Can the BBC survive?

January 29, 2009 6:27 AM

A biased shadow of its former self, a waste of money dominated by champagne socialists, a victim of media fragmentation, a political pawn or still the trusted heart of the UK's (and, arguably, the world's) broadcasting world? As scandal after scandal threatens to undermine confidence in the BBC and the voices calling for the dissolution of the licence fee gain a more cohesive platform, can the BBC survive, - is it the solution or the problem, and can the British public really afford to let it die the death of a thousand cuts? On the day after the BBC announces it will put every UK publically owned oil painting online and the Director General talks about the BBC's "special responsibility" to culture in the UK, what should the role of the BBC be and, perhaps more importantly, what should it cost?
posted by MuffinMan (50 comments total)

I thought you meant they were selling all the oil paintings the BBC owned to raise money, but after clicking the link I see they are putting the images online.

I've known a few people that had BBC tv, and hated the license fee, thought they were biased, etc.

But as a US citizen I've always enjoyed reading their website and listening to the radio programs to gain perspective. Sure, might have bias, but to pretend any news organization lacks bias is being simplistic.

I don't quite understand how it all fits together (the mix of public and private), but I like a lot of the topics that seem to get covered on the BBC (sexuality and health), and some of the shows used to make American shows seem prudish.

I've had it explained to me that some of the things I attribute to the BBC tv have nothing to do with other aspects of UK tv, but it's a bit hard for me to care about the inter-workings of broadcast in another country.

My personal prediction is you see the BBC survive, but like any other media company there will be some changes. Any further predictions wold be wild (and in my case mostly uninformed) speculation.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:59 AM on January 29

wild (and in my case mostly uninformed) speculation
Always willing to oblige! Some modest proposals:

• Subvent a sum equivalent to that generated by the license fee to the BBC, via some trust if that would create worries about political pressures, but taken via income tax.
• Ban all graduates of Oxford and Cambridge from appearing in comedy programming absent papal dispensation (Stephen Fry is a polymath; he'll survive) and limit the number of public school kids working at the corporation to a proportion of staff equivalent to their prevalence in the general population.
• Fine of £500 or twenty lashes for any letter-writer of "why-oh-why" jeremiad on the BBC to any paper with a circulation larger than the Romford Advertiser.
• Have MI6 assassinate Rupert Murdoch and all his kin to the ninth degree of consanguinity.

posted by Abiezer at 7:00 AM on January 29 [5 favorites has favorites]

The best cure for what ails the beeb, is for the British people to elect who runs it.

It would be trivial to arrange this via a website.

One vote per TV license owner.

It was brilliant when David Attenborough ran it.
posted by dollyknot at 7:09 AM on January 29

As another liberal Yank, I appreciate the Beeb. But then I'm only suckling at the teet that was fed by (unappreciative) Brits. Could non-brits offer to supply additional funds? Sure, by taxing all Brits, the income flow is known and fairly stable, but the international community that enjoys the BBC's creations could bring together a good sum.

In regards to Abiezer's 4th point - shouldn't that jerk be keeling over any time now? The World After Murdoch will be interesting.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:10 AM on January 29

Everything the BBC does nowadays is construed as some massive "scandal", spearheaded by the rest of the press, which undoubtedly would profit from its collapse. The latest "controversy" - the refusal to broadcast a Gaza appeal - is consistant with its principles, yet it still gets derided. If it had broadcast the appeal, I imagine there would still have been a furore. It can't win for losing, and one digital television rolls out nationwide and they start switching off the signal to licence fee evaders, it will be the beginning of the end. Maybe they won't do that, but something tells me they will, and it will consitute a great loss indeed - albeit an inevitable one.
posted by Acey at 7:12 AM on January 29 [4 favorites has favorites]

I'm not sure about any answers to the questions above, but I do know that I am addicted to the parsimoniously-doled 30-minute BBC World News broadcasts on public television in the States (which come on at odd time slots in different parts of the country) and don't know what I would do without them -- and being consigned to watching local network affiliate news broadcasts that boast about the fact that they "cover the world in 30 seconds" (i.e., spend 30 seconds out of 22 minutes on so-called "world news").
posted by blucevalo at 7:14 AM on January 29

"what should the role of the BBC be and, perhaps more importantly, what should it cost? "

its current one
about the same


The BBC is safe.
posted by fullerine at 7:17 AM on January 29 [4 favorites has favorites]

"London is in our database. Evaders will pay".
"It's all in the database" -- TV Licensing

And:

There's nowhere to hide.

