television reporting
May. 16th, 2012 06:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethThe BBC are moving all their children's TV to the children's channels after digital switchover is complete.
The Guardian article about this characterises it as "part of wide-ranging plans to cut hundreds of millions of pounds from its budget by 2017 and rejig its output for the post-analogue broadcasting era."
But only one of those factors is relevant, since Children's TV is going to have the same budget. Which even the Guardian mentions rather further down the page.
The BBC news bit is all "Spending on children's programmes will not be affected, and the move is unlikely to be detrimental to viewing figures."
There's also a difference in interpretation of ratings. One says they're terrible, the other points out they've all moved to CBBC already.
It's also interesting the Guardian puts Blue Peter in its headline. I think that shows who the article is aimed at. It's the longest running show, everyone remembers it from when they were kids, so the article is aimed at all those adults who never watch CBBC anyway. Then they can get their outrage button tweaked. Change Blue Peter! Oh noes! :eyeroll:
After digital switchover - which is almost complete anyway - everyone who receives TV receives CBBC.
It's not like ye olde days of a couple of years ago when the digital channels were a minority thing.
There's a hierarchy implied in the Guardian article that isn't in the BBC news. Guardian goes on about BBC1 being the flagship channel or whatever, like it's teh shiniest. And, okay, yes, when Torchwood got moved around the channels every time the channel number went down the budget went up. But that's not relevant to the CBBC situation.
Now all the Children's content will be on the Children's channels that ratings say are what all the children are watching anyway.
There will still be children's tv and it'll get the same amount of money.
This is non news in a news wrapper.
The really interesting, newsworthy, squawk now stuff is all hidden much further down the page, where all the things that will get their budgets cut, be reduced by such and so percents, broadcast fewer hours, or simply cease to exist, are all bundled together.
So why is the headline children's TV?
*stage magic hands*
I'd go poke the details but I should be doing my essay right this minute. Also I spent those minutes comparing the bits about children's tv to see what they actually meant. Clever.
The Guardian article about this characterises it as "part of wide-ranging plans to cut hundreds of millions of pounds from its budget by 2017 and rejig its output for the post-analogue broadcasting era."
But only one of those factors is relevant, since Children's TV is going to have the same budget. Which even the Guardian mentions rather further down the page.
The BBC news bit is all "Spending on children's programmes will not be affected, and the move is unlikely to be detrimental to viewing figures."
There's also a difference in interpretation of ratings. One says they're terrible, the other points out they've all moved to CBBC already.
It's also interesting the Guardian puts Blue Peter in its headline. I think that shows who the article is aimed at. It's the longest running show, everyone remembers it from when they were kids, so the article is aimed at all those adults who never watch CBBC anyway. Then they can get their outrage button tweaked. Change Blue Peter! Oh noes! :eyeroll:
After digital switchover - which is almost complete anyway - everyone who receives TV receives CBBC.
It's not like ye olde days of a couple of years ago when the digital channels were a minority thing.
There's a hierarchy implied in the Guardian article that isn't in the BBC news. Guardian goes on about BBC1 being the flagship channel or whatever, like it's teh shiniest. And, okay, yes, when Torchwood got moved around the channels every time the channel number went down the budget went up. But that's not relevant to the CBBC situation.
Now all the Children's content will be on the Children's channels that ratings say are what all the children are watching anyway.
There will still be children's tv and it'll get the same amount of money.
This is non news in a news wrapper.
The really interesting, newsworthy, squawk now stuff is all hidden much further down the page, where all the things that will get their budgets cut, be reduced by such and so percents, broadcast fewer hours, or simply cease to exist, are all bundled together.
So why is the headline children's TV?
*stage magic hands*
I'd go poke the details but I should be doing my essay right this minute. Also I spent those minutes comparing the bits about children's tv to see what they actually meant. Clever.