Depends on which public broadcaster you meant.The BBC is one of the few transmitters that still has the resources to make good qualitative and educational documentaries. Good and qualitative in the sense that it accurately and correctly and fully reflects the information and qualitatively also in the sense that some money has been put into presentation of the subject, for example visual material or a good speaker. A good example of this are documentaries presented by Alice Roberts. At least that looks still slick. In my opinion the pinnacle of modern educational television, after people like Attenborough.
I do not see it happening that this is going to be taken care of by commercial parties.Seriously, you see RTL, Veronica, SBS6 do this and pick it up? Come on say, take another in the grind.
The Netherlands is also too small and too divided to be able to cope well.Teleac or for has a scant comparison with the BBC. Even the Belgians and the Germans do it even better than the Netherlands.
Ever looked up information on video about a geography topic?And I do not mean some teacher in high school who himself has been flanked.
The last time the Netherlands spent money in it dates back to 2002 (no less than 17 years ago) and the new Geo clips has only a quarter of the information transfer in terms of duration of the old geography films and only half of the Information density of the old films.In fact, an eighth of the information. There are topographic maps that are already outdated at that time.
You can find that in the old educational series there is still money inserted compared to the newer Geo clips, it has good supporting footage and a good speaker, really such a voice that you know of programs like Rail Away.You can notice that the old movies are qualitatively better, but dated. The cars you see there are images from the late seventies, which indicates the age of the series.
You may find that I am opposed to privatization, but please let public broadcaster focus on the core tasks for which it was originally intended, such as news, education and art.Not cheap talk programs, shows, human interest, quizzes and other kind of easy scattering, that’s more for the commercial channels.
That is the same question as: Should all restaurants be McDonalds, the majority wants nothing else anyway, and they know at least make a profit?
It would be very useful if you ask yourself the question “in what kind of society do I actually live?” before you make that sort of “sentiment questions”.
And no, not only those who are able to afford it want informative, objective and critical programmes [which would all fall away from the television.
> > Much more sensible is a discussion: “Should flabby sentiment programs be publicly funded?” > > Two public channels seem to be more than enough
And it may sound crazy, but 1) our public TV costs really very little, and 2) totally deposed compared to what we further public spend.
Privatising public broadcasting does not seem to me to be a good plan, it is only about more advertising revenues.On the other hand, I am also not very convinced of the quality of public service broadcasting. The fact that a clear goal and a clear mission arises seems to me better. What does public broadcasting want to achieve now?
No, because then they have to tune their production to what advertisers like to see.As a former VPRO collaborator, you know how important it is to have broadcasters who can choose quality.
What I particularly regret is that the public broadcaster is paid for tax money and also needs it because the PO focuses on the less popular programs that are only interesting for small groups of people.Think of elderly programs and various documentaries.
In itself it is fine that these kinds of niche programmes are broadcast, but the problem is that they are also good to find via the Internet.And in addition, the question is whether so much money needs to be spent to keep small groups happy.
What we actually need is a government broadcaster that focuses 24/7 on all the news in the Netherlands and is only concerned with sharing knowledge with the whole of the Netherlands.Ensure that the population can become more involved with politics, but also with what is happening daily in the Netherlands.
But public broadcasters?They need members and focus only on their own members. But because membership dues are insufficient to pay the salaries of certain presenters, there is a lot of public money needed. And what does it deliver? Boring television…
In my opinion, public service broadcasters can choose: privatisation without state aid or lifting.
Then it may not be called more public.Privatisation will make a profit motive and adapt the broadcasts accordingly. Not to say that the motivation is now completely pure, or even can be.
No, because then they become unreachable for me.I do not want to pay extra to DWDD Jinek (NL), Jools Holland (UK)… via the Internet. Which means that I (from Belgium) will replace programs that I appreciate by “our own” TV work. I will therefore exchange quality work for what is available locally and thus no longer meet what is happening in the Netherlands. And since the majority also likes to “relax” in Belgium for the TV, I probably get an oversupply of “Temptation Island”, faint jokes-programs and music from the own culture area.
I do not know how it is in the Netherlands, but I do not find real diving programs on the Belgian commercial TV. Moreover, our own VRT is high quality (mostly) and thus exert a pressure on the commercial.They must also bring quality under pressure.
There is also another group of loyal “public broadcaster” viewers.Otherwise, the success of “the champions” is not explained. To despair of the commercial broadcasters, every summer rebroadcast has a loyal audience of-I treasure here-a million viewers who meanwhile watch for the 20th time an episode of which you could predict the plot after the first three seasons. A new film has been announced which is likely to be counted among the absolute sales-officers in Flanders. Meanwhile, the young daughter of the Abadi is also 60, but still plays the adolescent. Incomprehensible, but perhaps this is a form of silent protest: we want to keep our good ole TV formula.
No, I think that every country should have a public broadcaster modeled on the BBC. That is to say: paid by the government, but not controlled by the government.At the head of the BBC there are a number of people who are guarding their own political neutrality. The only thing that should otherwise be the funding: that should come from normal tax receipts, and not from some specific TV tax. That is because that tax is often very high for people who watch a lot of TV: elderly, sick or unemployed who have a lot of home and low incomes. In addition, for many people the TV is also the primary source of information, and it must be freely accessible in a democracy, without it becoming a ministry of TV, as it used to be at the BRT. At the same time, a Belgian or Dutch state TV should not be too ambitious on its own productions. A soap, a music progrmma, etc, all fine and well, but the very expensive series and documentaries that the BBC makes are too high for the budget of a small country’s TV station, and in addition, the Dutch language area is too small to reduce the costs Earn. At the same time, such a state TV should be able to put its own culture into the paint, instead of only giving it to the commercial, but also without unhealthy nationalism or chauvinism: Also niewkomers must recognise themselves. As far as the news gathering is concerned, only the inland network should be developed, with a limited number of foreign correspondents in the most important places. For the rest, images and information should be obtained from other transmitters or news agencies. Reklame can, but to a limited extent. For instance, younger people are especially influenced by reklame, the elderly have usually already made their choices and adhere to them. It is therefore necessary to prevent a State transmitter from making programmes for young people. It would just be a good idea to have an offer for people of all ages, as well as a higher intellectual level than what is still commercially interesting. In summary: A kind of mini-BBC, depoliticized, and paid from normal tax income, and for a piece supplemented by reklameincomings.