And:

Our database is notified when a new TV is purchased.

And:

We have a list of every unlicensed address.

And:

Don't Forget! To watch TV online you still need a license!

And:

TV Detector Van

And Finally:

Warrant to Enter and Search Premises and test any TV found.
posted by vacapinta at 7:17 AM on January 29 [1 favorite has favorites]

I was pretty low-level at the BBC, but I was there for Mark Grade's first steps when he came on to the organization. I think there is a managerial tendency at the BBC to think: "We need to continue competing against commercial television." But, BBC has won that battle. Even though they have done it at considerable costs: not least of which is allowing Sky Sports to take the Ashes from C4 and put it on cable television.

But, the BBC's real competition has not come from the other terrestrial broadcasters for years. The real competition in Britain is ultra-local radio. RSLs, hospital radio, ethnic stations, local strata music stations are all the real bug-bears that the BBC needs to confess it cannot beat. The BBC is to much run top-down to admit they cannot or will not hear from people who listen to Ed Doolan for three hours on BBC WM or who call-in to talk on New Style Radio FM (Brummie for life,yall!) but only tune into BBC One to watch Dancing with the Stars and Huw Edwards on the News at Ten. Everything else is an anomaly for this kind of consumer. They will not be watching the Reith Lectures or Business Lunch; daytime soaps are far out of reach. But when it comes to local news and information - and especially local musicians - the BBC's got their heads too far up their ass to see the writing on the wall.

One good answer would be to more strongly devolve local BBC radio stations and to open up part of the airwaves to public access programming, taking part of the Pacifica model to heart. Giving people a pride of place in public services was meant to be at the heart of the BBC ethos. No doubt we are 180 degrees from that now.

Also: a BBC joke: When Lord Reith was still director general of the BBC in its early days, one of the program directors stormed into his office one day and said, "Sir, we just caught one of our radio actresses and one of our technicians having sex on a table in one of the studios!" Lord Reith said, "Then fire the actress!" The manager replied, "Sir, she's our best actress!" Reith then said, "Then fire the technician!" And the manager said, "Sir, he's in charge of all our evening programming getting to air!" So, Lord Reith said, "Burn the table!"
posted by parmanparman at 7:21 AM on January 29 [2 favorites has favorites]

Anyone from the UK who spends their time blowing hot air about the terrible state of the BBC and the monstrous injustice of the license fee should try living outside of the UK for a period of time. Anywhere you like, doesn't matter. I guarantee you'll be happy to pay double to get it back.

Looking forward to the BBC getting it together to provide access to its real programming content outside of the UK in a form that generates revenue. BBC America doesn't count. I want BBC's 1 through howevermanyitisnowadays just like I can have all the radio stations now and I and many others will pay.

Attenbrough and Fry's talks on the future of the BBC last year are excellent starting points for anyone curious about the issues.
posted by merocet at 7:27 AM on January 29 [2 favorites has favorites]

Anyone from the UK who spends their time blowing hot air about the terrible state of the BBC and the monstrous injustice of the license fee should try living outside of the UK for a period of time. Anywhere you like, doesn't matter. I guarantee you'll be happy to pay double to get it back.

As an American expat in the UK, I just believe there has to be a better way than instituting a campaign of terror (see my links above) against your own citizens.
posted by vacapinta at 7:30 AM on January 29 [2 favorites has favorites]

# Have MI6 assassinate Rupert Murdoch and all his kin to the ninth degree of consanguinity.

Everyone on earth is only seven degrees of separation away from each other.
posted by delmoi at 7:30 AM on January 29

Vacapinta: I don't think anyone is genuinely "terrorised". To my understanding, there is a hard core of people who don't pay the licence fee who overlap fairly squarely with the same people who don't buy car insurance, don't pay road tax, don't admit when they are earning money while claiming benefits.

Most of the government campaigns of this type have a similar message, and are seemingly punitive because the rate of detection/conviction is low. Although in reality the fines for non-compliance aren't typically that high (partly because they are typically means-tested) relative to the potential savings.

