| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:14:16 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
179 files (27,921K bytes) |
| Messages: | 111,699 |
I'm used to _late_ running, though not to the 1970s Dutch extent. (When posted from Dortmund to M|+lheim/Ruhr, we became within range of Dutch TV [which, unlike German TV, broadcast a lot of UK/US material with
original sound, just subtitled in Dutch]; they quite often ran up to
about half an hour late, without AFAICS being at all bothered that they were!)
Anyway, I'm used to slippage these days - even the main BBC News often
start a minute or two late (must finish the trailer we've started).
But one prog. is puzzling me by starting _early_: "Lingo" at 3pm on
ITV1. (I find the prog. irritating - the chat and endless repetition of
the rules - but enjoy the actual gameplay. [Yes, I do do the NY Times Wordle.]) This seems often to start up to a minute or two _early_, for
no obvious reason. (There may be other prog.s doing the same; that's the
one I noticed.)
I remember radio Luxembourg, in the 1970s, used to do their news
bulletins just _before_ the hour; however, I understood that - it was, I think, to capture listeners (anyone _wanting_ news would switch to the station that had it on first, and they hoped those listeners would
stay), but that was known and scheduled; I can't think what advantage
what is essentially a game show starting early would give. (I don't
_mind_, just curious!)
I'm used to _late_ running, though not to the 1970s Dutch extent. (When >posted from Dortmund to Mnlheim/Ruhr, we became within range of Dutch TV >[which, unlike German TV, broadcast a lot of UK/US material with
original sound, just subtitled in Dutch]; they quite often ran up to
about half an hour late, without AFAICS being at all bothered that they >were!)
Anyway, I'm used to slippage these days - even the main BBC News often
start a minute or two late (must finish the trailer we've started).
But one prog. is puzzling me by starting _early_: "Lingo" at 3pm on
ITV1. (I find the prog. irritating - the chat and endless repetition of
the rules - but enjoy the actual gameplay. [Yes, I do do the NY Times >Wordle.]) This seems often to start up to a minute or two _early_, for
no obvious reason. (There may be other prog.s doing the same; that's the
one I noticed.)
I remember radio Luxembourg, in the 1970s, used to do their news
bulletins just _before_ the hour; however, I understood that - it was, I >think, to capture listeners (anyone _wanting_ news would switch to the >station that had it on first, and they hoped those listeners would
stay), but that was known and scheduled; I can't think what advantage
what is essentially a game show starting early would give. (I don't
_mind_, just curious!)
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 18:42:25 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"Yes, I think that's been suggested here before.
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
I'm used to _late_ running, though not to the 1970s Dutch extent. (When
posted from Dortmund to M|+lheim/Ruhr, we became within range of Dutch TV >> [which, unlike German TV, broadcast a lot of UK/US material with
original sound, just subtitled in Dutch]; they quite often ran up to
about half an hour late, without AFAICS being at all bothered that they
were!)
Anyway, I'm used to slippage these days - even the main BBC News often
start a minute or two late (must finish the trailer we've started).
But one prog. is puzzling me by starting _early_: "Lingo" at 3pm on
ITV1. (I find the prog. irritating - the chat and endless repetition of
the rules - but enjoy the actual gameplay. [Yes, I do do the NY Times >> Wordle.]) This seems often to start up to a minute or two _early_, for
no obvious reason. (There may be other prog.s doing the same; that's the
one I noticed.)
I remember radio Luxembourg, in the 1970s, used to do their news
bulletins just _before_ the hour; however, I understood that - it was, I
think, to capture listeners (anyone _wanting_ news would switch to the
station that had it on first, and they hoped those listeners would
stay), but that was known and scheduled; I can't think what advantage >> what is essentially a game show starting early would give. (I don't
_mind_, just curious!)
Did the One Show not start just before 7 pm to try to capture viewers
before ITV '7 pm' slot?
Did the One Show not start just before 7 pm to try to capture viewers
before ITV '7 pm' slot?
On 01/08/2025 15:23, Scott wrote:
Did the One Show not start just before 7 pm to try to capture viewers
before ITV '7 pm' slot?
I have a vague memory that ITV started it (at 2000h? or 2100?) so the
BBC followed suit - would not be surprised if ITV then complained!
