Goooner
Outstanding Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2005
- Messages
- 52,611
- Reaction score
- 30,946
- Points
- 11,901
- Age
- 58
- Location
- Milton Keynes
Then get ready to stand corrected. I don’t use the BBC website and I’m on the internet regularly.
everyone uses the bbc website, it's the only online resource that's not flooded with adverts, but if you go on the internet regularly and you don't use the bbc website i'll stand corrected
Another variety filled weekend, 4 hours of Eurovision yesterday and 3/4 hours of pretend Tennis matches at Wimbledon this afternoon.
I enjoyed the Eurovision yesterday. It’s good that there is something for everyone isn’t it
I'm sure you and the other 7 people in the UK loved it.
Did you mean seven million...
Even if that was the case, which it isn't, then isn't that the great thing about the BBC?I'm sure you and the other 7 people in the UK loved it.
… isn't that the great thing about the BBC?
I enjoyed the Eurovision yesterday. It’s good that there is something for everyone isn’t it
You can watch on youtube live no need for the bbc.
the fact that the Eurovision contest is your point of view goes to show out of touch the the bbc and its followers are
I never understood why spending money on reporters, camera people, outside broadcast uplinks and people, to deliver a report from outside the studio where there is no event actually unfolding and visible, is justified. Waste of money IMHO.
Often the resources are already paid for. That include space segment, uplinks, uplink engineers, hard wired sites (perhaps booked or owned), crews (camera and sound or camera that also does sound) etc. etc. Sit at base drinking tea or go earn your money......I have often thought this.
If there's a connected guest / interviewee / expert involved, then fine. So often it's over to a reporter standing outside of an empty building, just to break up the studio stuff. Even standing outside parliament with no guests and the MPs gone home, is a total waste. It seems to be how it all works for all news channels, but not great value.
MB
Would we then get through the qualification.Eurovision - personally, I don't like it but I believe that the BBC should continue to show it because it is clearly very popular with a lot of people.
However, I do feel that we should resign our place at the top table and become a standard applicant. The BBC pays a premium, extra licence fee money for its place at the top table which means that the UK get a guaranteed place in the final. Firstly I think it is morally wrong that richer countries can buy a place in the final but more importantly, given have the UK entrant gets treated on the night I don't feel that we get any value out of the premium that we pay.
So keep Eurovision but downgrade the UK to a standard applicant.
Cheers,
Nigel
Solution: let ITV or Channel 4 have it, they'd definitely pick it up for the ad/sponsorship revenue and crappier companion shows on their lesser channels and/or online. Channel 4 would probably make a whole ubercamp themed night's or weekend's schedule out of it.Eurovision - personally, I don't like it but I believe that the BBC should continue to show it because it is clearly very popular with a lot of people.
So keep Eurovision but downgrade the UK to a standard applicant.
Nope, both state and independent can be membersbut Eurovision is EBU meaning state broadcasters involvement. Usually.
Who cares? It'll still be a hit annual fixture for its target audience. It's a turd beauty pageant, and the best polished turd according to the votes of those with great taste in cheesy turd (and/or certain political/nationalistic bias) may win, and it's often the aim to submit a middling to crap turd so you don't win and don't have to bear the outrageous cost of hosting it next year.Would we then get through the qualification.
Would we then get through the qualification.