Doctor Who News Doctor Who Series 7: The Name of the Doctor

Published on May 19th, 2013 | by Andrew Reynolds

Daily Mail in Fresh Attack on Doctor Who

Although The Name of the Doctor reveals the Doctor’s greatest secret, something decidedly less mysterious is the Daily Mail’s attack on the BBC’s flagship show.

Doctor Who Series 7: The Name of the Doctor

So it comes as no surprise that as this current series of Doctor Who comes to an end, the paper has raised concerns allegedly within the BBC that the show is in a ‘creative nosedive’ with the current run of episodes hampered by ‘dodgy storylines’.

Of course, unattributed quotes alone won’t serve as evidence so they have turned to the only thing that proves a drama has ‘dodgy storylines’ — overnight ratings.

Because nothing dodgy has ever been popular:

“Only 4.6 million people have tuned in to some episodes, and though the BBC insists the resurrected drama has eight million viewers, even this is well down from the ten million when the show was revived in 2005.”

Well, of course they’re not.

A random episode in Series 7 is not going to pull in as many viewers as the show’s long-awaited return from hiatus.

In fact, ratings from that time compared to now are down for all shows across the board because of the many ways audiences choose to watch TV now – these viewing habits are the reason why overnight ratings such as the 4.6 million quoted above are only relevant when collated with the time-shift data.

The paper went on to explain:

“Tomorrow’s episode, The Name of the Doctor, will set up November’s movie-length 50th anniversary episode, which sees the return of popular Doctor David Tennant and his companion Billie Piper.


However, Tennant’s appearance will be a one-off, and existing Doctor Matt Smith, who is highly regarded, is expected to leave to launch a film career.”

The implication here is that despite the ratings boost from the return of fan-favourite Tennant to the show and the popularity of Matt Smith – after all ‘highly regarded’ is just a synonym of ‘popular’ – the current Doctor is leaving (despite an interview in The Sun confirming otherwise) and this has something to do with Moffat’s supposed inability to maintain the success of the show.

The connecting tissue isn’t exactly clear here: is it to be believed that these events are the result of something that Moffat isn’t doing and therefore are acting as a band aid to whatever problems his management has wrought or something that will have a further negative impact upon ratings during Moffat’s allegedly poorly managed tenure?

Of course, there’s no evidence to suggest that either is the case apart from unattributed quotes – in fact, it’s a tradition of the show that a past Doctor return for an anniversary so you could argue that Moffat is giving fans what they expect (obviously, we all want eleven Doctors but hey, Tennant more than makes up for it.)

Either way, the paper argues something needs to shake up these overnight ratings:

“A Beeb source says: ‘The 50th anniversary episode seems a good opportunity for him [Moffat] to bow out. Either way, something dramatic needs to take place to improve ratings.’”

Depending on your definition of the word ‘dramatic’ I’d say the 50th anniversary of the world’s longest running television show might just qualify as something dramatic that would pull in a more than respectable share of overnight ratings.

Or say the return of a popular Doctor.

Either way, let’s leave it to a BBC spokesman to restore some normality to proceedings:

“But a BBC spokesman said: ‘The show has the highest audience share of all dramas on any channel this year and is in the top three most requested shows on iPlayer.’”



Tags: , ,

About the Author


Everyone has a favourite Doctor and mine - just for his honesty, his fairness and his ability to not notice the Master's awful, awful disguises/anagrams (Sir Gilles Estram!?!) - has to be the Fifth Doctor, Peter Davison. The stories didn’t serve him as well as his acting served those stories.

64 Responses to Daily Mail in Fresh Attack on Doctor Who

  1. avatar Al says:

    The DM (as well as some of the more cynical fans) need to get it through their heads that this is 2013, not 1989, and that the BBC does not take the overnights as the absolute indicator anymore, not with time-shifting, iPlayer requests, etc. Anyway, they’ve confirmed Series 8, Moffat is back for it, Jenna already let slip she’ll be back, and so has Matt, so who cares?

    • avatar Christopher Syn says:

      Yes, I’m sure one of the things they keep in mind is the shit-ton of money the show is making in merchandising and overseas sales. It’s more popular than ever worldwide, so the ratings numbers in jolly old England mean less that they did back in the day.

  2. avatar John Shandler says:

    You couldn’t make it up. Oh, it’s The Daily Mail and they have!!!