They did after ITV made 'News at Ten' later and BBC News moved into
the 10 pm slot. I think they claimed the BBC was acting unreasonably
On 02/08/2025 09:13, Scott wrote:
They did after ITV made 'News at Ten' later and BBC News moved into
the 10 pm slot. I think they claimed the BBC was acting unreasonably
I think BBC News was 2100h and ITV 2200h
ITV moved their news to 2230h or 2300h to allow them have longer films uninterupted.
BBC News then moved to the unused 2200h slot.
Later ITV wanted BBC to move their news so they could move back to 2200h
but BBC refused to move.
Difficult to transcribe because the BNA gets confused when reports are spread over several columns.
Veteran presenter Trevor McDonald said today he rCLfully supported" plans
to scrap News at Ten and insisted the show was not being moved in favour
of movies.
The broadeaster said he backed the move to scrap the 31-year-old
programme under ITV proposals to the Independent Television Commission submitted yesterday.
News at Ten and the early eveningtne\n at 5.40 pm would be replaced by
half - hour bulletins at 6.30 pm and 11pm under the new plans. Mr
McDonald said: rCL1 support everything ITN does, I have just signed a new contract.
rCLI just want to make clear that ITV are trying to reshuffle news and are not concerned with changing News at Ten in favour films or drama.rCY
I remember being displeased, though I don't remember blaming either
"side", if any; having both newses (?) at the same time seemed rather
daft.
I presume that news must be an expensive programme to make, certainly in absolute terms, and definitely in terms of eyeballs garnered; so, I
presume they'd have loved to ditch it altogether. I presume it's a
licence condition that they provide it at all.
How do the plethora of small channels we have now get treated in that
regard - are they obliged to pay a levy towards it? AFAI can see, none
of them carry any news - only ITV (or itv1 as they want us to call
them), C4, and - though minimally - 5.
On 02/08/2025 15:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I remember being displeased, though I don't remember blaming either
"side", if any; having both newses (?) at the same time seemed rather
daft.
How many people watch more than one news bulletin?
I don't tend to watch much news, fed of hearing about the ####### pallystinians.
On 02/08/2025 15:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I remember being displeased, though I don't remember blaming either
"side", if any; having both newses (?) at the same time seemed rather
daft.
How many people watch more than one news bulletin?
I don't tend to watch much news, fed of hearing about the ####### pallystinians.
Well they did have their country given to others by the British
How do the plethora of small channels we have now get treated in that
regard - are they obliged to pay a levy towards it? AFAI can see, none
of them carry any news - only ITV (or itv1 as they want us to call
them), C4, and - though minimally - 5.
On Sat, 02 Aug 2025 15:43:56 +0100, JMB99 wrote:
On 02/08/2025 15:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I remember being displeased, though I don't remember blaming either
"side", if any; having both newses (?) at the same time seemed rather
daft.
How many people watch more than one news bulletin?
I don't tend to watch much news, fed of hearing about the ####### pallystinians.
Well they did have their country given to others by the British
In article <106lgtd$167o0$1@dont-email.me>,
jon <reading.mostly@crap.org> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2025 15:43:56 +0100, JMB99 wrote:
On 02/08/2025 15:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I remember being displeased, though I don't remember blaming either
"side", if any; having both newses (?) at the same time seemed
rather daft.
How many people watch more than one news bulletin?
I don't tend to watch much news, fed of hearing about the #######
pallystinians.
Well they did have their country given to others by the British
They were returned to their lands by the British that is true.
The holy land was home to the Jews 2000 years ago, well before Islam
existed. Palestine is a terrorist run hell hole and has never been a functioning country.
The whole raison d'etre of Palestine is an inbred hatred of the Jews and
the need to exterminate them 'from the river to the sea'. Their
supporters told us this week after week after week on the streets of
London, believe them!
You cannot agree a 2 state solution or any other solution with people
who have such a creed.
Bob.
On 02/08/2025 15:07, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I presume that news must be an expensive programme to make, certainly in
absolute terms, and definitely in terms of eyeballs garnered; so, I
presume they'd have loved to ditch it altogether. I presume it's a
licence condition that they provide it at all.
How do the plethora of small channels we have now get treated in that
regard - are they obliged to pay a levy towards it? AFAI can see, none
of them carry any news - only ITV (or itv1 as they want us to call
them), C4, and - though minimally - 5.
