AMC is a fantastic network that does diverse programming, and does it at a really good level and of great quality.
One of the big lessons of a big project is you don't want people that aren't really programmers programming, you'll suffer for it!
We still have a tradition certainly in English television; it's faded a bit in the last five years, but we still have a tradition where the important thing is the quality and the challenging nature of the programming.
The more channels putting money into quality programming the better.
Advertising revenue available for all programmers, all broadcasters is not enough to create quality programming, and subscription revenues are very, very minimal which come to all programmers.
That's the thing about people who think they hate computers. What they really hate is lousy programmers.
The BBC produces wonderful programmes; it also produces a load of old rubbish.
We spend too much time fretting over the way the industry produces programming, and too little worrying about the way the public consumes it.
The British regulatory system was revised, so that bigger profits were encouraged, which removed the option of big spending on programming. Quality just fell off a cliff, and all the old hands either left or were fired for being too expensive.
Good programmers know what's beautiful and bad ones don't.
That's what my job is: to create quality programming.
CBS has received a strong and positive response from the YouTube community about the quality of its programming.
When people have options for what they want to see, it forces the quality of programming and content to be higher.
I think for business reasons, fiscal reasons, I think these cable networks can take greater risks and I think with a risk comes better programming. And I think USA has got an amazing identity to it now that is clearly defined with its 'Characters welcome' tag.