That said, TV licensing does come across as pretty heavy-handed towards people who don't own TVs but still get hassled for payment.
posted by MuffinMan at 7:50 AM on January 29

What the BBC needs is an Obama like resistance to responding hastily to bullshit inflated scandals.
posted by Artw at 7:55 AM on January 29 [2 favorites has favorites]

Parmanparman: do you mean Michael Grade or Mark Thompson?
Please don't tell me there is some bastard hybrid of the two stalking Medialand.

In Scotland, we have had to endure the disastrous Newsnight Scotland instead of the proper Newsnight (the flagship highbrow news programme at 1030pm on BBC2) because some egotistical fucks at BBC Scotland wanted a Scottish variant investigating Scottish issues. The result is that whilst people in the rest of the UK are watching in-depth reports about Darfur (or wherever) that you quite literally may not see anywhere else on tv as no one else has either the remit, inclination or money to do such things, for the last half hour of the show we had to put up with tedious debates from two-bit politicians in the Scottish Parliament. But thankfully, we can watch the original version on the iPlayer now. In my experience it was kind of disintegrating in recent years but technology such as the iPlayer is pulling it back into relevance again as people know that they can get the programmes they want to watch whenever and wherever.

vacapinta- I don't think those posters constitute a campaign of terror- they are like water off a duck's back to most people and laughed off as such. It used to be hilarious years ago when you saw the tv detector van with it's spinning aerials on the roof (think of a CIA surveillance van from the movies though instead of it being black and foreboding it was beige and a Ford transit van) and us schoolkids wondering what signals the vans were picking up and how and who might get caught. Nowadays, the tedious 'we have a database' adverts are much tamer by comparison. Also, as MuffinMan says, they are principally aimed at a small hardcore of people that might nick red diesel, claim benefits fraudulently, etc.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 8:06 AM on January 29

Echoing some of the other comments in that I would gladly pay a license fee if that meant I could get access to all of the online content from the US.

Alternately, I would add a package to my cable box with a live (non-timeshifted) BBC 1-4 in a heartbeat, and be willing to pay a pretty penny (or pence, I suppose) for it. BBC America is crap.
posted by Remy at 8:11 AM on January 29 [2 favorites has favorites]

Let me add, on a more positive note, that since moving to the UK I don't know how I lived my life before BBC Radio 4.
posted by vacapinta at 8:15 AM on January 29

vacapinta Radio 4 is wonderful. The Sunday afternoon play is perfect to sooth a hangover. Tried BBC4 yet? Worth the licence fee all by itself.
posted by fatfrank at 8:29 AM on January 29

BBC Radio 6 is worth a listen as well.
posted by Artw at 8:30 AM on January 29

The best cure for what ails the beeb, is for the British people to elect who runs it.
It would be trivial to arrange this via a website.

Trivial, aye, but going by Have Your Say we'd end up with Jim Davidson as director general and Mugabe as Chairman.

As an American expat in the UK, I just believe there has to be a better way than instituting a campaign of terror (see my links above) against your own citizens.

We'll wait for one to actually come along, then, and until it does we'll thank our yellow-toothed stars that we don't have market-tastic US TV. (While buying in the best it has to offer)
posted by bonaldi at 8:32 AM on January 29

While buying in the best it has to offer

Heh. Have you tried watching American TV shows in America? American TV is unwatchable without DVR.
posted by Artw at 8:39 AM on January 29

Subvent a sum equivalent to that generated by the license fee to the BBC, via some trust if that would create worries about political pressures, but taken via income tax.

Yes please. For bonus points, the tvlicensing.co.uk site should remain up, but the content should be replaced with a slideshow containing photos of dejected-looking TV Licensing staff carrying their personal items out of the building in cardboard boxes.
posted by tomcooke at 8:41 AM on January 29

I normally like to be more reasoned but do. not. mess. with. my. cherished. B.B.C.
Myself and my tea-drinking Radio 4 listening, BBC watching bretheren will rise in an orgy of letter writing and tsking like you have never seen and slowly gnaw on you until you give up and leave.

The BBC is one of the best things about being British. Also, if you are just an insanely cheap person who won't support it, you can still listen/watch the TV shows online. So what do you want here?