Depends on how seriously you do the news.
Must cost the BBC a lot with correspondents all around the world.
But don't think any of the other UK broadcasters provide a full service
like that.
There are reciprocal arrangements which BBC have many but not sure how
the others pay for film from a foreign broadcaster.
On 02/08/2025 15:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I remember being displeased, though I don't remember blaming either
"side", if any; having both newses (?) at the same time seemed rather
daft.
How many people watch more than one news bulletin?
I don't tend to watch much news, fed of hearing about the ####### >pallystinians.
When I was at school there was a country called Palestine, but the
jews over ran that like everywhere else they settled.
In article <106n5o0$1gihd$1@dont-email.me>,
jon <reading.mostly@crap.org> wrote:
When I was at school there was a country called Palestine, but the
jews over ran that like everywhere else they settled.
Has Britain been "over ran" by Jews?
Far be it from me to claim that Israel is a perfect state that has
been 100% over the decades, they have not.
However, lets be clear who the monster is in all this: "HAMAS". Iran
backed terrorists.
Do you fully understand the terible, really terrible things they did on >October 7th or have you not really grasped it?
They are why there is such suffering in Palestine. They are why it is >impossible to negotiate a solution, or even release the sausages.
They are why Egypt has built a massive wall to keep Palestinians out.
Remember how many billions of dollars were poured into Palestine to
build it up into a proper nation but instead, Hamas chose to buy
weapons and build tunnels under schools and hospitals. Build for war
not a nation because of Jew hatred.
Don't believe what the BBC/Sky and any of the antisemitism riddled left
say. This form of racism is fine in the UK even though they are harmless >contributors to the UK....
Has Britain been "over ran" by Jews?
Far be it from me to claim that Israel is a perfect state that has
been 100% over the decades, they have not.
However, lets be clear who the monster is in all this: "HAMAS". Iran
backed terrorists.
Do you fully understand the terible, really terrible things they did on October 7th or have you not really grasped it?
They are why there is such suffering in Palestine. They are why it is impossible to negotiate a solution, or even release the sausages.
They are why Egypt has built a massive wall to keep Palestinians out.
When I was at school there was a country called Palestine, but the jews
over ran that like everywhere else they settled.
They are why there is such suffering in Palestine. They are why it is impossible to negotiate a solution, or even release the sausages.
They are why Egypt has built a massive wall to keep Palestinians out.
On 03/08/2025 09:13, jon wrote:
When I was at school there was a country called Palestine, but the jews
over ran that like everywhere else they settled.
I don't know when you went to school but I doubt that a 'country' was
marked on the maps. A region perhaps but it has never been a country.
"J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
How do the plethora of small channels we have now get treated in that
regard - are they obliged to pay a levy towards it? AFAI can see, none
of them carry any news - only ITV (or itv1 as they want us to call
them), C4, and - though minimally - 5.
Some other ITV channels seem to have a "newsblit" shoved in like an ad-break?
And since October 7th 2023, there have been credible reports of the
IDF killing many thousand of innocent civilians and destroying
many homes, schools and hospitals in their quest to get rid of
Hamas. "We think there may be a Hamas base under that hospital"
Bombs and other nastiness flattens the hospital. The tunnels, if
they even existed, are probably still usable...
If, as the Israelis claim, all they want is their hostages back,
the SAS or then American imitators could do that in a few weeks,
if not days. As it is, they seem to be following a scorched earth
policy, and doing their best to make the Gaza strip uninhabitable.
Also,ask yourself why the Israelis are forbidding independent
reporters from entering the Gaza strip, and forcing them all to be
based in areas controlled by Israeli authorities, while relying on
reports posted by local residents?
Antisemitism is a shape shifting hate that finds many excuses.
You cannot negotiate with people who's creed is your extermination!
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:43:56 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 15:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Friend of mine, to get more than one perspective. I compromise by
I remember being displeased, though I don't remember blaming either
"side", if any; having both newses (?) at the same time seemed rather
daft.
How many people watch more than one news bulletin?
I don't tend to watch much news, fed of hearing about the ####### >>pallystinians.
making sure that I watch enough non-BBC news.
