BBC News Cutbacks

Fair enough but the point still stands. Al Jazerra and others are there to cover the Middle East and though there may be problems, is it the BBC's job to deal with them?

And does a 24-hour channel serve any more purpose than a couple of daily bulletins might?


I thought BBC World was supposed to be a commercial operation - so shouldn't it be funding itself?

1. The Arabic and Farsi services are NOTHING to do with BBC World. They are TV offshoots of the BBC World Service - which is directly funded by the government rather than the licence fee. (BBC World may originally have been called BBC World Service TV, but it was never funded by the BBC World Service, and the originally confusing name was dropped)

2. As the government fund the World Service, they have a strong say in which territories it covers, in what languages and what services it offers, though obviously the BBC make recommendations. They DON'T have a say over the editorial content - but they do have a say in which areas this content is available and who it is available to. The government have obviously decided, given the current state of the middle east, that a strong, unbiased, TV service, with BBC editorial values, is a "good thing" for the region.

3. I don't get "the BBC's job to deal with them" line - the BBC is reporting events to a different audience that is all. It certainly isn't the BBC's job to "deal with" conflict - though there is obviously a benefit to a service that provides decent coverage of the events in a language understood by all parties taking part in them? The UK government has obviously decided that there is value in a BBC-style TV service in Arabic, and now Farsi, for the region, the BBC are the best people to provide it.

4. A 24 hour a day service is the only way to provide a different service to Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya etc. A bulletin based service is of little use in covering the Middle East, where there is so much breaking news to report. What the BBC do have to do is contextualise this, and not just concentrate on the events as they happen.

5. What outlet would a few daily bulletins run on?

Let this be clear - the BBC World Service is funded entirely differently to BBC World (which is a commercial operation) and BBC News (which is licence fee funded) They may overlap and work together on occasions - and they may buy services from each other - but they are funded very differently.

Licence fee cuts will have a big effect on BBC News - but are not relevant to discussions of the BBC World Service. Cutting BBC Arabic TV - provided by the World Service - would result in no benefit to the licence-fee funded BBC services.

Thanks for that info - explains the structure a bit better.


A UK Government funded service though can never escape the allegation of propaganda though I'm sure it is appreciated in parts of the world.

On the contary.

If you listen to the World Service, for example, it often brings critical views of the UK government in. The only people who generally consider such services to be propaganda are countries like Burma, China, Iran, Cuba etc.

The Royal Charter of the BBC effectively prevents this - the government have no editorial control over the BBC (though the BBC has been censored in times of war this isn't the same thing). This is widely known worldwide after more than 80 years of broadcasting, and in Europe the quality of reporting during the Second World War is still a powerful memory for many, and cemented a strong reputation for high quality and independent reporting. (The censor may have prevented some news, but wasn't able to make the BBC broadcast blatant lies either)

just heard that the six is to be presented by a solo presenter:
george alagiah - probably more to save money than public opinion.

feel sorry for sian

So you are only what 6 hours behind everyone else then

We are not all glued to tv's and internet access. Some of us have lives & catch up with things when we can!

Err, Marykate's post was as if it was unlikely no one else would have yet discovered the news

That just sums you up really.

Call me stupid, but can anyone explain why, out of all the output that the BBC produces and commissions, it is news and factual that is bearing the brunt of these cuts?

Surely these are the two most highly thought of departments. Admittedly the programmes they make cost more, but they are critical to the future of the corporation in my opinion.

Is it the fact that these two departments are lazy and inefficient because of the respect they have, and because of the protection that this respect has afforded them in the past?

If the cuts are brought about by sensible changes such as one reporter/producer and one cameraman/soundman for each OB rather than three reporters, two producers, three cameramen and two soundmen for each OB as they have done, then that's fine. However if the cuts force the closing of foreign bureaux then that's not fine.