raymond904
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2005
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 40
- My Satellite Setup
- Freeview, Cable, Freesat
- My Location
- Scotland
Something I'd like to increase awareness of, a cause I whole heartedly support.
I am writing to relay my utter disgust at the actions of the BBC and in particular one of their reporters who wrote an article on the BBC Three website entitled "Beware of the Dog" on Monday August 8th 2005.
The channel recently launched a new channel identifier (commonly known as a DOG) which to viewers’ dismay was larger, more graphical and bolder than before.
I was particularly annoyed considering I had already complained about the BBC's use of DOG's on their digital channels on a number of occasions. I felt as if this was a slap in the face to anyone who was concerned about their BBC programmes being defaced by channel identifiers.
I wrote a highly detailed complaint to the BBC to which I received a copy-and-paste reply explaining why the BBC feel that I need to be reminded permanently throughout my viewing that I am watching one of their channels and that the BBC do it because ‘everyone else is’.
I was happy to learn that I was not alone and that hundreds of other viewers had gathered on many discussion forums including the BBC's own Points of View website to unite in their frustration at the BBC's complete ignorance to licence fee payer's views.
On Monday I noticed in the said article that that the writer states that anyone daring to complain about BBC Three's over inflated graphic is "a geek who should get a life".
The article also mentions that anyone who is concerned over this issue could not possibly also be concerned over unrelated subjects such as the terrorism events in London and global poverty. I object and find it highly offensive that the images of Niger and the deaths of 57 people during the London bombings are drawn upon in an effort to poke fun at concerned viewers.
The article deliberately mocks the views of a substantial number of licence fee payers and BBC Three viewers and is a clear violation on the BBC’s own impartiality guidelines.
I think it is time that the BBC remembered just who they are accountable to and that they have no right to upset one viewer let alone the thousands who have taken the time to petition and complain at the latest BBC Three logo.
Yours sincerely
XXXXXXX XXXXXX
"The real test of any organisation is how it deals with complaints from the public." -Michael Grade, BBC Chairman.
http://lyris-lite.net/upload/bbc-complaint.jpg
(Thankyou to Lyris for this)
If you would like to support this cause, then please do so by signing the Home Cinema Choice petition and sending your views to the BBC via their complaints website here.
Some of you may think that aside from the arrogant reporter from the BBC it was a little unjustified to get so upset over something so insignificant as a channel identifier - there are hundreds on digital platforms after all. But you have to remember that the BBC is supposed to stand aside from these broadcasters and set a standard to which other broadcasters should aspire to emulate. Not to mention of course that it is YOUR money that they spend developing these logos only to plaster over the programmes you have paid for.
Why get upset over such a small change?
If you agree with the BBC that channels should be identifiable at every moment during viewing, then all I have to say is what was wrong with the previous logo? It was there if you needed it and it was subtle. That should be the standard. Clearly this latest logo is an attempt to grab even more of the viewers attention, and so detracts from their excuse that the logo is subtle and in an unsensitive place on the screen. What happens next? Will they highlight it in pink like Living TV? Will they make it crawl across the screen like MTV? Will it sparkle like The Hits? How will that sit along with serious drama such as Bodies?
What can be done?
The BBC are owned by us - the licence fee is the reason they exist. They are there to serve us and are accountable to us. However few people the latest DOG irritates is still too many, perhaps the BBC should completely ignore minorities all together and only concentrate on pleasing the majority. Well, we have commercial broadcasters to see to that, who provide their mass-market services "free of charge". At the beginning of the digital era, the BBC thought it would be a good idea to brand all of their programming including that on BBC1 and BBC2. Viewers couldn't see the need for this. We have gone 50+ years without the need it, and with the latest technological developments there is no need for individual channels to place any such information on screen as it is available freely and by choice from the digital EPG. If we can convince the BBC to remove these logos from 1 & 2, we can do it for 3 & 4.
Still not convinced?
the following are images taken from tonights Little Britain.
http://www.gh-uk.com/BBCThree.JPG
http://www.gh-uk.com/BBCThree2.JPG
http://www.gh-uk.com/BBCThree3.JPG
If you've got this far, thankyou for reading. And feel free to post this message on any forums you visit where you think the readers may be interested.
