Forum Moderators: open
I told her that the two people who lived in our house, didn't watch TV, and could care less (which is essentially true)... The telemarketer then went on to push their broadband service, which gave me a chuckle, because we get our broadband from them already.
She then informed me that we actually got basic cable (almopst 60 channels) included with our broadband service.
Oh? Now THAT was news to me. We've had the broadband here for nearly two years, and it never occured to either me or my fiance to try plugging the coax into the back of the TV (yes, we do have one - for Videos and DVDs).
I mentioned it to my gal later that day, and she was equally surprised. We both then stared at the box in the living room suspisciously for a moment, then got on to reading Nat Geo and Sci-Am.
Two weeks later, we actually got around to plugging the cable into the back of the TV. For a half hour, we sat stuporously flicking through 60 whole channels of.... Stuff we had no interest in. We turned the thing off and went to the pool for a swim.
In the month and a half since we plugged the cable into the back of the TV, I think we've watched a total of 5, maybe 7 hours of TV.
Are we freaks? Out of step with the pop culture? Or are there more and more people out there who could really care less if they had cable? Even if it's free?
ronin, I've said this before: You're too trusting. :) The BBC is one of the most self-serving, biased, inconsistent, euro-cheerleading, left wing propaganda machines the communists never invented.
Please...the BBC is IMHO one of the greatest public institutions, not just in the good ol United Kingdom, but of the whole wide world.
The BBC defines excellence in public service broadcasting, indeed in broadcasting in general and in a good number of other things too.
If it was biased it would have been kicked into touch years ago.
The licence fee is the best £100 pounds I spend every year.
You are all missing "Desperate Housewives".
Nope. Just waiting for it to come out on DVD. ;)
You are all missing "Desperate Housewives". To each their own.
Nope, watch it every week. Two of my past favorite shows/actors combined into one -- Melrose Place & Knots Landing. Kimberly/Bree...awesome.
We're not watching it. I doubt we are missing anything.
I know I certainly don't feel any inner emptiness over it... ;-)
When I watch TV I think it is interesting to see how companies that are spending insane amounts of money (Go Daddy said they are paying $3.4 million for one commercial during the Super Bowl) to get my business.
The #1 most useful thing about it is that I can check up on my television advertising. For example, a show I sponsor had my web site address mis-spelled in the credits.
Syzygy
Fade back to college; TVs, stereos, tower speakers and bongs in every room. As the bongs began to vanish so did the TVs. Conclusion? As long as people can become socially impaired, TV will have an audience. :) A perversion of logic? Maybe. Watching network TV sober? Never.
> The one is my bedroom was bought in 1985.
According the manufacturer's sticker on the back, our TV was made in September 1975. The focus has gotten really soft (people usually have four eyes, there's no such thing as fine print), red has become overpowering and green has disappeared.
It does have a remote control - the girlfriend.
I don't suppose I have to point out that we don't have cable. And what's this "DVD" thing you folks keep mentioning?
We use it for local news, the occasional public television show and the Atari 2600. And one other thing...
Since it's such an old box, the VHF dial now tunes in celluar phone calls - good when we're feeling like voyeurs or are incredibly bored.
The BBC is one of the most self-serving, biased, inconsistent, euro-cheerleading, left wing propaganda machines the communists never invented.
Oh, please. >;->
John Peel, The Office, The Today Programme, Newsnight, The Living Planet, Film 2005, Red Dwarf, Question Time, University Challenge, Zane Lowe, Hard Talk, Panorama, Colin Murray, Eastenders, The Fast Show, and Election coverage is less than 1% of what makes the BBC a very hard act to beat in just my opinion. Most of that scheduling is apolitical... there's no propaganda in it.
There are plenty of other things I wouldn't even consider that other people also like - Radio 3 for instance.
You're not honestly saying that anything ITV or Sky news has to offer has anything on Newsight are you?
And, just from a personal standpoint - I realise this is off-topic - I can happily listen to Radio 1 or Radio 4 all day and I have friends who are avid fans of Radio 5... the whole of the rest of the radio spectrum is utter drivel interspersed with inane commercials.
Channel 4, I'll admit, is very good... but apart from that and BBC 1 & BBC 2, I don't find myself watching anything else on TV.
It does have a remote control - the girlfriend.
balam, you owe me a can of coke and a new keyboard.
...that's why they make headphones...
I prefer the ones that fit right into your ears, with nice thin wires that get concealed by my beard. That way, when my gal is talking to me, and I'm nodding and smiling, she has no idea I'm just looking for visual cues while I listen to the news feeds.
I never watch more than 2 hours of tv/week.. probably closer to 2 or 1/2. Conan is a rerun on Mondays (and most of the time another day during the week as well) and doesn't show on the weekends. I forget about Desperate Housewives so often it's not funny and the only sports I'll watch is whenever the Chiefs are playing (if I got more sports channels I would probably watch soccer though as well). I'm not even too sure if I'll watch the Superbowl this year. I'll probably end up forgetting when it is anyways...