  3. avatar Spacephantom says:

    Nothing new then. Just part of the usual anti-BBC, and generally anti-public service broadcasting agenda of the reactionary right wing press. Having a go t the BBC’s flagship show, since they don’t like the fact that it is a worldwide success story, made on a relatively small budget (compared to similar American shows), proving that all their arguments against public service broadcasting are utter hogwash.

    Would they really prefer it if the BBC were broken up and sold off to some foriegn media Magnet like Rupert Murdoch, as some Tories were suggesting before the last general election?

  4. avatar Adrian smith says:

    Nice to watch the show at 7pm last night for only the second time this series: i miss the early slots so have to watch it via record /I player. No doubt dome potential floating viewers just miss it

  5. avatar zarbisupremo says:

    Can’t stand that anti-Scottish, anti-gay, anti-disabled, racist, bigoted rag.

  6. avatar Ian says:

    As the Third Doctor would say Arrant nonsense! Take Cold War = 7.37m + i player 1.65m = 9.02m. This doesn’t count the BBC 3 repeats. The Mail is a nasty rag!! Fit for the bin!

  7. avatar TimeChaser says:

    I’m really tired of living in a world where ratings matter over anything else. Shouldn’t it be the quality of the show which judge’s its continued survival? Doctor Who has more quality to it than most of what else is on television, even though a lot of garbage somehow gets higher ratings (which doesn’t say much for the viewing public).

  8. avatar zarbisupremo says:

    Looks like we’ve got a Daily Mail reader lurking and rating down everyone’s comments. Come on, don’t be shy, put your tuppence in.

    • avatar zarbisupremo says:

      See what I mean ?

    • avatar David Aston says:

      “Looks like we’ve got a Daily Mail reader lurking and rating down everyone’s comments” Yes it has to be a Daily Mail reader and not a who fan? The show has had a lowering of quality in the recent 2 seasons.

      Plus, lack of past Doctors in the 50th has led many to feel Moffat doesn’t like the classic. If he’s such master as he thinks himself to be, then he should at least be able to write them in with clever premise?

      No with zarbisupremo it looks like we’ve got a boring self absorbed liberal ‘you must agree with us whether you want to or not’ People can down rate your comment or up them. Stop whining.

      I’ve read the same story in newspaper.

      • avatar zarbisupremo says:

        Yep, definite smell of bull poop coming from you. Next you’ll be saying that I’m a gay, disabled, Muslim, Labour-voting single mum from Luton, when in fact I’m a straight, SNP-voting, open-minded Scotsman who’s lived happily on both sides of the border, has friends of many nationalities, and loves Doctor Who in all of its forms (except, maybe the Eric Saward bits). Oh, and I also claim ESA due to being unable to work as a result of mental illness, so feel free to demonise me, it’ll give me (and, I suspect, just about everyone else here) even more reason to point and laugh at you.

        • avatar David Aston says:

          “To use a popular colloquial abbreviation, ROFLMAO!” Is that the best you can do?

          Only reason you’re rolling on the floor IS because your brain can’t cope with tedium of your comments.

          “Yep, definite smell of bull poop coming from you. Next you’ll be saying that I’m a gay, disabled, Muslim, Labour-voting single mum from Luton, when in fact I’m a straight, SNP-voting, open-minded Scotsman who’s lived happily on both sides of the border, has friends of many nationalities, and loves Doctor Who in all of its forms (except, maybe the Eric Saward bits). Oh, and I also claim ESA due to being unable to work as a result of mental illness, so feel free to demonise me, it’ll give me (and, I suspect, just about everyone else here) even more reason to point and laugh at you”.

          You just tried to be clever and made that STUPID comment. Kindly point out where I said any of that? I haven’t demonised. What’s your point? Got anything thing constructive to say or are you just going to SUGGEST things I haven’t actually said.

          You’re not an open minded person just a bore spouting typical liberal BULL.

          Is that REALLY the best people like you can do? Screech and scream insults and false accusations? Got nothing in reality to back it up have you?

          But again considering you ‘state’ that might be difficult eh?

          And you never answered my point about the ex advisor and Peter M.

          TWO high ranking Labour members admitting that THE PARTY YOU SUPPORT lied about immigration to purposely alter the UK with uncontrolled immigration.

          You’re open minded remember? No you’re not. You are however easy to hoodwink. But if you weren’t then you wouldn’t be voting Labour!

          They lied to the country and everything they SAY is a lie or just made up as they go along. A party for the gullible.

          Yeah you’re a Labour party supporter XD

          Led by Ed Miliband a leader with so LITTLE presence that not even his own party look like they’re convinced or able to stay awake. Salmond? Even less important. But managed the feat of convincing himself that he’s the future when he’s nothing more than the next Bonnie Prince Charlie = history.

          Even Lib Dems get more support and that’s a party that is invisible!

          Your entire argument and writing skills are HAS BEEN. And you support HAS BEENS.

          You don’t need ESA you need a dummy in your mouth.

          • avatar zarbisupremo says:

            And where exactly did I say I was a Labour supporter ? I already told you that I backed the SNP, not Labour. As for Salmond, he’s a far better politician than any of that shower in Westminster, as is his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, who wiped the floor in a televised debate with Scottish Secretary Michael Moore last week.

            Providing a link to the Torygraph does not make you right seeing as it’s little better than the Daily Mail.

            You accuse me of being immature, as well as screaming and screeching insults, isn’t that just a wee bit hypocritical of you ? I take it you don’t actually read your own comments before posting them.

        • avatar David Aston says:

          “You accuse me of being immature, as well as screaming and screeching insults, isn’t that just a wee bit hypocritical of you ? I take it you don’t actually read your own comments before posting them”.

          You need a dummy in your mouth and guess what you’re not good at insults of any kind. Oh dear can’t take it? I have an argument and years of reading what all the parties have said. You look at what suits your own need to see things falsely.

          And SNP not anything to do with Labour hahahahahahahaha! That just shows how little you know! Do you actually KNOW anything about what is true and what isn’t.

          Do you actually bother to use the internet to find these things? Because it’s where I refound Neather’s comments. I originally read them in the Huffington Post. A LABOUR newspaper.

          And wow a Conservative newspaper reports what I stated about those 2 Labour exposing Labour? Since it was reported and featured in non Labour newspapers makes your point invalid.

          Those 2 who exposed it were and still are Labour supporters.

          Oh and got £500,000 donation from a socially conservative transport businessman Brian Souter. So when £ is on the agenda you go Conservative?

          Hahahaha goodbye this the amount of holes in your political and economic knowledge would be useful strain tea bags LOL

          • avatar zarbisupremo says:

            Yes, I do use the internet to find things out, I just don’t read the tabloid websites very often due to the huge amount of drivel spouted on those sites.

            If I didn’t use the internet as a source of information, instead of relying on the BBC or The press’s news output, I would not know about the Tories backdoor privatisation of the NHS, the ‘Evict a millionaire’ protests, the amount of people who have died as results of the ConDem’s shambolic policies, or the truth about the myths surrounding Scotland’s ability to go it alone without England supposedly subsidising us.

            I never, at any point, said that the SNP were nothing to do with Labour, but, for what it’s worth, they are doing a much better job of running Scotland than Labour did.

            As for what you said about Moffat and 60s Who, it says plenty about you if you’re willing to dredge up something he said 20 years ago. His opinions may have changed since then, I know that mine have over time. A case in point being that I used to love Resurrection Of The Daleks, bit now I think it’s a bit of a turd, same goes for Earthshock and Dragonfire. I used to hate The War Games, now I love it. I hated The Happiness Patrol and would happily watch Silver Nemesis instead, now it’s the opposite. There are strips in 2000ad which I hated first time around, but now think, “Actually, that was pretty damned good.”

            Anyhoo, if that’s you finally going away, “Don’t let the door skelp yer arse on the way oot !”

  9. avatar John Unhurt says:

    Seriously, what do you expect from the DM? Any show that even suggests multicultural values or equal rights is going to be hammered by them. They are the media Daleks.

  10. avatar Elder Wraith says:

    Big surprise there – not. The one thing I would give the DM credit for (general, not Who-specific) is the pictorial coverage on their website. As for the print edition, the only use I’d put it to would be in emergency, if I’d run out of the kind of material that’s supposed to be soft, strong and infinitely long.