Also, vacapinta, how did the flickr title "Don't forget, to watch TV online as it's being broadcast, you still need a TV licence" become "Don't Forget! To watch TV online you still need a license!" I assume this is not an intentional misstatement, but given that the programs are accessible online for 7 days after broadcast without a requirement for a licence it is quite a fundamental difference and thus quite misleading of you to change it.
posted by jaduncan at 8:53 AM on January 29 [1 favorite has favorites]

Brit Question. If you Don't Own A TV, is it practical to not pay the license fee or will they just generally hassle you and threaten you so that it's easier to pay anyway?
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 8:54 AM on January 29

I was very surprised the BBC got F1 back. That seems like a very unwise use of the license fees.
posted by smackfu at 8:55 AM on January 29

Anyone from the UK who spends their time blowing hot air about the terrible state of the BBC and the monstrous injustice of the license fee should try living outside of the UK for a period of time.

I have lived in the UK and outside. No doubt the BBC is a convenient whipping boy for the tabloids, but the license fee is an absurd holdover from the 1950s, that insulates the BBC from competition and retards the growth of commercial TV in the UK. For an alternative, I present to you the Australian model: the ABC and SBS, two of the finest television services in the world, both run on shoestring budgets.

As an American expat in the UK, I just believe there has to be a better way than instituting a campaign of terror (see my links above) against your own citizens.

While "terror" may be too strong a word, the TV license does carry a strong whiff of bureaucratic authoritarianism about it. When I moved house a few years ago, I subsequently received several letters threatening legal action despite having informed the license authorities of my move. Of course, at my new address I got several letters for the previous occupants, with similar threats. Some friends who didn't own a TV would wearily recount the regular visits from TV licensing:

"We're noticed you don't have a TV license!"
"Yes. We don't have a TV."
"Sure. But you know, it's the law. You have to have a license."
"Yes, but we don't have a TV."
"OK. But really, you need a license for your TV."
"Seriously, we don't have a TV."
"I understand. Now if you pay your license now, we won't take you to court ..."

And this is par for course. Google for people's experiences - they're like something out of Brazil. What sense can be made of an organization that gives a discount on the TV license fee to the blind, with a further discount if their TV is only black-and-white?

The biggest problem is it just seems so unnecessary. Do we really need a dedicated set of enforcers for TV licenses? Do we really to collect the budget for the BBC in such a laborious and arcane way? Does the BBC really need 4 billion pounds a year? Does the BBC really need to compete with commercial channels? Does there really need to be a single monolithic entity in charge of public culture and information? Does the BBC really need several nation-wide networks of television and radio, in different niches (e.g. youth, Asian community), AM and FM, its own jazz, classical and sport and music channels, its own orchestras and choirs?

Is all this necessary?
posted by outlier at 9:04 AM on January 29 [1 favorite has favorites]

Also, vacapinta, how did the flickr title "Don't forget, to watch TV online as it's being broadcast, you still need a TV licence" become "Don't Forget! To watch TV online you still need a license!" I assume this is not an intentional misstatement, but given that the programs are accessible online for 7 days after broadcast without a requirement for a licence it is quite a fundamental difference and thus quite misleading of you to change it.

Agreed. An unintentional mistake and an important distinction.
posted by vacapinta at 9:04 AM on January 29

I'm sure I've said this here before, but anyway: having lived abroad a while, the other thing you could make a case for is funding the BBC, or at least the World Service, entirely out of the Foreign Office budget. Because in no other way, shape or form could you buy such good publicity for the UK, with the associations it brings internationally with fairness, high-mindedness and reliability or what have you. Cheap at twice the price.
posted by Abiezer at 9:12 AM on January 29

Mark Thompson! good correction, ClanvidHorse.
posted by parmanparman at 9:16 AM on January 29

Last I heard C4 were begging for a slice off the top of the license fee for their 'public remit' ... which unless you're counting Jamie Oliver getting the citizens of Rotherham to cook a few meals I can't really see... it's seems to be wall to wall Big Brother/Gorden Ramsey/Medical Freak Shows. A sad reflection on its formal self.

Although there's a lot of bilge on the BBC it's still the news channel I go to and there's one or two decent programs a week (I think the availability of internet/dvds has permanently broken my watch all night habits)

Oh and I listen to several of the Radio 4 and Radio 5 podcasts... well worth checking out.

