quote:

Originally posted by Paula C4:
We are very open to ideas for how the TV Show could be made bette

First of all, extend the slot to at least 45 minutes, and give it more prominence.

Then dedicate half of the show to a small panel of TV critics from various parts of the media to discuss all aspects of TV shows from C4, E4 and all the other main channels.

That's a starter for you. This show could be so good!!

What about a debate about building windturbines everywhere,and sticking solar panels on every builing.Let's not pretend that we're not trashing the planet.Let's not pretend,and let's not let our indulgent pretenceswreckfutures.So what if nobody else does it.So bloody what.At least we'll not live and die

quote:

Originally posted by abacus:
What about a debate about building windturbines everywhere,and sticking solar panels on every builing.Let's not pretend that we're not trashing the planet.Let's not pretend,and let's not let our indulgent pretenceswreckfutures.So what if nobody else does it.So bloody what.At least we'll not live and die

censored.I'll not be posting on cha4 com again

I want a debate on why the C4 BB forum is still as slow as a wet weekend in millport! and why RBB and all asked US in the forum what we wanted in BB9 and then went and did the opposite???

What would you like to see debated?

Should politicians be allowed to put all of their environmental eggs in the climate basket or should they be forced to tackle provable man made problems such as uncontrolled population explosion, the never ending search to increase consumption through market forces and the rape of planetary resources?

Hollyoaks/ the Heinz ad

quote:

Originally posted by Paula C4:
We are very open to ideas for how the TV Show could be made better - if Greying Blonde or Tempest #12 (or any other forumers!) have any specific ideas, please post them here and I will discuss them with the commissioning editor

Paula

I always thought Right to Reply was very good. In the early days that programme really made Channel 4 seem like it was different from the other channels in that it took its audience seriously. If you compare it to the BBC's Points of View, which seemed to only exist sometimes in order to ridicule its viewers views, or to brush them aside, Right to Reply gave viewers the time and space to express themselves eloquently.

But Channel 4 has obviously changed. Last Saturday's edition of the TV Show was the first time I'd seen it - I taped it because it was broadcast in at a time when I don't usually watch TV, so perhaps one change would be to move it or its replacement to a more watchable slot. It was really terrible though, so I think rather than moving it you should be thinking about replacing it. It was just chaos. All those people on there and none of them able to express themselves in any more than a few seconds of soundbite, many getting no say at all. So why have them on there?

Taking The Great Global Warming Swindle as an example, imagine how Right to Reply would have dealt with it. They would have selected one viewer, someone who was knowledgable about the subject and who could express themselves well, face to face with either the programme maker or commissioning editor in a studio discussion. And the viewer would have the last word.

The TV Show appears to just pay lip service to the idea of giving viewers a say. Rather than respecting them it seems to use them as fodder. By squeezing 40 people with something to say into that studio all you're ever going to get is shouted cliches. Even though the people there may have valid points to make, in that format you're not going to hear them. That's no way to treat your viewers, and then to put the Channel 4 commissioning editor up on a pedestal (effectively) just makes it worse. It was a complete humiliation for everyone involved.

Before it can improve or replace the TV Show Channel 4 needs to radically change its attitude to its viewers.

Can you give Luke a political-style grilling over his behaviour in and out of the BB house?

Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Kirsty:
Hollyoaks/ the Heinz ad

i think it was very homophobic for that ad to be withdrawn

That was a more civilised move than your sig.

quote:

Originally posted by PinkGooner:
I think it would be a very good idea to bring up the definition of Zero Tolerance as the programme has far from lived up to any definition of the phrase I have ever come across.

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:

quote:

Originally posted by Paula C4:
We are very open to ideas for how the TV Show could be made better - if Greying Blonde or Tempest #12 (or any other forumers!) have any specific ideas, please post them here and I will discuss them with the commissioning editor

Paula

I always thought Right to Reply was very good. In the early days that programme really made Channel 4 seem like it was different from the other channels in that it took its audience seriously. If you compare it to the BBC's Points of View, which seemed to only exist sometimes in order to ridicule its viewers views, or to brush them aside, Right to Reply gave viewers the time and space to express themselves eloquently.

