Carlton should've lost the london weekday license to Thames and should've won the Channel 5 contract. At least then the category of 'downmarket shite' would be confined to that shitshow of a broadcaster and itv could have retained something resembling quality!

@@whatamalike We all know why Thames lost. They had caused problems with the Thatcher government over their documentary "Death On The Rock".

@@johnking5174pretty much. The broadcasting act 1990 would've gone ahead anyway but seeing as Thames lost on the exact same criteria where Granada won, I think that says it all

@@whatamalike The broadcasting act was in response to what Thames Television produced "Death on the Rock". Thatcher became very vindictive. However she did not bank on the fact the ITV franchise which had ass kissed her since 1984 TV-am would lose out. So an own goal there for her.

@@johnking5174 haha yes! When you live and die by the hardline capitalist sword, expect consequences. At least Thatcher lived by that to the letter, not like the current tories who fix everything in their favour

Just European owners ? What about Australian and US owners ?

@@muk8804 Yes, even them(If you're referring to Rupert Murdoch, We in Australia disowned *it* long ago).

Also Carlton.

We hate the ITC for picking Carlton instead of Thames.

Especially Thames.

TV-am were victims of their own arrogance - given that ownership was in bed with the unions hating ex-PM Thatcher, which the Broadcasting Act of 1990 was passed under her reign, and the belief that the breakfast license would be theirs by default. But what did not know was that there was the chance the ITC to pick someone else. And by taking their license for granted, while ignoring the possibilty that the competition could raise the bet, TV-am lost. The argument that Thames got shafted, because they've exposed the government in Death at the rock docimentary, is there, but for some losing the franchise was a karma for their treatment of Benny Hill (before all the allegations) and their poaching of Dallas away from the BBC (and thus breaking a 'gentleman's agreement' with The Corporation and later the IBA forcing Thames to sell the rights back to BBC at a loss). And LWT may've played a hand in their demise (considering that Thames was lurking like a blood sniffing shark in case LWT went tits up in its early days). TVS on the other hand had their fingers in an asset they didn't need in MTM and put their ability to produce quality programming into question. The only real victim from the franchise round IMO was TSW.

Being born in 1987, my memories of Britain before 1993 are limited but as much as I love Disney and GMTV’s Disney offering was generous (no shit, they were part-owned by them!), I still think that Broadcast Act was a dick move and TVAM, TVS, TSW, Thames and Oracle did NOT deserve to lose their franchises! A good lot of what I know about ITV pre-2003 now is thanks to KZfaq series ITV In The Face! Oracle I first came across in 2007!

​What?

Yorkshire Television studios now produce virtually nothing except for Emmerdale and Calendar News, and that is it in 2020. Their main television studios do nothing else for ITV.

@@johnking5174 it's a shame; as Yorkshire were a major force of ITV since it's formation in 1968 & produced many popular shows for both ITV and Channel 4.

Did they just not see sky coming even tho they bought the football rights by then?

Yes, agreed. I recognised that logo! Now, off to listen to some Jimmy Smith...

Peter was involved with launching the original TV-am. However by March 17th 1983 he was kicked out in a boardroom coup, due to a disaster in the ratings and a financial collapse of the company.

@@johnking5174 Yes indeed hence my original comment

@@johnking5174 because of his failure along with david frost and anna ford, we ended up with Roland rat.

@@jimbo6059 Yes, some people might not understand whether that was a good thing or a bad thing

@@jimbo6059But Roland Rat was better entertainment than the so called famous five

And do you remember the disaster of the Channel 3 rebrand in Yorkshire and Tyne Tees in 1996? Utter shite. Thankfully when Granada purchased the company in 1997 they consigned that hideous ident to the dustbin.

And everyone at the BBC sat back and enjoyed watching their biggest competitor destroy themselves.

@@johnking5174 Indeed! But surely they saw the threat of what cable TV had done in the States and thought they were all untouchable. And then lost the football to Sky and then everything else.

@@robertcomer2767 If you do look at it though, it was really only in 1998 with the launch of digital TV when things started to really squeeze BBC and ITV. For nearly all of the decade of the 1990s the regular four channels still had it all to themselves. People looked at satellite and cable as expensive toys. However once digital arrived, with digital TV receive available through satellite, cable and then your own aerial, this was when the real competition started.

@@johnking5174 But was ITV really commercial television compared to the USA and Australia with all the restrictions placed on such as adult learning, religion on a Sunday until 7.15. It should never have been the BBC with adverts

@@robertcomer2767 Hi again. You are right there, the original ITV system was actually a compromise. Many in parliament in 1954 when commercial television was being debated did not want it, including many in the conservative party who were in power at the time. Sir Winston Churchill the Prime Minister who was no supporter of the BBC felt the BBC was complacent and it should have a commercial rival. However his own backbenchers threatened to rebel if they did not get a watered down version of commercial TV, so he had to back down. Unlike American TV, programming could not be sponsored. Unlike American TV, there were severe limits on the number of minutes for commercials per hour, set at a stingy 7 minutes per hour of broadcasting. Then added to that all other broadcasting hours restrictions did cause problems. The reason why ITV was forced to obey the broadcasting hours limits was the stupid belief that if a fully independent TV service was let loose, it would trample all over the BBC and become a monopoly of commercial TV. "Every hour on air makes ITV cash, every hour BBC on air forces the BBC to spend cash" was the thinking.