Sadly the classic 'They'd never get a detector van up that hill!' isn't on youtube shock! But there's this.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:35 AM on January 29

If you spare the World Service, those of us in the States will gladly drink a heavily taxed Twinings of your choosing. Promise.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 9:41 AM on January 29

Does the BBC really need several nation-wide networks of television and radio, in different niches (e.g. youth, Asian community), AM and FM, its own jazz, classical and sport and music channels, its own orchestras and choirs?

Is all this necessary?

Yes, it bloody well is. It's a national service that caters for all tastes and demographics, rather than just the populist celebrity bullshit that's plastered all over the commercial channels. If a channel is beholden to advertisers, the viewer ratings will reign supreme, so instead of an interesting variety of programming, you get breathless exposés about what size Jordan's breasts are this week, Celebrity Love Island, The X factor, Big Brother etc. etc.

/jumps off high horse
posted by idiomatika at 10:02 AM on January 29 [7 favorites has favorites]

Heh. Have you tried watching American TV shows in America? American TV is unwatchable without DVR.

FTFY.
posted by terranova at 10:04 AM on January 29

Artw: "While buying in the best it has to offer

Heh. Have you tried watching American TV shows in America? American TV is unwatchable without DVR."

Well to be fair, BBC shows in America are unwatchable without a DVR too since they have as many commercials as the local shows do.
posted by octothorpe at 10:10 AM on January 29

Heh. Have you tried watching American TV shows in America? American TV is unwatchable without DVR.

I'll never forget my first taste of american TV as a thirteen year old, visiting in the '70s. The target show was Star Trek, which I was used to being riveted to once a week in a (of course) single contigous episode on BBC-2.
The mess I was exposed to confused the hell out of me, to the extent that I couldn't actually understand what it was that I was watching. I think it involved the end of one of two back-to-back episodes, followed by the beginning of the next, interspersed very frequently with commercial breaks, news segments, announcer voiceovers and previews of the following week's shows. Sound familiar? It was also obvious that nobody else in the house, including US teenagers, was paying the slightest bit of attention, although the TV was always on. Just one of many culture shocks that occured in the space of a few days - and one of the few that made me appreciate home.
posted by duncan42 at 10:17 AM on January 29 [1 favorite has favorites]

As a parent, CBeebies & CBBC are fantastic: ad-free kids TV!

Also, anything written by Andy Hamilton is required listening / watching in this household. Outnumbered is something of a knuckle chewing experience for any parent mind.
posted by pharm at 10:17 AM on January 29

Don't kill the BBC :(

The radio programming is worth it alone...

Plus, if you guys hurt the BBC, then what will happen to my beloved CBC? :(
posted by Khazk at 10:17 AM on January 29

I can't believe that the UK is still on that TV 'licence' model. Surely it would be more efficient if the Beeb was directly funded by government and the licence bureaucracy scrapped? I realize this might make the BBC more susceptible to government pressure, but it's not insurmountable. Here in Canada, the CBC has a budget from the government, yet they still seem to maintain impartiality.

I think a good national broadcaster, like the BBC or CBC, or many other excellent European national broadcasters, is money well spent. Considering the current arterial spray of government money to banks and other corporate welfare cases, I don't want to EVER hear anyone whinge again about the pittance sent to national broadcasters.
posted by Artful Codger at 10:36 AM on January 29

I think the issue around being harassed by TV Licensing is overstated. For the last several years I've had no television and I've received a couple of letters asking me to confirm to them that I don't have a TV; I drop them in the recycling and that's that. I've never had anyone come and doorstep me, which is a shame cos I've always quite wanted to tell them where to go. I really don't think this problem is as serious as some make out.
posted by Lleyam at 10:37 AM on January 29

BBC, yes.

TV licence fee, no.

If US watchers like the BBC so much, please feel free to buy a TV licence. If you don't, likewise feel free to get rid of your tv and still receive threatening letters from them. It's not that some British people hate the BBC, we don't, we just resent being taxed and/or threatened for its existence. Please, just find another way to fund it, and we'll all be happy.

(Disclaimer: I currently have a TV licence, don't use the BBC, and get red letters in the post. And, for the record, I'm not one of those 'people who don't buy car insurance, don't pay road tax, don't admit when they are earning money while claiming benefits'. Some of us just don't like telly, yet also dislike the coercion which accompanies the current funding system.)
posted by Sova at 10:49 AM on January 29

Oh come on, people without TVs LOVE complaining, almost as much as they love telling people they don't have a TV. Those letters are a service.
posted by Artw at 10:51 AM on January 29 [3 favorites has favorites]

You thought American TV was bad? Try Canadian; all the quality programming you're used to south of the border, but a quarter of it quaintly homebrewed, and another quarter in French.