  11. avatar Philip Bates says:

    What idiots. I mean, how can the Daily Mail get off on criticising the BBC? The BBC is an incredibly important institution – something that other countries are envious of and admire, even! – so why, why, why do they think it’s an easy target?!?!?! And why would you attack a core show that has MILLIONS of fans worldwide? Surely the newspaper would want to attract that audience, not consistently have a go at them!

    • avatar David Aston says:

      “What idiots. I mean, how can the Daily Mail get off on criticising the BBC? The BBC is an incredibly important institution” True very true but it’s also a VERY biased liberal leftie organisation that has shown again and again it’s disrespect towards DW.

      I find it strange, VERY strange, that since the show came back it’s made MORE £ than it ever did when the original series was on and has become a HUGE success in America.

      Yet they still show b*gger all of the TARDIS and even in “Journey” they looked like they were doing it on the cheap.

      And the now have a producer who seems against WHO’s past. At least RTD used characters in a clever way and rejoiced. Moffat comes across as bitter somehow?

      He called 60s WHO sh*t. He claimed Davison was better actor than all the other classic Doctors despite the fact that McCoy appeared in the Hobbit and his recent stories he had EVERY say in were so up/down to the point of rubbish like “Rings of limp wristed werewolves called Doreen”.

      Plus, he sets up BRILLENT ideas and arcs YET can’t even stick to what he’s written before like he thinks we’re dumb not to notice.

      Even NON WHO viewers have pointed out to me some non sensible plot holes. IS this the same guy who wrote “Blink”?

      • avatar zarbisupremo says:

        The BBC is a very biased leftie organisation ? OK, so where was their news coverage of the Tories privatisation of the NHS ? Why do they never report it in their news when the likes of David Cameron and Ian Duncan Smith mislead the public through misuse of statistics and downright lies ? Where is their unbiased coverage of the Scottish independence debate ? Where was their coverage of the disabled people and their supporters’ demonstrations outside the homes of Lord Freud and IDS ?

  12. avatar cheezy wizzer says:


  13. avatar TonyS says:

    The Daily Mail having a go at the BBC. Just imagine!

  14. avatar Jon Roberts says:

    It seems fair game for certian tabloids to have a go at Doctor Who, but lets be clear, an article in the mail or any other paper will not detract from the show and it never has in the past. Poor journalism will always try to make a story when there isnt one, as Bruce Hornsby once said ‘thats just the way it is, and some things will never change’.

  15. The show has seen a ratings decline since Moffat took over, and especially in series 7 it’s been in freefall. You can show your support of the show all day long, but it doesn’t change that the ratings have been in a steady decline. It just sounds like desperate spin to pretend the show isn’t at least in some measure of trouble, based on ratings.

    • avatar TimeChaser says:

      How about blaming it on the attention span of the general viewing public rather than Moffat? Admittedly I think some of the stories in this half season could have benefited from an extra episode, but I don’t see any indication that Doctor Who is in decline.

      • avatar iank says:

        How about blaming it on crap scripts? If a long term fan like myself is bored to tears it’s hardly surprising the general public – who have considerably less of an investment – can’t be bothered to tune in.

        • Who says they’re not tuning in?

        • avatar TimeChaser says:

          There have been no crap scripts this season. You want crap scripts, go back and watch Boomtown, Love & Monsters or Fear Her again.

          • I beg to differ. Rings, Hide, Crimson this half were absolute dreck that was barely watchable. Name had a good IDEA (to an extent) but horrid execution.

            Honestly, out of this half, the only decent scripts (IMO) were Cold War and Silver.

    • avatar John Shandler says:

      @ David Schlueter
      At the moment, this season of Doctor Who is averaging around 7.58 million an episode.
      Christopher Eccleston’s first season was around 7.9 million.
      David Tennant’s first season was 7.7 million average, his second was 7.5 million and his last full season 8 million. Matt Smith’s first season was 7.8 million average, his second was 7.7 million.
      So you see, your argument doesn’t actually match up to the facts of the matter. Viewing figures are NOT collapsing. Matt Smith’s viewing figures don’t include the iPlayer figures either!
      You think the show is in decline- fine, it’s your opinion. There has been no ‘ratings decline’- the final viewing figures NOT the overnights bear this out.

      • avatar BOJAY says:

        Thank you, Mr Shandler! I think folks like Mr Schlueter might just be living in a parallel universe, or alternate timeline, or perhaps just somewhere where actual facts don’t exist.

