BBC In Need of a Photographer?

Foxbat Flyer

Foxbat Flyer

Messages
1,058
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
If the photograph in the link below is anything to go by I think the BBC really need to improve the photographic side of their journalism.

I'm not a pro, so I've no axe to grind, but surely the BBC can do better than this........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-32735834

Perhaps the light was flat, but surely they could have obtained a better picture - Stoke needs all the good publicity it can get?

Chris
 
Why would the BBC care? They make their £3.5 billion per year no matter what anyone thinks. They don't need to be customer driven as we are forced to pay for them by law if we have a TV. while all other public services are stretched to breaking point by financial cuts the BBC gravy train continues to run. As for the photograph is is awful.
 
Bet you a tenner it was an amateur photographer's photo that they submitted to the BBC for 'sharing' and they used it because 1. they didn't have to pay for it, because 2. The photographer was just happy to have his photo used. :)
 
sunnyside_up said:
Bet you a tenner it was an amateur photographer's photo that they submitted to the BBC for 'sharing' and they used it because 1. they didn't have to pay for it, because 2. The photographer was just happy to have his photo used. :)
Click to expand...

I think you're right Bethy, it looks like a typical phone shot - hold the phone up & point in the general direction and click - job done.
 
Chr1stof said:
Just to play devils advocate, I love the BBC :)
The thought of nothing but Sky-esque programming is depressing. By and large the BEEB website is excellent with some amazing resources. I certainly dont mind paying my fee.
Click to expand...

I agree Chris, I don't begrudge the licence fee. The quality of the shark documentary last night was amazing, superb work, it's those sort of programmes that make the licence worthwhile.

It's a shame that someone in the news department was so lazy in this instance and decided it was ok to publish such a poor image.

Chris
 
Foxbat Flyer said:
I agree Chris, I don't begrudge the licence fee. The quality of the shark documentary last night was amazing, superb work, it's those sort of programmes that make the licence worthwhile.

It's a shame that someone in the news department was so lazy in this instance and decided it was ok to publish such a poor image.

Chris
Click to expand...
You might begrudge the licencing fee when you realize that my mother can receive BBC channels as part of her cable package at no extra cost... in Canada. :) I don't really have an opinion either way on the licencing fee thing anyway, I don't really watch much tv anyway and am more of a Netflix kinda gal. :)
 
Not really, shows the world we make good telly plus it raises money for more programming
 
Yeah and some of the BBC world service online content you can't access from the UK anyway, so I'm assuming separate budgets...
 
I have no issue with paying the fee. However, the guaranteed budget doesnt guarantee a good service. Their programming is nowhere near as good as it used to be with some notable exceptions. however, the fact that there is no option to choose whether or not to pay that fee and receive their service is of a bygone age. It must be one of the last vestiges of the nanny state and a great hiding place for incompetents who will get their pay anyway because the golden goose continues to lay.
 
You don't have to pay it if you don't watch shows as they're broadcast
 
Not quite as easy as that Ashley. You pay the licence if you use equipment capable of receiving a live broadcast. Just because you choose to record that live broadcast and watch it later doesn't allow you to dodge the licence.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, this apparently, is the sculpture.....
img_0004.jpg
 
Timmy the BBC World service has been funded by license payers since 2014. Prior to that it was funded by the Foriegn and Commonwealth Office out of the overseas aid budget.
 
Simplythebeast said:
I have no issue with paying the fee. However, the guaranteed budget doesnt guarantee a good service. Their programming is nowhere near as good as it used to be with some notable exceptions. however, the fact that there is no option to choose whether or not to pay that fee and receive their service is of a bygone age. It must be one of the last vestiges of the nanny state and a great hiding place for incompetents who will get their pay anyway because the golden goose continues to lay.
Click to expand...

There's probably a lot of truth in your post Graham, but the alternative doesn't bear thinking about. Imagine relying on commercial TV full of adverts and every "documentary" portraying everything being moments from a crisis i.e. Dave or Quest style. I'd much rather keep the fee and enjoy some non-commercial telly. There's always BBC radio too, light years ahead of any commercial station.

Chris
 
Simplythebeast said:
Not quite as easy as that Ashley. You pay the licence if you use equipment capable of receiving a live broadcast. Just because you choose to record that live broadcast and watch it later doesn't allow you to dodge the licence.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is as easy as that

http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/whoweare/licencefee#heading-about-the-licence-fee

"Everyone in the UK who watches or records TV programmes at the same as they are shown on TV needs to be covered by a TV licence. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and DVD/VHS recorders."

So if you just watch things through iplayer then youre free. All i use these days is netflix, amazon and iPlayer and never had a problem after i explained the setup to them. Its all to do with when you watch things, not what you watch things on.
 
So you never watch anything live at all, never watch the News or sporting events etc? Well I suppose it takes all sorts......
 
Simplythebeast said:
So you never watch anything live at all, never watch the News or sporting events etc? Well I suppose it takes all sorts......
Click to expand...
Why bother when the pictures are better on the wireless? :D
 
I kicked live TV (and Virgin) to the kerb about 6 years ago because there seemed to be endless repeats of the repeats I had seen 10 years previously, and the news was just repeated endlessly with virtually no change.

Nowadays I have a plug in Dongle for my broadband and read all the news on the 'net.

With the money I save I buy DVDs from Amazon or Ebay so I get to watch the films etc I want to watch not the repeats.

Took me a couple of weeks to get used to it but would not go back again - and I also download podcasts etc of the things I am interested in.
.
 
Foxbat Flyer said:
There's probably a lot of truth in your post Graham, but the alternative doesn't bear thinking about. Imagine relying on commercial TV full of adverts and every "documentary" portraying everything being moments from a crisis i.e. Dave or Quest style. I'd much rather keep the fee and enjoy some non-commercial telly. There's always BBC radio too, light years ahead of any commercial station.
Click to expand...