Apparently GB News now has more viewers than BBC News.
Quite an achievement when you consider that GB News doesn't have a
national network of broadcast transmitters, four billion quid a year,
and a hundred years of history. The times they are a-changing.
On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 09:50:51 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:43:56 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 15:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Friend of mine, to get more than one perspective. I compromise by
I remember being displeased, though I don't remember blaming either
"side", if any; having both newses (?) at the same time seemed rather
daft.
How many people watch more than one news bulletin?
I don't tend to watch much news, fed of hearing about the ####### >>>pallystinians.
making sure that I watch enough non-BBC news.
Apparently GB News now has more viewers than BBC News.
Quite an achievement when you consider that GB News doesn't have a
national network of broadcast transmitters, four billion quid a year,
and a hundred years of history. The times they are a-changing.
On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 05:25:49 +0100, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 09:50:51 +0100, ScottI like Sky News. It has moved on so far from just being 'rolling news'
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:43:56 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 15:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Friend of mine, to get more than one perspective. I compromise by
I remember being displeased, though I don't remember blaming either
"side", if any; having both newses (?) at the same time seemed rather >>>>> daft.
How many people watch more than one news bulletin?
I don't tend to watch much news, fed of hearing about the #######
pallystinians.
making sure that I watch enough non-BBC news.
Apparently GB News now has more viewers than BBC News.
Quite an achievement when you consider that GB News doesn't have a
national network of broadcast transmitters, four billion quid a year,
and a hundred years of history. The times they are a-changing.
with the same clips repeated every 20 minutes. Of course the same
clips will be repeated - this is inevitable in a news channel that
people dip in and out of - but I think the presentation and analysis
are much more informed than in the early days.
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 05:25:49 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 09:50:51 +0100, ScottI like Sky News. It has moved on so far from just being 'rolling news'
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:43:56 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 15:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Friend of mine, to get more than one perspective. I compromise by
I remember being displeased, though I don't remember blaming either >>>>>> "side", if any; having both newses (?) at the same time seemed rather >>>>>> daft.
How many people watch more than one news bulletin?
I don't tend to watch much news, fed of hearing about the #######
pallystinians.
making sure that I watch enough non-BBC news.
Apparently GB News now has more viewers than BBC News.
Quite an achievement when you consider that GB News doesn't have a
national network of broadcast transmitters, four billion quid a year,
and a hundred years of history. The times they are a-changing.
with the same clips repeated every 20 minutes. Of course the same
clips will be repeated - this is inevitable in a news channel that
people dip in and out of - but I think the presentation and analysis
are much more informed than in the early days.
IAm more curious as to who watches the news channels. Other than the
retired does anyone deliberately tune in? ThereAs a lot of involuntary >viewers - airports etc, picture no sound with the subtitles on.
On 04/08/2025 05:25, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Apparently GB News now has more viewers than BBC News.
Quite an achievement when you consider that GB News doesn't have a
national network of broadcast transmitters, four billion quid a year,
and a hundred years of history. The times they are a-changing.
What is the source of that figure? It sounds very doubtful.
On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 09:50:51 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:43:56 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 15:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Friend of mine, to get more than one perspective. I compromise by
I remember being displeased, though I don't remember blaming either
"side", if any; having both newses (?) at the same time seemed rather
daft.
How many people watch more than one news bulletin?
I don't tend to watch much news, fed of hearing about the #######
pallystinians.
making sure that I watch enough non-BBC news.
Apparently GB News now has more viewers than BBC News.
Quite an achievement when you consider that GB News doesn't have a
national network of broadcast transmitters, four billion quid a year,
and a hundred years of history. The times they are a-changing.
Rod.
On 04/08/2025 07:01, JMB99 wrote:
On 04/08/2025 05:25, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Apparently GB News now has more viewers than BBC News.
Quite an achievement when you consider that GB News doesn't have a
national network of broadcast transmitters, four billion quid a year,
Another source (BARB, which uses feedback from connected smart TV sets) shows that BBC News, in June this year, got a monthly reach of 9,925 as against 3,756 for GB News. The top channel was BBC1 with 40,576.and a hundred years of history. The times they are a-changing.