        • See, fun thing – overnights matter. You can claim they don’t, claim you have inside information that they don’t matter, but it doesn’t change that they do. Merchandising partners, advertisers, they care how many people watched a show when it was first aired. Not syndication. Not repeats. First airing.

          Also, I wouldn’t brag about those numbers – we cancel shows here in the US for making numbers as low as the 7 millions.

          Besides which, your numbers are pretty off. Nothing this half pulled 7m on overnights, and only two hit it at final figure.

          The ratings are down, you’re just terrified of anyone criticising something you’re too close to.

          • avatar zarbisupremo says:

            Ummm… David, your point about advertisers isn’t actually relevant to us here in the UK as we’re lucky to have a broadcaster which is devoid of adverts. Just saying. ;-)

          • Zar – It matters. Doesn’t matter if there’s nothing on the actual network that’s an ad. The magazine has ads, etcetera and so forth. There’s plenty of advertising money wrapped up in television.

            Also, I wouldn’t call that “lucky”, to be devoid of advertising. It means your broadcaster doesn’t have anywhere near the money an advertising-based broadcaster would, and as a result, shows suffer, scripts suffer, effects suffer, casting suffers.

          • avatar John Shandler says:

            David, seriously- the overnights don’t matter in the UK. It is the final consolidated figure that matters. The BBC relies on a license fee, not advertisers. The figures I quoted are spot on. They are the actual figures from BARB, who supply the viewing figures in the UK.
            And the viewing figures, as I proved by quoting the actual figures, are not down. If take the time to look at all the viewing figures from the previous 6 seasons of the new series, the ratings always decline towards the end of the season (it’s summer, people are outside!).
            Now, you live in the States, where overnights could matter, might not matter, I don’t know. Every week we have people ranting on message boards saying the show is doomed because of the overnight figure, and then when the actual figure is published, everything in OK again.
            Overnights for shows on the BBC in the UK don’t matter- at all.

  16. avatar Bob James says:

    I’m so glad that most people here seem to grasp what’s actually going on. It’s all a matter of context. As was noted above, this is 2013, and the way audience viewing figures are compiled and measured has changed. The way people watch television has changed. A lot of people don’t even turn on a television to watch a television show now! It just seems that, with the “honeymoon” long over, it has become the “thing to do” to attack Doctor Who, and forecast a gloom and doom laden future (or lack thereof) for the show. I mean, look at this very forum, it’s a microcosm within which there are many within the ranks of “fandom” (where it seems that every other “fan” is a critic, and a negative one at that), tearing away at the show itself, as well as those who are currently producing it. Doctor Who bashing is the “thing to do”. That this fairly unrelenting criticism is rarely based on any real, tangible facts is evident. It’s well beyond someone liking or not liking the show, or the show not currently suiting someones tastes. It’s a sort of idiot propaganda campaign that rarely takes the truth and/or the facts into any sort of account. If you love Doctor Who in 2013, watch it. If you don’t care for Doctor Who in 2013, don’t watch it. There’s no need to wage a slur campaign against it that’s based on conjecture, gossip, and untruths. That’s the tabloid’s job, that’s what they do. Make up a story where there isn’t one, throw in the lies and distortions because it sells copies of the trash they are peddling.

    • avatar zarbisupremo says:

      Overnight ratings are completely irrelevant now unless you’re a hack who works for the Daily Heil.

  17. avatar Jon Roberts says:

    There’s no spin, thats for politicians. There are many factor which Moffat has done which I disagree with in the show, but there are positives as well. It could be its time for a change at the top and for the Doctor, that’s generally how the show continues. At the end of the day if the BBC thinks the show is in decline it will cancel it, I dont think we are at that point at the moment (it makes the BBC a nice profit)

  18. avatar Wojak says:

    I think Jon is correct. It is time for a change, Moffat feels very much like a spent force this year. Interestingly Points of View carried similar comments to the dreaded DM today.

    • avatar BOJAY says:

      There’s always next year, with Moffat still around. Then perhaps the next showrunner will come along, and he will become “a spent force” as well.

    • avatar zarbisupremo says:

      Do people still watch Points Of View ? People have been writing in to it and lambasting Doctor Who almost since day 1.

