Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 08:46:45 +1000 (EST) From: Iain Templeton <iaint@CU-SeeMe.educ.utas.edu.au> To: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: And now for something completely different Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970507083048.5098A-100000@CU-SeeMe.educ.utas.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <57rafkr1xz.fsf@tees.elsevier.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6 May 1997, Paul Richards wrote: > Umm, Channel 4 isn't in any way related to the BBC. A brief, and not > essentially completely accurate, description of the UK TV scene follows. > Oh well, 'spose thats what happens with unimaginitive names. I sort of discovered that it wasn't part of the BBC AFTER I sent the message, 'spose I'm just an Uninformed Aussie... > For many years there were just these 3 channels. Then (about 10-15 > years ago now I think, time passes quickly :-)) the govt decided it > was going to issue another franchise for a fourth channel that was > largely to be financed from advertising but I think has been receiving > a subsidy from the govt as well. It was given the really imaginative > name of "Channel 4" and yes, it does produce more "alternative" > programming. At the same time they created a Welsh channel 4 which > shares many programs with Channel 4 but also produces some Welsh > language programming (you won't get a very polite reply from me if you > ask what Welsh is but as a clue, the UK is not synonymous with England > despite what some US citizens may think or for that matter some > English). > Ah Welsh, isn't that the language with no vowels :-) ? (Probably a dangerous comment) I know that here, (for the moment anyway), no one person (or company) is allowed to own more than one major television station or newspaper in the same city. Although there is quite a bit of discussion that this should change to allow one TV and one paper. > Just to keep you up to date. Last month another channel was launched > called, "Channel 5" which is also an advertising financed channel. > After 18 years of Conservative govt. the trend has very much been away > from govt. financed broadcasting so all new channels are franchised to > companies, even the BBC has faced considerable change with much more > emphasis on program sponsorship (but it doesn't have advertising slots > like the commercial stations or US stations, it has very low key > program sponsorship, you'll get a little message on the weather > bulletins for instance saying that the bulletin is sponsored by some > company or other). > The SBS in Australia could have once been non-advertising, but now they do have ads, but only between programs (and generally the ads are much more interesting than the ads on commercial stations. > The amount of money being granted to the BBC has I think been in > steady decline. A fairly obvious indication is the number of major > sporting events that it has lost the contracts for, either to the > commercial stations or the satellite stations. > Ah yes, Formula1, and they lost Murray Walker with it. (My dad and I were a bit worried about who would do the F1 commentry, it wouldn't have seemed the same without Murray...) The same sort of thing happens here with the ABC, especially with the "yet more" forthcoming budget cuts. (So much so they are cutting "The Bill" for one week to show the budget).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.970507083048.5098A-100000>