What is the source of that figure? It sounds very doubtful.
https://www.barb.co.uk/monthly-viewing/
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 05:25:49 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 09:50:51 +0100, ScottI like Sky News. It has moved on so far from just being 'rolling news'
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:43:56 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 15:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Friend of mine, to get more than one perspective. I compromise by
I remember being displeased, though I don't remember blaming either >>>>>> "side", if any; having both newses (?) at the same time seemed rather >>>>>> daft.
How many people watch more than one news bulletin?
I don't tend to watch much news, fed of hearing about the #######
pallystinians.
making sure that I watch enough non-BBC news.
Apparently GB News now has more viewers than BBC News.
Quite an achievement when you consider that GB News doesn't have a
national network of broadcast transmitters, four billion quid a year,
and a hundred years of history. The times they are a-changing.
with the same clips repeated every 20 minutes. Of course the same
clips will be repeated - this is inevitable in a news channel that
people dip in and out of - but I think the presentation and analysis
are much more informed than in the early days.
IrCOm more curious as to who watches the news channels. Other than the retired does anyone deliberately tune in? ThererCOs a lot of involuntary viewers - airports etc, picture no sound with the subtitles on.
On 2025/8/4 5:25:49, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 09:50:51 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:43:56 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 15:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Friend of mine, to get more than one perspective. I compromise by
I remember being displeased, though I don't remember blaming either
"side", if any; having both newses (?) at the same time seemed rather >>>>> daft.
How many people watch more than one news bulletin?
I don't tend to watch much news, fed of hearing about the #######
pallystinians.
making sure that I watch enough non-BBC news.
Apparently GB News now has more viewers than BBC News.
Quite an achievement when you consider that GB News doesn't have a
national network of broadcast transmitters, four billion quid a year,
and a hundred years of history. The times they are a-changing.
Rod.
Surely it's available in all main FreeView areas (maybe not some
relay-only areas, I don't know what multiplex it's on), and thus has
(shares) the same network of broadcast transmitters (say) the BBC does?
On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 07:23:08 -0000 (UTC), Tweed[]
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I tend to have my TV on in the background, when I'm doing other thingsI like Sky News. It has moved on so far from just being 'rolling news'
with the same clips repeated every 20 minutes. Of course the same
clips will be repeated - this is inevitable in a news channel that
people dip in and out of - but I think the presentation and analysis
are much more informed than in the early days.
IrCOm more curious as to who watches the news channels. Other than the
retired does anyone deliberately tune in? ThererCOs a lot of involuntary
viewers - airports etc, picture no sound with the subtitles on.
As a member of 'the retired' it is difficult for me to answer this
question. I always try to watch Trevor Philips on a Sunday morning.
Surely it's available in all main FreeView areas (maybe not some
relay-only areas, I don't know what multiplex it's on), and thus has
(shares) the same network of broadcast transmitters (say) the BBC does?
That's the only time I routinely see the news channels, (plus in my
mum's care home) I've always found the notion of watching TV in daytime, and/or as 'background' rather vulgar.
The least worst is Sky News. I only really watch it when I'm working
away, and (these days) cast the Sky News YouTube stream from my phone to
the hotel room telly. BBC News/World etc etc is a total waste of
electricity from what I do see of it.
On 04/08/2025 08:23, Tweed wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2025 05:25:49 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 09:50:51 +0100, ScottI like Sky News. It has moved on so far from just being 'rolling news'
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:43:56 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/08/2025 15:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Friend of mine, to get more than one perspective. I compromise by
I remember being displeased, though I don't remember blaming either >>>>>>> "side", if any; having both newses (?) at the same time seemed rather >>>>>>> daft.
How many people watch more than one news bulletin?
I don't tend to watch much news, fed of hearing about the #######
pallystinians.
making sure that I watch enough non-BBC news.
Apparently GB News now has more viewers than BBC News.
Quite an achievement when you consider that GB News doesn't have a
national network of broadcast transmitters, four billion quid a year,
and a hundred years of history. The times they are a-changing.
with the same clips repeated every 20 minutes. Of course the same
clips will be repeated - this is inevitable in a news channel that
people dip in and out of - but I think the presentation and analysis
are much more informed than in the early days.
IrCOm more curious as to who watches the news channels. Other than the
retired does anyone deliberately tune in? ThererCOs a lot of involuntary
viewers - airports etc, picture no sound with the subtitles on.