But Channel 4 has obviously changed. Last Saturday's edition of the TV Show was the first time I'd seen it - I taped it because it was broadcast in at a time when I don't usually watch TV, so perhaps one change would be to move it or its replacement to a more watchable slot. It was really terrible though, so I think rather than moving it you should be thinking about replacing it. It was just chaos. All those people on there and none of them able to express themselves in any more than a few seconds of soundbite, many getting no say at all. So why have them on there?

Taking The Great Global Warming Swindle as an example, imagine how Right to Reply would have dealt with it. They would have selected one viewer, someone who was knowledgable about the subject and who could express themselves well, face to face with either the programme maker or commissioning editor in a studio discussion. And the viewer would have the last word.

The TV Show appears to just pay lip service to the idea of giving viewers a say. Rather than respecting them it seems to use them as fodder. By squeezing 40 people with something to say into that studio all you're ever going to get is shouted cliches. Even though the people there may have valid points to make, in that format you're not going to hear them. That's no way to treat your viewers, and then to put the Channel 4 commissioning editor up on a pedestal (effectively) just makes it worse. It was a complete humiliation for everyone involved.

Before it can improve or replace the TV Show Channel 4 needs to radically change its attitude to its viewers.

You raise some very interesting and valid points. As we only have half an hour for the programme, it can sometimes feel like the debate has only just got going when we have to cut to the next topic or end the show. I agree with you that if we can find a really knowledgeable and articulate viewer, we should give them the opportunity to quiz the programme make or commissioning editor in the studio. We do try very hard to find them, scouring all the comments sent to Channel 4 and looking here on the forums. There are often promising looking comments sent in, but when we contact the viewers who have sent them in, they often do not always want to express those views on television, or travel to London if they don't live near the studio.

We have now got a TV Show van that travels around the country to try and include viewers from other parts of the country and we set up for a day in a different location each month, which is posted on the web site, to allow anyone to come and record their views direct to camera. We use these on the show, and also, from next month, will be posting them on the web site.

The biggest difference to the tv world since the days of Right to Reply is the phenomenal growth of the internet, and we have been giving a lot of thought to how we can use the TV Show web site to complement the monthly TV programme. We have invested in making the site video friendly, so we can now post the videos from the van as well as additional comments made by the audience members from the show who might not have had a chance to express them live on air. The next development will be to allow viewers to post their own videos on the site, which other people can comment on, and we can ask commissioning editors and programme makers to reply to in the weeks in between the show.

I also agree with you that Channel 4, like all broadcasters, needs to change its attitude to viewers, but I think that that process is well underway here and considerable progress has been made, including my appointment as Viewers’ Editor and the considerable investment in the TV Show on air and on line. My job is to make sure that everyone within the Channel is aware of what viewers are saying and feeling in response to the programmes we broadcast, whether the reaction is complimentary or critical, and to help Commissioning Editors, schedulers and programme makers to respond to any criticism. I may not always have the most welcomed story to tell, but I do make sure that the audience reaction is understood.

quote:

Originally posted by Paula C4:

As we only have half an hour for the programme, it can sometimes feel like the debate has only just got going when we have to cut to the next topic or end the show. I agree with you that if we can find a really knowledgeable and articulate viewer, we should give them the opportunity to quiz the programme make or commissioning editor in the studio. We do try very hard to find them, scouring all the comments sent to Channel 4 and looking here on the forums. There are often promising looking comments sent in, but when we contact the viewers who have sent them in, they often do not always want to express those views on television, or travel to London if they don't live near the studio.

Thanks for the reply, Paula.

I was one of the people contacted about appearing on the Great Global Warming Swindle TV Show, though never having seen the show I had reservations and wanted to ask some questions. I spoke to someone from Princess Productions and asked what the setup would be, who would be on the show, what the balance of opinions might be, how people were to be selected etc., and Princess Productions asked me a few questions, then my mobile cut out and I didn't call back, deciding from what I'd heard that it wasn't the kind of show I wanted to be on. This was just a few days before the Saturday it was due to be broadcast and it all sounded a bit chaotic. Apparently one of the panellists was not yet confirmed, and then hearing that the programme was only half an hour - I had imagined it would be an hour - and that that half hour was to be divided in two, and that I would just be one person among 40, all wanting to have their say...

