Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr
people (and certain media outlets) would complain that the BBC were spending 'their' money on 'rubbish'......If they don't spend the money they're accused of letting decent programmes go.
|
I agree with what you are saying but I think this is an exception. I thought it was one of their top progs but I didn't realise it was "the" top prog. They have got to justify spending their money on something and if it isn't their most highly rated series then what should it be? If they are going to force people to pay for a service then they need to provide what the viewers want.
I hate to draw this comparison because I don't think they compare at all but this whole situation makes me thing of Sky One 10 years ago with Lost and 24 etc and Sky Atlantic now. If you want a premium service you pay a premium price and Sky One advertised 24 as airing 1 day after the States (which was huge at the time
and obviously things have caught up now and I think Sky Atlantic airs GoT in real time. Sky are a broadcaster who realise that people are choosing to pay for a service and they make sure they deliver on the expectation of quality and standards. The BBC has once again shown that they just do whatever they want, get away with it and there isn't anything you can do to express your frustration about their bad decisions. It isn't as if you can decide to stop giving them money. Just think, if they were that **** that everyone went to ITV and Channel they wouldn't care because they would still sit there happy knowing they are going to get our money regardless.