BBC Cuts..

groen said:
IF the bbc is not a state media then what would a state media look like?
Click to expand...

State media is under state editorial control. The BBC is independent of state editorial control. It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp.
 
I am fine with tax money being used to fund the BBC - good quality, educational programming that would otherwise be sullied or struggle make it through the gaps in the commercial broadcasting market.

I am also fine with them producing things like Top Gear using this money as long as they're able to make good returns from it internationally.

However, what I am absolutely not happy with is all of that money going into F1, supporting a bunch of idiots who glorify being idiots on Radio 1 and 1extra and the dumb programmes the BBC produce like 'Dancing on Ice' to compete on ratings.

Getting big ratings is not the BBC's job.
 
Azza said:
Is that a joke? That is shockingly bad! :(
Click to expand...

its the real dumbed down version of the "life" documentary series that america got, i imagine we will get similar styles of narration from the bbc in future seeing as they are dumbing them down for a wider audience
 
How can any organisation that receives its renveue from forced taxation pretend to be independent. It uses the government authority to force the taxation. This makes the organisation subject to government and regulatory oversight more than a commerical media organisation that receives its revenue from voluntary means. It is through this process that the "state's" influence can be seen.

To say that there would be no space for a type of programming in a commerical media company is incorrect because there would be whatever space there was a demand for. So if people wanted educational programming on their tv, then they would pay for that a long with the rest of the programming that they want to receive. If you only want news and documentaries then you should only pay for that.
 
I fancy boys said:
charge for iplayer abroad. problem solved
Click to expand...

BBC doesn't own the rights outside the UK for most of the prime time programmes it shows and so just allowing oversea access to iPlayer would breach a huge number of contracts.

Also, the BBC does buy overseas exploitation rights from the producers via BBCW which then sells the programmes on to local broadcasters in other countries. This is worth about £700m a year. Opening up iPlayer direct to overseas consumers would massively impact this business; you wouldn't be making more money that you do now.

groen said:
dropping sports? I did not even know that BBC had sports. I know they did not have the cricket world cup. For the price that people are taxed for the BBC, total £4 billion+, you would think that they would have a dedicated sport channel, with constant sports from around the world. Maybe if they did not spend £1 billion on a new premises they would have enough to pay for cricket world cup. This is just another reason to never support the state media.
Click to expand...

BBC revenue doesn't equal the whole of the licence fee and as I already mentioned it was not the BBCs decision to move to Manchester and Glasgow.

Cruiser said:
it's simple; stop employing and paying top and middle management with absolutely ridiculous sums of money.
Click to expand...

They are, they are making about 15% of the workforce redundant. Much of the management is going already, but there hasn't been much coverage of it.
 
They can't dumb down the Wildlife :( (Well, they can, but they shouldn't.)

And did anyone see 'The Maharaja's motorcar' - Interesting documentary about Rolls Royce in India during the British Raj; couldn't see that being made on a dumbed down commercial channel.
 
[QUOTE='[DOD]
BBC revenue doesn't equal the whole of the licence fee and as I already mentioned it was not the BBCs decision to move to Manchester and Glasgow.
[/QUOTE]

I will not go along with the idea that the BBC is some kind of victim in this. They receive £4 billion every single year in financing and you can't pretend that the problem is they have a hard time spending the money. If they received more money they would have just spent more on the move and would still be in the same position.
 
Fail if this happens.

But I can't see the F1 being dropped personally. If they are that worried about cash, sell some property, can some random radio stations that few people listen to, ignore the moaning about it, can a few tv stations few us watch etc etc. I'm sure they can streamline the whole thing. Yes, jobs would go. Fact of economic hardships and all. It happens in every other industry, all of ours included no doubt.

As for dumbing down of shows, I seriously hope that doesn't happen! Also I'd happily pay a small fee per month / year for the latest iplayer content (which is free now), and have a time delay of a day or two for the free customers perhaps?
 
groen said:
How can any organisation that receives its renveue from forced taxation pretend to be independent. It uses the government authority to force the taxation. This makes the organisation subject to government and regulatory oversight more than a commerical media organisation that receives its revenue from voluntary means. It is through this process that the "state's" influence can be seen.

To say that there would be no space for a type of programming in a commerical media company is incorrect because there would be whatever space there was a demand for. So if people wanted educational programming on their tv, then they would pay for that a long with the rest of the programming that they want to receive. If you only want news and documentaries then you should only pay for that.
Click to expand...

The BBC is one of the most independent journalist bodies in the planet. "Middle ages" that is the only thought that comes to mind when I read any of your posts, you seem to be passed ultra liberalism into ... nothingness?

BBC has played a very important role in shaping UKs society, young talent was drawn into science by the likes of Arthur C. Clarke and Sir Patrick Moore, Sir David Attenborough and many others. It will be a tragedy if we were to lose this kind of programming and entity (almost ripped my eyes out watching that idiot the other day talking about travelling to the centre of the planet in BBC1)
 
Col_M said:
I'd pay to legally stream iPlayer stuff from abroad. Please listen BBC!
Click to expand...
Um they are doing:
The BBC's commercial wing, BBC Worldwide, is preparing to launch the iPlayer outside of Britain's borders for the first time.

Towards the end of this summer, BBC fans living in Western Europe will be able to pay something in the region of £6 per month to gain access to a mix of classic and contemporary content -- a markedly different proposition to the UK's offering, which is focused more on catch-up content.
Click to expand...
 
groen said:
I will not go along with the idea that the BBC is some kind of victim in this. They receive £4 billion every single year in financing and you can't pretend that the problem is they have a hard time spending the money. If they received more money they would have just spent more on the move and would still be in the same position.
Click to expand...

£3.4bn from the licence fee, so half the revenues of Sky.

Yeah, they probably would have spent more money on the move; probably in the hope of holding onto some of the talent that they have. My experience of the beeb is primarily in technology and they are losing an huge amount of talent by moving the roles north. People just don't want to go and they don't have to as their skills are in demand in London still.

It's the people costs that have driven things though the roof.

I wish I lived in your world where everything was so simple and so black and white.
 
Reduce the ridiculous number of foreign news correspondents would be a start.

I love most of the Beeb's content and if they can F1 coverage I'll be gutted!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom