(Original post by AidanLunn)
But the presenters are on the dirty feed, which is not what I'm talking about, which is the clean feed.
The cameramen are employed by the company that is contracted out to provide the staff and equipment.
I can tell you've never worked in making a programme before.
1) Because they didn't put in a high enough bid, so they won't show the thing whole - seems fair enough. Can't afford? Go without. Again, if you think there's "no real saving", I can tell you've not worked in the TV industry.
2) The BBC isn't selling the broadcast. BBC Worldwide, which, as I will make clear again, since you ignored it before, is a *PRIVATE* company operating on behalf of the BBC. BBC Worldwide, or whoever else these TV companies, whether foreign or here, contract out are the companies involved in commercial activities, not the BBC. the BBC's Royal Charter only applies to the UK anyway, so it can do whatever it wants abroad, without fear of reprisal or punishment.
3) Actually, no. The salaries seem high to you, but trust me, they are nowhere near what the commercial broadcasters pay them. Jonny Ross's contract included the pay for all of the staff, studio hire, equipment, bills, rights, celebrity appearances etc of his own production company's programmes. On ITV, he is paid far more, using ITV's own production facilities in either Leeds, Manchester or London.
4) If there is an unfair backing, then why do the BBC and ITV make soaps, documentaries, news, daytime crap etc? Strange how before the explosion of satellite channels 15-25 years ago, it was a network of 17 companies each making such profit that the Governments of the day had to impose a 90% income tax on them. It could afford to make quality TV matching that of the BBC.
ITV blaming the BBC for *their own* failure is both lazy and evasive of blame - if ITV can no longer attract the same numbers of viewers, advertisers and profit today as one company than they did 25 years ago as 17 different companies, then that is the fault of the ever-growing commercial sector. But ITV can't bear to admit they're wrong and that their economic model has destroyed them - bean counters at the tops of companies like ITV despise admitting they're wrong.
This is ITV's own fault for not bettering themselves soon enough. You don't compete, then you lose money and eventually die. Simple. That's like (though neither of them are publicly-owned) Asda blaming Sainsbury's for Sainsbury's losing customers. If you don't compete, then out you go on your arse. Just ask Woolworths.
ITV have not competed with the BBC to provide the complete range of services and programmes offered by the BBC, so they lose out. If you fail then you lose.
ITV have failed in the range of services and programmes war against the BBC, as have most of the rest of the commercial sector. Simple.
What about hose who like those programmes, why shouldn't they have their wishes catered for on a broadcaster that they have to pay for?
And it's a "TV licence", not a "BBC licence" for the simple reason that some of the money is doled out by the government to organisations and projects totally unrelated to the BBC. The rollout of rural broadband, for example.