I think the channel as a whole is wrongly branded.. 'World' seems to suggest that it broadcasts to an international remit which it doesn'treally compared to CNNI and much of World's output is London based... and why don't they invest in a proper set instead of that tiny lego set
Because I, as a license payer, wouldn't want my money wasted on a service that I can only see by booking myself into a foreign hotel!
I don't understand what question you're answering here. I'm pretty sure you know World isn't funded by the licence fee, so I don't know what you're getting at.
Well it's a bit of a grey area though isn't it. I think it's pretty well known that World is sort of subsidised by the rest of BBC News. The Beeb deny it (mostly because Murdoch and Sky get pissed off about it) but there's definitely a bit of it going on.
I think the channel as a whole is wrongly branded.. 'World' seems to suggest that it broadcasts to an international remit which it doesn'treally compared to CNNI and much of World's output is London based... and why don't they invest in a proper set instead of that tiny lego set
Because I, as a license payer, wouldn't want my money wasted on a service that I can only see by booking myself into a foreign hotel!
I don't understand what question you're answering here. I'm pretty sure you know World isn't funded by the licence fee, so I don't know what you're getting at.
Well it's a bit of a grey area though isn't it. I think it's pretty well known that World is sort of subsidised by the rest of BBC News. The Beeb deny it (mostly because Murdoch and Sky get p***ed off about it) but there's definitely a bit of it going on.
Actually, that's not quite true. Under the terms of its Charter, the BBC 'proper' isn't allowed to have that kind of involvement with a commercial channel, whether it's branded BBC or otherwise. BBC World and BBC News share many expenses, such as the overnight simulcast and pooling reports for use through multiple outlets, but all of these are accounted for on paper. BBC World pays for BBC News content, and vice versa. Admittedly, this is a bit of an accounting exercise, but in practice, BBC World and BBC News remain entirely financially independent, and BBC News does not 'subsidise' BBC World.
Rather, the continuing losses that are incurred by BBC World are absorbed by BBC Worldwide. As BBC Worldwide as a totality is a profitable entity, this is an acceptable agreement. Theoretically, were BBC Worldwide to fall into a prolonged period of loss, then the licence fee would in that case be used to subsidise BBC Worldwide and its offshoots. However, that is an extremely unlikely scenario, as the BBC would almost certainly close or sell off parts (or all) of BBC Worldwide rather than allow it to become a drain on the licence fee. BBC Worldwide exists to capitalise on the commercial potential of BBC content, and its very
raison d'etre
is to return money to the BBC to be reinvested in the future, which is precisely the reason that BBC World (and indeed Worldwide) are not, and would not be, permitted to draw on the licence fee for their commercial activities.
I think the channel as a whole is wrongly branded.. 'World' seems to suggest that it broadcasts to an international remit which it doesn'treally compared to CNNI and much of World's output is London based... and why don't they invest in a proper set instead of that tiny lego set
Because I, as a license payer, wouldn't want my money wasted on a service that I can only see by booking myself into a foreign hotel!
There is however an argument for BBC World being funded by the Foreign Office in the same way BBC World Service radio is.
After all they will be funding an Arabic TV station next year, why not an English one to help spread British values and across the world?
I think the channel as a whole is wrongly branded.. 'World' seems to suggest that it broadcasts to an international remit which it doesn'treally compared to CNNI and much of World's output is London based... and why don't they invest in a proper set instead of that tiny lego set
Because I, as a license payer, wouldn't want my money wasted on a service that I can only see by booking myself into a foreign hotel!
There is however an argument for BBC World being funded by the Foreign Office in the same way BBC World Service radio is.
After all they will be funding an Arabic TV station next year, why not an English one to help spread British values and across the world?
What on earth is the value in having the government fund an international news channel? Public service broadcasting is one thing, but it is not the job of government to get involved in the global media industry. BBC World may not be making a profit - that is none of the British government's concern. It should be the concern of BBC Worldwide's management, and if they feel there is a problem there, then they ought to make the necessary changes to fix things. If they're happy to run BBC World at a loss, with the view that it may deliver profits over the long term, or that it's simply a good operation to have for the BBC's international reputation, then that's entirely their choice as a commercial operation. There is absolutely no justification for government intervention, certainly not on the grounds of "spreading British values" around the globe - that is not and should not be the mandate for any independent media organisation.
