Should TV companies be forced by law to produce quality programming instead of the rubbish they churn out now?

Question

We are forced by law to pay for a TV License if we own a TV or other equipment capable of receiving a TV transmission.
So shouldn't the TV companies be required to produce something worth watching in return.
After all, the sale of goods act states that products sold must be of saleable quality and fit for the purpose advertised.

Answer 1

There's certainly a load of pap on television nowadays. Reality TV was just about passable when it was fly-on-the-wall treatment of hotel workers, driving instructors, bailiffs, and airport employees, but since when has enclosing a bunch of weirdos in the same house and getting them to do daft tricks, or putting minor celebrities in the jungle and making them eat beetles, or asking tone-deaf no-hopers to undergo a singing audition ever been anyone's idea of "reality"??

We also get a lot of different programmes covering the same tired old ideas - making money from antiques, learning to cook or dance, improving/selling your house, and so on. Until when are we going to accept all this??!!

Is it any wonder we are getting more ignorant and illiterate with this concerted campaign to dumb down?

What ever happened to quality TV plays (common occurrence in the 1960s and 1970s)? The legendary "Cathy Come Home" (1966) was a moving TV play which caused a sea-change in dealing with homelessness, and led to the creation of the charity Shelter. When recently has there been a really moving documentary like "Johnny Go Home" (1970s) which exposed the sexual exploitation of teenage runaways in London?

Current comedy is reasonable, but will Little Britain, Nighty Night, and the Smoking Room be remembered with such fondness thirty years from now, as the Goodies and Monty Python's Flying Circus are? I kind of doubt it.

I think there should be better control of quality - the cost of the TV licence increases, but the quality declines. This is not right.

Answer 2

What you consider rubbish may be great for someone else, and what you consider good is someone elses rubbish. TV can't be right for everyone all the time but with the number of channels now available, for only the cost of the licence fee + a freeview box there is generally something decent on.

If you read the TV licence it doesn't actually guarantee good TV, or even good reception, just that you are allowed to use a TV set

Answer 3

I agree that it would be nice to have something on TV actually worth watching. But I also would have to ask who is setting the standards.

My husband and I receive at least 2 telemarketer calls a day from people claiming to have this wonderful satellite TV system they want to give us so we won't have to pay these horrible cable bills. We laugh: We don't have cable and we don't watch TV.

Answer 4

Channel Five, ITV Network and Eurosport 1&2

Answer 5

Wouldn't that be restricting their creative freedom? Who would determine what was "worth" watching? I know that some things I like, my husband doesn't think are worth watching, and some things that my 16 year old neighbor watches I can't even stand for 5 minutes.

But who would determine? I think this is not a good idea to legislate things like this.

Answer 6

While I agree in principle, enforcement of such a law would obviously be subjective and vulnerable to manipulation by politicians. I must therefore, oppose the motion.

Answer 7

yes . we don't even have a T V in our house because most isn't fit to watch,unless it would be Discovery channel,which we do watch if we stay at a motel some of the stuff that is seen on the computer screens isn't very good at times either.

Answer 8

Many networks go by the Neilsons Rating Sysytem. Whatever is appealing to the public,then that's what's going to be the guidelines for programming.

Answer 9

Says who? You?
Give me a break!
If YOU don't like the programming on TV...if YOU feel it's not quality, then change the channel on YOUR television and/or turn YOUR set off!

Answer 10

i think they should be forced to provide programs of a decent standard , and reality programs are one of the first i would get rid of,along with so called celebs doing whatever,and what about the people like the Hamiltons ? seems you have to have a criminal record to be on t,v , what kind of message does it send out to our kids ?