That's the only time I routinely see the news channels, (plus in my
mum's care home) I've always found the notion of watching TV in daytime, and/or as 'background' rather vulgar.
The least worst is Sky News. I only really watch it when I'm working
away, and (these days) cast the Sky News YouTube stream from my phone to
the hotel room telly. BBC News/World etc etc is a total waste of
electricity from what I do see of it.
On 04/08/2025 08:23, Tweed wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I like Sky News. It has moved on so far from just being 'rolling news'
with the same clips repeated every 20 minutes. Of course the same
clips will be repeated - this is inevitable in a news channel that
people dip in and out of - but I think the presentation and analysis
are much more informed than in the early days.
IrCOm more curious as to who watches the news channels. Other than the
retired does anyone deliberately tune in? ThererCOs a lot of involuntary
viewers - airports etc, picture no sound with the subtitles on.
That's the only time I routinely see the news channels, (plus in my
mum's care home) I've always found the notion of watching TV in daytime, and/or as 'background' rather vulgar.
The least worst is Sky News. I only really watch it when I'm workingWell, not total, but certainly a lot of it: with the exception of very
away, and (these days) cast the Sky News YouTube stream from my phone to
the hotel room telly. BBC News/World etc etc is a total waste of
electricity from what I do see of it.
GBNews is on COM6, so won't exist in "freeviewlite" areas ...Quite an achievement when you consider that GB News doesn't have a
national network of broadcast transmitters, four billion quid a year,
They have (share) the same network as BBC news, surely?
I tend to have my TV on in the background, when I'm doing other things
(such as writing here!). For that, news is a reasonable choice.
Apparently GB News now has more viewers than BBC News.
Quite an achievement when you consider that GB News doesn't have a
national network of broadcast transmitters, four billion quid a year, >>>>> and a hundred years of history. The times they are a-changing.
Not sure why, given the tiny audience it has, the BBC continues to
broadcast BBC news.
David Wade wrote:
Not sure why, given the tiny audience it has, the BBC continues to
broadcast BBC news.
They don't know what to put on in its place?
At various times of day BBC News is used as a "filler" on BBC1, BBC2 and
BBC Parliament
David Wade wrote:
Not sure why, given the tiny audience it has, the BBC continues to
broadcast BBC news.
They don't know what to put on in its place?
At various times of day BBC News is used as a "filler" on BBC1, BBC2 and
BBC Parliament
Apparently GB News now has more viewers than BBC News.
Quite an achievement when you consider that GB News doesn't have a
national network of broadcast transmitters, four billion quid a year,
and a hundred years of history. The times they are a-changing.
Rod.
Surely it's available in all main FreeView areas (maybe not some
relay-only areas, I don't know what multiplex it's on), and thus has
(shares) the same network of broadcast transmitters (say) the BBC does?
On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 11:32:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:
Apparently GB News now has more viewers than BBC News.
Quite an achievement when you consider that GB News doesn't have a
national network of broadcast transmitters, four billion quid a year,
and a hundred years of history. The times they are a-changing.
Rod.
Surely it's available in all main FreeView areas (maybe not some
relay-only areas, I don't know what multiplex it's on), and thus has
(shares) the same network of broadcast transmitters (say) the BBC does?
It's a streaming service. I didn't know it was on Freeview as well.
Rod.
On 04/08/2025 20:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 11:32:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:
Apparently GB News now has more viewers than BBC News.
Quite an achievement when you consider that GB News doesn't have a
national network of broadcast transmitters, four billion quid a year,
and a hundred years of history. The times they are a-changing.
Rod.
Surely it's available in all main FreeView areas (maybe not some
relay-only areas, I don't know what multiplex it's on), and thus has
(shares) the same network of broadcast transmitters (say) the BBC does?
It's a streaming service. I didn't know it was on Freeview as well.
Its not on any more.
Roderick Stewart wrote:
It's a streaming service. I didn't know it was on Freeview as well.
Its not on any more.
It's on freeview Ch73
Actually I think what this really shows is that TV News Channels in the
UK are just pointless. Last Seasons Manchester United/Manchester City opening game of the season had an attendance of 78,000, just a few
thousand less than the news channels.
Apparently GB News now has more viewers than BBC News.