I think the channel as a whole is wrongly branded.. 'World' seems to suggest that it broadcasts to an international remit which it doesn'treally compared to CNNI and much of World's output is London based... and why don't they invest in a proper set instead of that tiny lego set
Because I, as a license payer, wouldn't want my money wasted on a service that I can only see by booking myself into a foreign hotel!
There is however an argument for BBC World being funded by the Foreign Office in the same way BBC World Service radio is.
After all they will be funding an Arabic TV station next year, why not an English one to help spread British values and across the world?
What on earth is the value in having the government fund an international news channel? Public service broadcasting is one thing, but it is not the job of government to get involved in the global media industry. BBC World may not be making a profit - that is none of the British government's concern. It should be the concern of BBC Worldwide's management, and if they feel there is a problem there, then they ought to make the necessary changes to fix things. If they're happy to run BBC World at a loss, with the view that it may deliver profits over the long term, or that it's simply a good operation to have for the BBC's international reputation, then that's entirely their choice as a commercial operation. There is absolutely no justification for government intervention, certainly not on the grounds of "spreading British values" around the globe - that is not and should not be the mandate for any independent media organisation.
Well you have been paying, through your taxes, for World Service Radio to do that for the last 65 years, both in English and in many foreign languages.
It's the reason that the BBC is so well known and admired around the world. BBC World service is one of the best ambassadors this country has. The foreign office release this which is why they fund the service.
It's not the government's position to intervene in broadcasting, and they never have been allowed to, but there is a very good argument for funding an overseas service.
Apart from all the British nationals the service would serve it does spread freedom of information and unbiased journalism across the world.
When World service TV was set up the original plan was for it to be funded by government. However the Thatcher regime was so anti BBC they insisted it went commercial.
From next year the goverment will be paying for a BBC Arabic service, and a service is planned for Iran, so why not fund an english version
I think the channel as a whole is wrongly branded.. 'World' seems to suggest that it broadcasts to an international remit which it doesn'treally compared to CNNI and much of World's output is London based... and why don't they invest in a proper set instead of that tiny lego set
Because I, as a license payer, wouldn't want my money wasted on a service that I can only see by booking myself into a foreign hotel!
I don't understand what question you're answering here. I'm pretty sure you know World isn't funded by the licence fee, so I don't know what you're getting at.
Well it's a bit of a grey area though isn't it. I think it's pretty well known that World is sort of subsidised by the rest of BBC News. The Beeb deny it (mostly because Murdoch and Sky get p***ed off about it) but there's definitely a bit of it going on.
Actually, that's not quite true. Under the terms of its Charter, the BBC 'proper' isn't allowed to have that kind of involvement with a commercial channel, whether it's branded BBC or otherwise. BBC World and BBC News share many expenses, such as the overnight simulcast and pooling reports for use through multiple outlets, but all of these are accounted for on paper. BBC World pays for BBC News content, and vice versa. Admittedly, this is a bit of an accounting exercise, but in practice, BBC World and BBC News remain entirely financially independent, and BBC News does not 'subsidise' BBC World.
Rather, the continuing losses that are incurred by BBC World are absorbed by BBC Worldwide. As BBC Worldwide as a totality is a profitable entity, this is an acceptable agreement. Theoretically, were BBC Worldwide to fall into a prolonged period of loss, then the licence fee would in that case be used to subsidise BBC Worldwide and its offshoots. However, that is an extremely unlikely scenario, as the BBC would almost certainly close or sell off parts (or all) of BBC Worldwide rather than allow it to become a drain on the licence fee. BBC Worldwide exists to capitalise on the commercial potential of BBC content, and its very
raison d'etre
is to return money to the BBC to be reinvested in the future, which is precisely the reason that BBC World (and indeed Worldwide) are not, and would not be, permitted to draw on the licence fee for their commercial activities.