    • avatar Ian says:

      If I recall there was a bout three complaints. I suggest you read on the BBC official Dr Who website the guide to the classic series and see what people thought of some stories many regard as classics but think the stories are rubbish.. Dr Who is a bit like Marmite you either love it or loathe it.

  19. avatar Gareth says:

    The Daily Snail is only read by old farts anyway.

    • Ageism is hardly constructive. Let’s keep it genial :)

      • avatar zarbisupremo says:

        Daily Heil is a far more appropriate name for it, methinks, due to its target readership of fascists, racists and bigots.

        • avatar David Aston says:

          zarbisupremo – Why? Because DM shows a particular view point and reports immigration ect NOT as all perfect?

          Nothing racist about that. Simple showing a alternative view and making the debate balanced.

          Which should apply also to Moffat.

          Strange the leftie Guardian and Huffington Post either down play what doesn’t fit their political views or ignores head lines completely.

          Both those are happy to twist facts and lie through their printers.

          As for racist DM? The Guardian and Huff have both allowed the RACIST MP Diane Abbot write for them despite having made several highly offensive racist comments since she became MP in 1987.

          I don’t read it but since you DO that from the sound of it = makes you a racist.

          • avatar zarbisupremo says:

            *Sniff-sniff* There’s a definite smell of bovine excrement coming from you, David, you might also benefit from the use of a hankie to wipe that foam from around your mouth.
            There’s nothing balanced about the Daily Heil, they peddle the myths that Doctor Who is going down the tubes, that Scotland is subsidised by England, that all benefit claimants are potential child murderers, and that we’re being overrun by Johnny Foreigner.

            I don’t read the Daily Hate unless someone posts a link to an item that might interest me. As for me being racist, allow me to use an old and very useful Scottish phrase, “Ye’re talkin’ pish, so shut yer hole”.

        • avatar David Aston says:

          You’re rather immature and clearly haven’t got the ability to understand politics or the concept of a balanced argument. But again you can’t form one.

          “Next you’ll be saying that I’m a gay, disabled, Muslim, Labour-voting single mum from Luton” Why would I care? What difference would that make to your weak NON argument full of childish comments in writing?

          “feel free to demonise me” I haven’t demonised you and won’t. Just take a part what you wrote. All you do is insults, base opinions on flawed knowledge and throw accusations about things that never were said in the hope it makes you look good.

          It won’t.

          “I don’t read the Daily Hate unless someone posts a link to an item that might interest me”. How would you be able to make informed view of the DM without reading it? Or any other newspaper.

          Oh yeah someone ‘told’ or ‘showed’ you a few things? So you don’t read it just get shown something which will of course click with your views? Unbalanced.

          Your logic and comments are as valid as the “A spokesman at the Beeb” “A Source said”

          As for ‘Johnny Foreigner’?

          2009 Andrew Neather, ex adviser to Blair, Straw and Blunkett said Labour’s immigration madness was a plan to open up the UK to mass migration but they feared to make it public due to losing working class voters as a result.

          So they focused on the benefits while covering up the fact they came here NON STOP until 3 million was the final total.

          In the LAST 10 years MORE have come here than in the 40 years before 2000.

          A sign of FORCED immigration and not a natural one.

          And last week Peter Mandelson admitted Labour ‘sent out search parties’ to search for migrants after losing votes of the working class.

          TWO high ranking figures in the then LABOUR govt admitting it was all a sham?

          The figures, numbers, comparisons to previous migration patterns and even people aware of it have admitted it.

          But again I know this because I read BOTH sides. NOT just what I want to see or hear.

          You DON’T because you have neither the ability to evolve your opinions or state them in a mature way in the first place.

          You’re a BIGOT to a balanced truth and prejudiced to facts already stated in study after years ago or at the them.

          Good luck growing up.

          • avatar zarbisupremo says:

            To use a popular colloquial abbreviation, ROFLMAO !

  20. avatar John Shandler says:

    I don’t particularly like Moffat’s version of the show, but for anyone to say that the ratings are declining beggars belief. The lowest rating season is still Tennant’s second (Series 3) since 2005. His first season was down on Eccleston’s. Was there a crisis? No. The ratings stay between 7.5 and 8 million per season on average. If you disagree, you are not looking at the viewing figures. It could be argued that with iPlayer viewings added, the show is more popular than it has ever been.
    I can divorce my apathy over Moffat’s tenure from the reality of the actual viewing figures, which are as healthy as they’ve ever been.