I am writing to relay my utter disgust at the actions of the BBC and in particular one of their reporters who wrote an article on the BBC Three website entitled "Beware of the Dog" on Monday August 8th 2005.
The channel recently launched a new channel identifier (commonly known as a DOG) which to viewers’ dismay was larger, more graphical and bolder than before.
I was particularly annoyed considering I had already complained about the BBC's use of DOG's on their digital channels on a number of occasions. I felt as if this was a slap in the face to anyone who was concerned about their BBC programmes being defaced by channel identifiers.
I wrote a highly detailed complaint to the BBC to which I received a copy-and-paste reply explaining why the BBC feel that I need to be reminded permanently throughout my viewing that I am watching one of their channels and that the BBC do it because ‘everyone else is’.
I was happy to learn that I was not alone and that hundreds of other viewers had gathered on many discussion forums including the BBC's own Points of View website to unite in their frustration at the BBC's complete ignorance to licence fee payer's views.
On Monday I noticed in the said article that that the writer states that anyone daring to complain about BBC Three's over inflated graphic is "a geek who should get a life".
The article also mentions that anyone who is concerned over this issue could not possibly also be concerned over unrelated subjects such as the terrorism events in London and global poverty. I object and find it highly offensive that the images of Niger and the deaths of 57 people during the London bombings are drawn upon in an effort to poke fun at concerned viewers.
The article deliberately mocks the views of a substantial number of licence fee payers and BBC Three viewers and is a clear violation on the BBC’s own impartiality guidelines.
I think it is time that the BBC remembered just who they are accountable to and that they have no right to upset one viewer let alone the thousands who have taken the time to petition and complain at the latest BBC Three logo.
Yours sincerely
XXXXXXX XXXXXX
"The real test of any organisation is how it deals with complaints from the public." -Michael Grade, BBC Chairman.
http://lyris-lite.net/upload/bbc-complaint.jpg
(Thankyou to Lyris for this)
If you would like to support this cause, then please do so by signing the Home Cinema Choice petition and sending your views to the BBC via their complaints website here.
Some of you may think that aside from the arrogant reporter from the BBC it was a little unjustified to get so upset over something so insignificant as a channel identifier - there are hundreds on digital platforms after all. But you have to remember that the BBC is supposed to stand aside from these broadcasters and set a standard to which other broadcasters should aspire to emulate. Not to mention of course that it is YOUR money that they spend developing these logos only to plaster over the programmes you have paid for.
Why get upset over such a small change?
If you agree with the BBC that channels should be identifiable at every moment during viewing, then all I have to say is what was wrong with the previous logo? It was there if you needed it and it was subtle. That should be the standard. Clearly this latest logo is an attempt to grab even more of the viewers attention, and so detracts from their excuse that the logo is subtle and in an unsensitive place on the screen. What happens next? Will they highlight it in pink like Living TV? Will they make it crawl across the screen like MTV? Will it sparkle like The Hits? How will that sit along with serious drama such as Bodies?
What can be done?
The BBC are owned by us - the licence fee is the reason they exist. They are there to serve us and are accountable to us. However few people the latest DOG irritates is still too many, perhaps the BBC should completely ignore minorities all together and only concentrate on pleasing the majority. Well, we have commercial broadcasters to see to that, who provide their mass-market services "free of charge". At the beginning of the digital era, the BBC thought it would be a good idea to brand all of their programming including that on BBC1 and BBC2. Viewers couldn't see the need for this. We have gone 50+ years without the need it, and with the latest technological developments there is no need for individual channels to place any such information on screen as it is available freely and by choice from the digital EPG. If we can convince the BBC to remove these logos from 1 & 2, we can do it for 3 & 4.
Still not convinced?
the following are images taken from tonights Little Britain.
http://www.gh-uk.com/BBCThree.JPG
http://www.gh-uk.com/BBCThree2.JPG
http://www.gh-uk.com/BBCThree3.JPG
If you've got this far, thankyou for reading. And feel free to post this message on any forums you visit where you think the readers may be interested.