Technically, everything you say is absolutely true - but I think a lot of people have always said that World is subsidised. It's all a bit hush-hush and the Beeb never admit to it - but I think the paper cost of what World pays News for its services isn't really the true value of what they receive. Not that I've seen the accounts or anything - but that's the impression I was always given.
I think the channel as a whole is wrongly branded.. 'World' seems to suggest that it broadcasts to an international remit which it doesn'treally compared to CNNI and much of World's output is London based... and why don't they invest in a proper set instead of that tiny lego set
Because I, as a license payer, wouldn't want my money wasted on a service that I can only see by booking myself into a foreign hotel!
There is however an argument for BBC World being funded by the Foreign Office in the same way BBC World Service radio is.
After all they will be funding an Arabic TV station next year, why not an English one to help spread British values and across the world?
What on earth is the value in having the government fund an international news channel? Public service broadcasting is one thing, but it is not the job of government to get involved in the global media industry. BBC World may not be making a profit - that is none of the British government's concern. It should be the concern of BBC Worldwide's management, and if they feel there is a problem there, then they ought to make the necessary changes to fix things. If they're happy to run BBC World at a loss, with the view that it may deliver profits over the long term, or that it's simply a good operation to have for the BBC's international reputation, then that's entirely their choice as a commercial operation. There is absolutely no justification for government intervention, certainly not on the grounds of "spreading British values" around the globe - that is not and should not be the mandate for any independent media organisation.
Well you have been paying, through your taxes, for World Service Radio to do that for the last 65 years, both in English and in many foreign languages.
It's the reason that the BBC is so well known and admired around the world. BBC World service is one of the best ambassadors this country has. The foreign office release this which is why they fund the service.
It's not the government's position to intervene in broadcasting, and they never have been allowed to, but there is a very good argument for funding an overseas service.
Apart from all the British nationals the service would serve it does spread freedom of information and unbiased journalism across the world.
When World service TV was set up the original plan was for it to be funded by government. However the Thatcher regime was so anti BBC they insisted it went commercial.
From next year the goverment will be paying for a BBC Arabic service, and a service is planned for Iran, so why not fund an english version
They need to do something, in little over two years, BBC World now looks like a poor man's News 24!
I think the channel as a whole is wrongly branded.. 'World' seems to suggest that it broadcasts to an international remit which it doesn'treally compared to CNNI and much of World's output is London based... and why don't they invest in a proper set instead of that tiny lego set
Because I, as a license payer, wouldn't want my money wasted on a service that I can only see by booking myself into a foreign hotel!
There is however an argument for BBC World being funded by the Foreign Office in the same way BBC World Service radio is.
After all they will be funding an Arabic TV station next year, why not an English one to help spread British values and across the world?
What on earth is the value in having the government fund an international news channel? Public service broadcasting is one thing, but it is not the job of government to get involved in the global media industry. BBC World may not be making a profit - that is none of the British government's concern. It should be the concern of BBC Worldwide's management, and if they feel there is a problem there, then they ought to make the necessary changes to fix things. If they're happy to run BBC World at a loss, with the view that it may deliver profits over the long term, or that it's simply a good operation to have for the BBC's international reputation, then that's entirely their choice as a commercial operation. There is absolutely no justification for government intervention, certainly not on the grounds of "spreading British values" around the globe - that is not and should not be the mandate for any independent media organisation.
Well you have been paying, through your taxes, for World Service Radio to do that for the last 65 years, both in English and in many foreign languages.
It's the reason that the BBC is so well known and admired around the world. BBC World service is one of the best ambassadors this country has. The foreign office release this which is why they fund the service.
It's not the government's position to intervene in broadcasting, and they never have been allowed to, but there is a very good argument for funding an overseas service.
Apart from all the British nationals the service would serve it does spread freedom of information and unbiased journalism across the world.
When World service TV was set up the original plan was for it to be funded by government. However the Thatcher regime was so anti BBC they insisted it went commercial.