The best propaganda is that which you don't recognise as propaganda. Even kids' programs are not safe. Come Outside is an "infotainment" series, aimed at toddlers, about a woman living in Northolt who visits various factories and farms. The only kids who appear in it are Asian and black. I've got nothing against my fellow Asians - or people from other ethnic minorities - appearing on TV, but the series is so P.C. it borders on ridiculous.
Attenborough? Yes, great man. Lovely chap. Very passionate about his work; a consumate professional. He will shortly be replaced by a bimbo with an IQ between a sparrow and a fencepost because she "appeals to a wider audience" and can "sex up" wildlife. Phone in now to vote for your favourite dinosaur. The last dinosaur standing will feature in Walking With Dinosaurs, episode 27. Calls cost 10p. Please ask permission of the person who pays the bills.
Your opinion doesn't matter much. Neither does mine. However, the people responsible for keeping the BBC in check are deeply disappointed, particularly with the presentation of European news. They are not too keen about the dumbing down that started with Greg Dyke either. They are taking it up with the governors. Let's see what changes, and in which direction.
My point was about the Corporation, not individual programs.
Admittedly I've cut down on watching telly, maybe an hour or two a week, films etc normally on the computer, and most TV series we like we end up buying on DVD...
But I can't get over someone actually thinking that the BBC is good value for money, just shows the state of the countries education if ppl believe that ;-)
Robin
Entities have a pre-disposition toward perpetuating their own existence, and they work hard at it. The BBC works hard at behind the scenes efforts to prove that the BBC works hard. The results of that canvassing can be seen in the education system where kids are taught that the BBC is a great institution and that the licence is money well spent. They never get told it's a TV tax, part of which goes to the BBC, a corporation that often pushes a government agenda.
snip, a corporation that often pushes a government agenda.
I read the Telegraph every day plus splatterings of the Independant, Times, Daily Mail (for my sins), Economist, Financial Times, the odd new scientist & the Observer. I think that if the BBC was pushing a government agenda I would be able to detect when contrasted to the other news sources I read & watch.
The BBC certainly covers the government agenda, all UK news sources do. But, the BBC is extremely careful to be balanced. Some of the other news sources are not quite so balanced.
My point is that it seems a majority in this thread don't watch tv, which is just dandy. But don't act like you're all high and mighty because of it. I'm sorry, it may be that I've just watched too much TV this extended weekend because of massive snow. This is my third day off this week and day time TV is really awful IMHO. Boston is getting another foot of snow today on top of three feet from Saturday. I think cabin fever is setting in. YARGHH!
Are programming schedules relevant?
Will the current generation of teenagers - who reportedly spend more time on consoles and the internet than watching TV - mean that the future of programming and channels is redundent?
Will TV broadcasters gradually shift into a role more as publishers, TV series being published on DVD or on-pay-per-view-demand?
Wild speculation on the viewing habits of the future? - what will follow the TiVo?
Let's just agree to disagree on the BBC :)
>> the people who don't watch TV are the one's who are no longer relevant
I'll laugh, shrug, and move on.
>> It just bugs me those who belittle those who watch TV as simpletons
>> That if they can't find anything they like on TV, it must be because their so superior to the rest of us TV watchers.
You're taking criticism of a national pastime and reading that as a comment on your intelligence? Maybe it's time for a personality makeover show :)
>>their so superior
Did you mean "they're"?
>> I've just watched too much TV this extended weekend because of massive snow.
Ah! OK, you're forgiven. ;)
Newsnight
That would be the news program with the presenter that's just returned from a holiday with the scottish Labour party leader would it?
I don't think the news coverage is balanced - but I can see how it's arguable.
I can't see how you could argue that the BBC's output as a whole is balanced, not even close. And since it's the whole thing that's publicly funded, not just the news, it's the whole thing that should be balanced.
Just for fun, imagine this: At the next election, they put a ballot box in the BBC - and all BBC employees have to vote in that, and have their votes counted and reported separately. I think we can predict the result - and by a FAR larger proportion than in the country as a whole.
If that's the case - how can you expect balanced output?
BTW - I will concede to loving BBC Radio - particularly Radio 4. It's probably pretty biased too - but I can forgive it for the sheer quality and intelligence of its output. But that's radio - not TV.
But don't act like you're all high and mighty because of it.
I don't think most of us non-tv watchers think we are high and mighty. I think we just have a different perspective. Because I don't watch television, I am often alarmed at how much of the "average" person's life revolves around television. How many hours people dedicate to both watching and discussing what they watched is... um... well... scary to me. I only really register it because I can't participate in those conversations so it is even more blatent to me. But, I certainly don't think less of the people who are discussing it. I just can't comprehend myself doing it, that's all. It's kind of like someone discussing bungee jumping. I find bungee jumping scary and I could not do it, but I don't think less of people who do it.
