovative, what I do wonder about (and the BBC do it just as much) is that they're going down the road of 'people' television. In fact, the BBC started it off with 'Video Diaries'. Give Joe Public a camcorder and they can fill 10-25 minutes of precious airtime with either their interesting anecdotes, or mindless drivel. I don't expect Joe Public to always be entertaining, but then, that's why they haven't got jobs as ... er... entertainers.

There seems to be a basic fear of coming right out and saying what many people really think - you need TALENT to make decent television. It's the same with idents and programmes - yes, by all means, relate to the diverse cross-sections of the public you're serving, but don't rely on them to make the programmes, just to save money and production staff. Give us some ideals to aim for, not just lead us to expect nothing more than home videos dressed up as 'progumentaries'.

The other major downfall of British TV at the moment is the tired bandwagon of 'Top Ten'/'The 100 Greatest...'/'I Love...' phenomenon.

Let's have some adventurous new stuff, please. Something that might go in the 'The 100 Greatest...' in 20 years time - or will they just repeat the ones shown in 2001?

Quite.

But it will get worse rather than better. The difficult truth is that this small country cannot sustain hundreds of television channels and maintain a good level of quality in the way that the US can. We have a multichannel system which is in some ways the most advanced in the world, with less than 15 million viewers between all 300 or so channels, and a system which has grown from a standing start in a very short space of time. And the main networks are trying to compete with these upstarts rather than concentrating on their core businesses.

And we, the British viewer, are suffering because of the lack of maturity in the market. The sad fact is that if everything goes the way it is now the major networks will implode and will fast just become another multichannel outfit. And at that point, we'll have a similar system to the like of Poland, or Greece. And that, from the UK, is very sad indeed, with the heritage we have.

And for that, we shall blame Murdoch. Again.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic there or not, but no, Murdoch isn't to blame. He's just the one who took advantage of the situation. He's just a businessman, you can't really blame him.