Prince Philip

[mad-moon]

But it is Marco. Nobody's forcing you to watch a particular set of TV channels or programs, and nobody's forcing you to read the papers, or the news, or the internet for that matter.

I just ignore it and carry on as normal. There's plenty to look at and do without broadcast TV.

this is all true...but lets get back on track...The problem is, that when someone like Philip dies, or is in the news for being naughty, the coverage is just ridiculous...every channel is saturated for days and sometimes weeks...but hey...I do understand that..If you put your mind to it....you can switch it all off...put your tv box on...and watch anything you want...even without those damned adverts which are now lasting in excess of 5 minutes on some channels.....it is utterly ridiculous..

[hifi_dave]

I wonder how much telly he used to watch? Not a lot would be my guess.

I want to know what these cancelled programmes were. I can't recall there being anything worth watching on BBC1 or ITV1 in the last 20 years at least.

Even the coverage of Prince Phil's death has got to be better viewing than 'Inside The Factory', 'The One Show' or 'Countryfile' even if it is presented in the same, moronic, sub-'Blue Peter Special' style.

Spot on. Nothing much worth watching for some time.

[Marco]

But it is Marco. Nobody's forcing you to watch a particular set of TV channels or programs (if they're not showing what you want then go elsewhere), and nobody's forcing you to read the papers, or the news, or the internet for that matter.

Sure, mate, but you're still missing the point. I'm indirectly being forced not to be able to watch the programmes *I want* to watch, when they should've been broadcast, because of something I have little interest in.

And I'm not just ignoring it, because having my choices [with anything, not just TV programmes] dictated to like that is something that greatly irks me. And I prefer much of the broadcast material to most of what is available elsewhere, therefore I won't derive the same enjoyment from watching the latter, as I would the former.

Marco.

[Filterlab]

this is all true...but lets get back on track...The problem is, that when someone like Philip dies, or is in the news for being naughty, the coverage is just ridiculous...every channel is saturated for days and sometimes weeks.

It is, and that's because of the absence of real news. And I agree, it's ridiculous - but then all the news media is these days. Think back a couple of weeks to the woman that was killed. Apparently a 'national outcry' as a white female was killed (leading to the 'all men are evil' reports). On the same day a black female was killed in London and nary a word was said.

It's all ridiculous mate, all of it.

But the media genuinely have very little to write about so they do one of two things; harp on about it until people puke, or make something up and then harp on about it until people puke.

This is the news!

Sure, mate, but you're still missing the point. I'm indirectly being forced not to be able to watch the programmes *I want* to watch, when they should've been broadcast, because of something I have little interest in.

And I'm not just ignoring it, because having my choices [with anything, not just TV programmes] dictated to like that is something that greatly irks me. And I prefer much of the broadcast material to most of what is available elsewhere, therefore I won't derive the same pleasure from watching the latter, as I would the former.

Marco.

Indeed. But 100% of the time you're in the broadcaster's hands as to what they put on and when. This is no different, they're still putting on what they want and when. It's just different from the Radio Times' listing.

[Marco]

this is all true...but lets get back on track...The problem is, that when someone like Philip dies, or is in the news for being naughty, the coverage is just ridiculous...every channel is saturated for days and sometimes weeks...but hey...I do understand that..

I don't (or rather how it's justified), so perhaps you could explain it to me?

Marco.

[mad-moon]

What should happen is, should you want to follow the death of Philip., press the red button on your remote now... and leave what has been broadcast alone. I see Marcos point on this matter..

[Marco]

What should happen is, should you want to follow the death of Philip., press the red button on your remote now... and leave what has been broadcast alone. I see Marcos point on this matter..

Exactly that, yes, or similar, and it could easily be done, and therefore keep everyone happy! So what's their excuse for not doing so?

I feel exactly the same when Trooping of the bloody Colour also dominates, but at least that's over with a damn sight quicker...!

Marco.

[mad-moon]

Originally Posted by mad-moon:
this is all true...but lets get back on track...The problem is, that when someone like Philip dies, or is in the news for being naughty, the coverage is just ridiculous...every channel is saturated for days and sometimes weeks...but hey...I do understand that..

I don't (or rather how it's justified), so perhaps you could explain it to me?

Marco.

You don't understand that you can switch your tv box on and watch what you like????????????????? finish the quote Marco..

I do understand that..If you put your mind to it....you can switch it all off...put your tv box on...and watch anything you want...even without those damned adverts which are now lasting in excess of 5 minutes on some channels.....it is utterly ridiculous..

[Marco]

I thought you were saying you can understand why the coverage is just ridiculous and every channel is saturated for days and sometimes weeks.

If you re-read what you wrote, you'll see that's how it comes across

Marco.

[CageyH]

So not content with mass media coverage, you go and start a thread on it as well?