Titlebook: Independent Television in Britain; ITV and IBA 1981-92: Paul Bonner,Lesley Aston Book 1998 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publ

Awkward

書(shū)目名稱Independent Television in Britain影響因子(影響力)




書(shū)目名稱Independent Television in Britain影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱Independent Television in Britain網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開(kāi)度




書(shū)目名稱Independent Television in Britain網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開(kāi)度學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱Independent Television in Britain被引頻次




書(shū)目名稱Independent Television in Britain被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱Independent Television in Britain年度引用




書(shū)目名稱Independent Television in Britain年度引用學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱Independent Television in Britain讀者反饋




書(shū)目名稱Independent Television in Britain讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

世俗

Winners and Losers: The Licence Process and Bids,Applications for the fifteen regional Channel 3 licences were due at the ITC by noon, 15 May 1991. There were thirty-seven applications. The awards were announced by the ITC on 16 October 1991:

Reverie

https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230373242broadcasting; conflict; government; television; time

AWL

起皺紋

Programmes,ogramme making for commercial television — as the awards showered on their programme makers (see Tables A and B) during the period demonstrate. Given the adverse factors in the industrial and political climate described elsewhere in this volume, this must redound to the credit of all involved — management as well as production people.

legacy

宇宙你

cognizant

Book 1998 of the Peacock Committee Report and the 1990 White Paper on Broadcasting, as well as detailed accounts of the broadcasters‘ and the regulator‘s battle with the government over the Broadcasting Bill and the subsequent ‘a(chǎn)uction‘ of ITV licences.

jeopardize

晚間

,The Aftermath — For the ITC: Judicial Review — For ITV: The Monopolies and Mergers Commission, following an appeal by the IBA against the High Court declaration, the Appeal Court, on 3 April 1985, under Sir John Donaldson, ruled that the IBA (unlike the NVALA) had been set up to make qualitative judgements about programmes and that the Divisional Court was wrong to criticise the Director Gen