Not really significant. It gets more viewers that Channel 231 - BBC
News, not the BBC News programs at 18:00 and 22:00 which get 4.3 million viewers compared to 78,000 for GB News.
Not sure why, given the tiny audience it has, the BBC continues to
broadcast BBC news. I would say it appears that more people watch Prime Ministers Question Time on BBC Parliament than watch BBC News.
On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 11:32:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>[]
wrote:
Apparently GB News now has more viewers than BBC News.
I was the other way round - I knew it was on FreeView (236 here), butSurely it's available in all main FreeView areas (maybe not some
relay-only areas, I don't know what multiplex it's on), and thus has
(shares) the same network of broadcast transmitters (say) the BBC does?
It's a streaming service. I didn't know it was on Freeview as well.
Rod.--
PMQ is infuriating - well, it usually is_anyway_, but what I was
meaning in this specific case is that it's carried simultaneously on BBC News, BBC Parliament, Sky News,_and_ GB News (and I think I've seen it
being on BBC1 as well). Talk about laziness ...
On 05/08/2025 00:45, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
PMQ is infuriating - well, it usually is_anyway_, but what I was
meaning in this specific case is that it's carried simultaneously on BBC
News, BBC Parliament, Sky News,_and_ GB News (and I think I've seen it
being on BBC1 as well). Talk about laziness ...
What do you think they should carry at those times?
On BBC there are often differences, so one channel will have in vision signing and another perhaps in vision subtitles.
If a major news story breaks, BBC News will often switch to covering it whilst a news programme continues on BBC1. They have many years of experience of shuffling programming around between their channels.
Did the One Show not start just before 7 pm to try to capture viewers
before ITV '7 pm' slot?
Scott wrote:
Did the One Show not start just before 7 pm to try to capture viewers
before ITV '7 pm' slot?
There is a clear and deliberate difference between published
schedule and actual working timings.
I raised the matter on a visit to the BBC Nottingham studio
locally, where I was actually able to sit in a control room and
hear the network give the countdown down the line, for The One
Show, in compliance with the printed running sheet in front of
me, at 18:58. No explanation was forthcoming.
My theory is that starting early is a ploy intended to grab
audience at a programme junction by starting ahead of the other
channels.
As live viewing/ listening declines, it becomes increasingly
pointless.
IIRC when such differences were brought up with the BBC, they
claimed that "to make it easier for viewers" they always worked
in units of 5 minutes for the published timings.
Chris
As live viewing/ listening declines, it becomes increasingly
pointless.
Your theory is correct. I went on a tour of the BBC which encompassed the
One Show studio. They said it was deliberately timed at 1858 to steal the audience. Seems a bit churlish to me.
On 11/08/2025 08:35, Chris J Dixon wrote:
As live viewing/ listening declines, it becomes increasingly
pointless.
It used to common for people to say they had the clocks set several
minutes fast, particularly alarm clocks, so they got up on time. I
wonder if they still do it?
On 11/08/2025 08:53, JMB99 wrote:
On 11/08/2025 08:35, Chris J Dixon wrote:Possibly some do, but just about everyone I know now uses their phone as
As live viewing/ listening declines, it becomes increasingly
pointless.
It used to common for people to say they had the clocks set several
minutes fast, particularly alarm clocks, so they got up on time.-a I
wonder if they still do it?
an alarm clock. so they can't set it fast.
Both our sons (and daughter in laws) only use their phones/ ipads etc to tell the time and set alarms. They literally don't care about BST<>GMT changeover nights, they just wake up feeing tired, or before the alarm
goes off !
IIRC when such differences were brought up with the BBC, they
claimed that "to make it easier for viewers" they always worked
in units of 5 minutes for the published timings.
Chris
On 11/08/2025 08:53, JMB99 wrote:
On 11/08/2025 08:35, Chris J Dixon wrote:
As live viewing/ listening declines, it becomes increasingly
pointless.
It used to common for people to say they had the clocks set several
minutes fast, particularly alarm clocks, so they got up on time. I
wonder if they still do it?
Possibly some do, but just about everyone I know now uses their phone as
an alarm clock. so they can't set it fast.
I don't do it deliberately, but my very cheap battery powered clock
radio gains abut a five minutes per set of batteries.