£139.50/year ain't bad for ad-free viewing.
posted by scruss at 11:28 AM on January 29

Yeah, but at least you guys get Hockey Night in Canada. Which is worth it just to see what Don Cherry is wearing that week.

Especially in HD, if you don't mind your eyeballs exploding.

disclaimer: we Merkins do get some HNIC on NHL network. But it's not the same without Crappy Tire ads.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:55 AM on January 29

I've lived in the UK for a couple of years now (previously Australia) and I fail to understand the love/HATE relationship the UK has with the Beeb.

I think there's an argument to be made for the BBC being the single greatest cultural institution in the world. There being no organisation with its global reach or depth, that is. Its competition is the great cultural institutions (Met, Louvre etc. - which lose out on contemporary relevance) and the US TV networks (which lose out on their complete ignorance of a world outside the lower 48).

But yeah, the licence fee model is a bit pants (Pom-speak for "not great").
posted by bright cold day at 2:32 PM on January 29

If anyone wants a clear example of why the license fee isn't such a terrible thing to ask... consider the recent series of Dr Who, or of any recent Attenborough series. Notice that the length is approximately 45 minutes? Those shows are designed with export in mind: export to places where the full hour block of the show will be eaten up with commercial breaks.

If you want 25% of each hour of your television viewing padded with inane and frequent advertising breaks, then abolish the license fee, by all means. If not, well, I don't have a problem with the idea of those who use the service being the ones who pay for it. (disclaimer: I used to subscribe to my local public radio/public television stations when I lived in the US, so the idea of paying for noncommercial television isn't entirely foreign to me).

There's a lot of rubbish on the BBC. It isn't all culture, or even interesting. If I see one more DIY or "move to Oz" or animal hospital show, I'll lose what little is left of my mind. But on the whole, the fact that you can see a show like Attenborough's on prime time, free of adverts, is something that is worth the £10/month or so I fork out in license fees. I spend more on coffee in a week than I do in a month of license fee!

The ECB really tried to keep test cricket on the BBC, mainly because they knew they'd be sacrificing a crucial viewing base. The Sky contract, though lucrative, was really a second choice. Sky seems to be aware that they're being tolerated for the time being, and keep offering advances on the contract and other sweeteners. When the Sky contract is finally up in a couple of years, I have very little doubt that unless Sky comes up with a ludicrously massive wodge, it's back to the BBC for cricket. The highlights show with Geoffrey Boycott just isn't cutting it for fans or for Five.
posted by Grrlscout at 2:56 PM on January 29

Just leave Top Gear alone. That's all I ask. Keep the Top Gear flowing and everyone stays happy, savvy?
posted by 1adam12 at 3:34 PM on January 29 [1 favorite has favorites]

@outlier:
For an alternative, I present to you the Australian model: the ABC and SBS, two of the finest television services in the world, both run on shoestring budgets.

And SBS now has ads. How long before the ABC also goes the same way? I would also argue that the Beeb offers many more services and commissions far more TV shows than both SBS and ABC combined. Hell, if it wasn't for Auntie, the ABC would only broadcast for 6 hours a day (don't get me wrong - ABC and SBS are great IMO)

As for commercial TV in the UK, it's all funded by advertising revenue that ultimately draws on the viewing figures to inform the pricing model. The way that the viewing figures are worked out is just f*cked (start 7:20). Call me an elitest if you like but I want the Beeb protected from the tyranny of the mob - especially if channel controllers cannot even read the mob correctly
posted by JustAsItSounds at 6:03 PM on January 29 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'm sure I've said this here before, but anyway: having lived abroad a while, the other thing you could make a case for is funding the BBC, or at least the World Service, entirely out of the Foreign Office budget.

They already do fund the World Service.
posted by ninebelow at 3:38 AM on January 30

Yeah, but... whoops. Erm, Just goes to show what great ideas I have. I'll slink off now.
posted by Abiezer at 10:58 AM on January 30

You thought American TV was bad? Try Canadian

Hey, they're usually first with Dr. Who. WTF BBC AMERICA WHY ARE YOU SO LAME.
posted by Artw at 10:59 AM on January 30