Well, watching the programme confirmed my worst fears and I'm so relieved I didn't agree to do it (assuming they wanted me, which they may not have). I wouldn't object to appearing on TV and I live in London and own a bike so travel to the studio would have been no problem, but having seen the TV Show there is no way I would agree to appear on it as part of the audience. When you have 40 people on the show, all wanting to have their say, of course it's going to be chaos, and not a good chaos, and for some participants I would imagine quite a frustrating or even humiliating chaos.

And then, by contrast, you have the panellist, a programme maker or commissioning editor, sitting separately, effectively on a pedestal, and given far more air time than anyone in the audience. The egalitarianism of Right to Reply was far better, and more in tune with the ethos of the internet I think.

quote:

The biggest difference to the tv world since the days of Right to Reply is the phenomenal growth of the internet, and we have been giving a lot of thought to how we can use the TV Show web site to complement the monthly TV programme. We have invested in making the site video friendly, so we can now post the videos from the van as well as additional comments made by the audience members from the show who might not have had a chance to express them live on air. The next development will be to allow viewers to post their own videos on the site, which other people can comment on, and we can ask commissioning editors and programme makers to reply to in the weeks in between the show.

I don't see why the internet makes the format of Right to Reply outdated, if that's what you're suggesting. The internet means (most) people don't have to go into video boxes these days, so you ought to have a far greater number of contributions to choose from, though that would mean you'd need to employ more researchers to go through them. I think an important difference between TV and the internet is filtering. If I want to watch some conspiracy theorist nutter spouting off about something or other then the internet's full of them, but when I watch TV I expect someone to have filtered out the dross.

That was my problem with the Great Global Warming Swindle, by the way. Channel 4 should check the veracity of claims being made in documentaries that it broadcasts, particularly if it wants its programmes to carry a tad more credibility than a home made video put up on YouTube or a blog.

It's a mistake for a TV station to try to do things that the internet does better. TV should concentrate on the things that TV does best. A broad range of views from every imaginable perspective is available on the net, but most of those views are either poorly expressed and/or not worth listening to. Finding the voices that are worth hearing and worth putting on TV takes a bit of time, and therefore money.

Should a show that uses animals have a duty of care to those animals.

I think in particular of the fish put into the BB house

"what do you make of this year's 'zero tolerance' policy?"

I'll get back to you when I see some evidence that they have one..

"Heinz has withdrawn its Deli Mayo TV advert that featured two men sharing a kiss and apologised to viewers after the advertising regulator received about 200 complaints."

Bad bad Heinz.
I haven't seen the ad I assume it was done in the best possible taste.
But I find the idea that 200 people can affect how we view what I consider perfectly acceptable behaviour.
Deplorable.
Considering the far more outragouos use of sexuality in ads.
Let me get this straight if I can get 200 friends to complain about every scantily clad male or female used in an ad I can get it pulled?
Whoopy du better start issuing Burkhas.

quote:

Originally posted by The TV Show:
The TV Show - what would you like to see debated this weekend?

How about a full 30 minutes on Channel 4 bias?

quote:

Originally posted by Raver Ron:

quote:

Originally posted by The TV Show:
The TV Show - what would you like to see debated this weekend?

How about a full 30 minutes on Channel 4 bias?

Or how about a debate on how rubbish C4 is these days.

How about debating the fine that Channel 4 will get from Ofcom for stating categorically that no ex housemate would go back in the house after being evicted. We have already had Mario back in and there are strong rumours that Luke and Rebecca are going back in too.

I paid money to evict them, as far as I am concerned it is unethical for Channel 4 to now put them back in and I will be complaining to Ofcom if Luke and Rebecca go back into the house

has to be about the knifes,as this is out of control,or people in hostpial who are starving( in the uk)old people who will freeze this winter because they cannot afford the heating.or mp's who live of the backs of the tax payer,or the fact that usa gave house loans to poor people and we are paying with the credit crunch and big drops in house prices,and finaly kat in bb the biggest baby at 33yrs old.

Dear TV shows
Think the casting this year for BB ensured conflict with regards to culture,disability and class and that putting all people toegther with different backgrounds and agendas actually was more car crash and uncomfortable viewing than entertainment.
Luckily tasks were fun and slightly bonding at times otherwise the lack of bonding and fun made this the most depressing BB so far,,,and now actually dont care who wins when always been a big time fan....

Will BB select better next year or was this the death knell as they were near to removing all those bullying as zero tolerance bar had to be raised...