The BBC is full of adverts...
 
Simplythebeast said:
Not quite as easy as that Ashley. You pay the licence if you use equipment capable of receiving a live broadcast. Just because you choose to record that live broadcast and watch it later doesn't allow you to dodge the licence.
Click to expand...

Well in theory any PC connected to the internet is "capable" of receiving live broadcasts so does that mean we should all pay a fee regardless?
.
 
sunnyside_up said:
Bet you a tenner it was an amateur photographer's photo that they submitted to the BBC for 'sharing' and they used it because 1. they didn't have to pay for it, because 2. The photographer was just happy to have his photo used. :)
Click to expand...
Bang on. If it's free then the quality doesn't matter. Sad. There's always done mug prepared to give them the picture for an ego boost.
 
It's a rusty torpedo with glass balls on it. No photograph will make it look anything other than an ugly heap of junk. Fortunately it isn't far from a traveller camp so I'm hoping they'll do the decent thing and get rid of it. :D

Local paper didn't manage to get any appealing images of it either.
 
srichards said:
It's a rusty torpedo with glass balls on it. No photograph will make it look anything other than an ugly heap of junk. Fortunately it isn't far from a traveller camp so I'm hoping they'll do the decent thing and get rid of it. :D

Local paper didn't manage to get any appealing images of it either.
Click to expand...

Where is it Suz? I'm in Stone so I might take a run up for a look.

Chris
 
It's in the Chatterley valley near Reginald Mitchell Way. Go off the Longport A500 turn off towards Talke/Kidsgrove and it's off to the right.
 
Simplythebeast said:
I have no issue with paying the fee. However, the guaranteed budget doesnt guarantee a good service. Their programming is nowhere near as good as it used to be with some notable exceptions. however, the fact that there is no option to choose whether or not to pay that fee and receive their service is of a bygone age. It must be one of the last vestiges of the nanny state and a great hiding place for incompetents who will get their pay anyway because the golden goose continues to lay.
Click to expand...
Y know, it might be that the programme quality has diminished because the budgets are going down in real terms, meanwhile an increasingly competitive marketplace makes talent more expensive.

To me that makes more sense than 'they produce crap because their fee is guaranteed', which is the mantra the rest of the British media keep repeating in order to get rid of the competition.

Most people don't realise this, but until fairly recently the BBC had to pay Sky to carry their content, that's content Sky were charging people for, apparently Mrs T thought that was the way the market needed loading when she let the Sky franchise. Whereas everyone else in the real 'free market' has to pay for BEEB content they want to carry, in fact Sky were paying ITV et al, it's just the BBC who had to pay. Is there any wonder The Murdochs believe the BBC should just be killed off to hand the monopoly to them?
 
Simplythebeast said:
I have no issue with paying the fee. However, the guaranteed budget doesnt guarantee a good service. Their programming is nowhere near as good as it used to be with some notable exceptions. however, the fact that there is no option to choose whether or not to pay that fee and receive their service is of a bygone age. It must be one of the last vestiges of the nanny state and a great hiding place for incompetents who will get their pay anyway because the golden goose continues to lay.
Click to expand...

That is so true but I would hate to rely on a service totally funded by adverts.
 
No need for TV any longer....superseded by broadband. Pick what you want to watch.

The new licence fee is to your ISP.
 
sunnyside_up said:
You might begrudge the licencing fee when you realize that my mother can receive BBC channels as part of her cable package at no extra cost... in Canada. :) I don't really have an opinion either way on the licencing fee thing anyway, I don't really watch much tv anyway and am more of a Netflix kinda gal. :)
Click to expand...

That's one of the many reasons I hate the licence fee, why should we be forced to pay for the BBC fee, when people all over the world get to watch it for free! Who cares if they are ex-pats. They left so should be forced to pay for it too.

You say you watch Netflix, but because you have a tv you have to pay to watch something that has nothing what so ever to with the bbc.

The sooner the licence fee gets scrapped the better, the bbc is full of adverts for products, football and formula 1 being the biggest free advertising going!

No offence sunnyside
 
scottishguy said:
That's one of the many reasons I hate the licence fee, why should we be forced to pay for the BBC fee, when people all over the world get to watch it for free! Who cares if they are ex-pats. They left so should be forced to pay for it too.

You say you watch Netflix, but because you have a tv you have to pay to watch something that has nothing what so ever to with the bbc.

The sooner the licence fee gets scrapped the better, the bbc is full of adverts for products, football and formula 1 being the biggest free advertising going!

No offence sunnyside
Click to expand...
None taken... :) except my mother isn't an expat, she's Canadian, just like me. ;)
 
Just did a google image search of the sculpture, very few images. The best quality one currently is it being delivered on the back of an artic! Maybe someone from TP can go and do it justice?
 
Brian G said:
Not to mention political bias...
Click to expand...

Well the BBC is naturally going to be somewhat left of centre due to its nature but I often hear the complaint from the right wing that it's too left wing and from the left that it's too right wing (maybe establishment would be more accurate).

I'm critical of the BBC but the saying you can't please everyone springs to mind.
 
scottishguy said:
That's one of the many reasons I hate the licence fee, why should we be forced to pay for the BBC fee, when people all over the world get to watch it for free! Who cares if they are ex-pats. They left so should be forced to pay for it too.

You say you watch Netflix, but because you have a tv you have to pay to watch something that has nothing what so ever to with the bbc.

The sooner the licence fee gets scrapped the better, the bbc is full of adverts for products, football and formula 1 being the biggest free advertising going!

No offence sunnyside
Click to expand...
They don't. The cable provider pays BBC Worldwide for the channel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top