  21. avatar Ian says:

    The BBC is paid for by the public, the Mail must hate the fact its not in private hands!!

  22. avatar vortexter says:

    There’s no such thing as bad publicity. Every lousy review the Daily Mail gives makes someone who didn’t watch the show the day before tune in for themselves to see what the fuss was about. Daily rags wont kill Dr Who off. Bring it on.

  23. avatar Ian says:

    Overnights are just s snapshot. The media seem to take them into account these days. Yes the overnights have dipped as the series went on, one reason, not the fault of scripts or Moffat, but the BBC not promoting it, except to watch it on iplayer. But as I posted above the ratings are fine, ill re post in-case some missed it. Cold War = 7.37m + i player 1.65m = 9.02m. This doesn’t count the BBC 3 repeats. Keep calm and keep time traveling.

  24. avatar Mugen Pharoah says:

    Have you seen the Daily Fail’s drop in circulation over the past ten years? They get more and more desperate to grab readers as the months go by.

    Politicians, papers, and television news overstate the influence of print media when they reach far fewer people than the average episode of Pointless. It’s a joke that they are given the credence they are given in the 21st century.

    The vast majority of national newspaper journalists are privately educated mercenary hacks completely out of touch with reality, lazily regurgitating Reuters press releases or attempting to manipulate the public with lies and pandering to populism. There is good journalism out there, but they are drowning in a sea of pap.

    • All newspapers circulation has dropped in the past 10 years. I agree that influence of print media is overstated and your opinion about so-called mainstream press journalists is in tune with my own, but the DM is a hugely popular online organ because of its shiver-inducing celebrity “news”.

      • avatar David Aston says:

        Christian Cawley – Very true Chris, sales of ALL newspaper have fallen at the same time that the cost of paper has become a problem.

        Fall in sales has a lot to do with the internet as it’s cheaper and of course you can up date stories virtually straight away. Pad have upped the game and for years they’ve been working on a hybrid newspaper part-print and part-internet.

        Literally, the same as paper EXCEPT you can read ANYTHING with one amount of paper.

        Plus, lets face it – it’ll be a god send for the environment and an further digital evolution.

  25. avatar Paul Blume says:

    …and let us not forget ‘The Plague of the Week’, a Daily Fail specialty.

  26. avatar Anthony Mckenzie says:

    The papers do lie! but I have to say as someone who has watched the programme for many years (I’m 45 now!) I am not overly happy with the way the programme has gone (Moffat’s Amy pond) to fast paced with less story, I feel a regeneration of Moffat leadership would good after the 50th

  27. avatar Ian says:

    I watched the wright stuff on Channel 5 (via there i player thing) the other day just to hear the tv reviews, the Daily Mirror TV critic, Kevin O’ Sullivan and Matthew Wright were saying Matt could be leaving at the end of the name of the Doctor and rating had been declining, if they said the papers are to be believed. However Kevin O’Sullivan said although hes not a fan of Dr Who he enjoyed the name of the Doctor and hopes Matt Smith would stay on a bit longer.

  28. avatar Matt says:

    Well at least the DM is giving somebody else a rest…..

  29. avatar Palleon says:

    When are they going to bring in these new laws to force newspapers from NOT making crap up all the time. “A spokesman at the Beeb” “A Source said” – its all just some guy who works in an office that was spouting his opinion and they make up the story around it to sell some papers.

    People, teach them the only way we can… DO NOT BUY THEIR PAPERS WHEN THEY PRINT WHO CRAP!

    • avatar zarbisupremo says:

      It might be when David Cameron stops giving Rebekah Brooks LOL (that’s Cameron’s definition of LOL, not the rest of the planet’s.)

  30. avatar Ian says:

    Overnights are a guide, Tom Baker at the BFI summed this up when he said in his day TV was a big thing in households and if you didn’t tune it you had no way of seeing it again and be out of the loop come Monday morning when others would be talking about it. On Sunday Points of View covered Dr Who, some people moaning about the series, the BBC Drama responded & I think its a good response. Blogtor Who have this clip from Points of View.

Please be aware that all comments are subject to adherence to our comments policy.
Back to Top ↑