From next year the goverment will be paying for a BBC Arabic service, and a service is planned for Iran, so why not fund an english version
It's not my taxes, I can assure you, that pay for the BBC World Service - I'm in Australia.
That aside, you're not going to see me trying to justify government funding for an international radio network, just as I'm not in favour of government funding an international TV station. The role of government isn't to be the world's broadcaster. Unless I'm very much mistaken, there's not a chronic lack of media operations in the rest of the world. It seems like a bit of a joke to me the claim that the rest of the world needs the British government to fund a international media operation.
Is there anything wrong with BBC World having advertising (apart from the fact it doesn't have all that much advertising - at least not over here in the Asia Pacific region, and as a result we're exposed to endless amounts of the breakfiller)? It doesn't seem to me that advertising on BBC World has in any way compromised the independent journalism that the BBC is renowned for. Why couldn't World Service radio be funded in the same way? I don't accept that it needs the government to hold its hand in order for it to work.
Finally, as to your point about the Thatcher government - it's not about being anti-BBC. It's about recognising what a government is and isn't, what it should and shouldn't be doing. A government has no place in running businesses - and make no mistake, media operations are businesses. The private sector has proven itself pretty competent at providing media services. We may not like a lot of the tripe that's on our TV screens. We may bemoan the fact that commercial news has gone downmarket, and isn't as hard-hitting as it once was. For that reason, among others, I absolutely accept there's a role for public service broadcasting - that is the sort of service that ought to be provided by government. It's hardly public service broadcasting though if the government is footing the bill for a service that its own people can't access.
It seems like an incredibly specious claim to me that the British people would benefit from footing the bill for a TV channel that they themselves can't watch, but people like me, halfway around the globe, can.
I think the channel as a whole is wrongly branded.. 'World' seems to suggest that it broadcasts to an international remit which it doesn'treally compared to CNNI and much of World's output is London based... and why don't they invest in a proper set instead of that tiny lego set
Because I, as a license payer, wouldn't want my money wasted on a service that I can only see by booking myself into a foreign hotel!
There is however an argument for BBC World being funded by the Foreign Office in the same way BBC World Service radio is.
After all they will be funding an Arabic TV station next year, why not an English one to help spread British values and across the world?
What on earth is the value in having the government fund an international news channel? Public service broadcasting is one thing, but it is not the job of government to get involved in the global media industry. BBC World may not be making a profit - that is none of the British government's concern. It should be the concern of BBC Worldwide's management, and if they feel there is a problem there, then they ought to make the necessary changes to fix things. If they're happy to run BBC World at a loss, with the view that it may deliver profits over the long term, or that it's simply a good operation to have for the BBC's international reputation, then that's entirely their choice as a commercial operation. There is absolutely no justification for government intervention, certainly not on the grounds of "spreading British values" around the globe - that is not and should not be the mandate for any independent media organisation.
Well you have been paying, through your taxes, for World Service Radio to do that for the last 65 years, both in English and in many foreign languages.
It's the reason that the BBC is so well known and admired around the world. BBC World service is one of the best ambassadors this country has. The foreign office release this which is why they fund the service.
It's not the government's position to intervene in broadcasting, and they never have been allowed to, but there is a very good argument for funding an overseas service.
Apart from all the British nationals the service would serve it does spread freedom of information and unbiased journalism across the world.
When World service TV was set up the original plan was for it to be funded by government. However the Thatcher regime was so anti BBC they insisted it went commercial.
From next year the goverment will be paying for a BBC Arabic service, and a service is planned for Iran, so why not fund an english version
It's not my taxes, I can assure you, that pay for the BBC World Service - I'm in Australia.
That aside, you're not going to see me trying to justify government funding for an international radio network, just as I'm not in favour of government funding an international TV station. The role of government isn't to be the world's broadcaster. Unless I'm very much mistaken, there's not a chronic lack of media operations in the rest of the world. It seems like a bit of a joke to me the claim that the rest of the world needs the British government to fund a international media operation.
Is there anything wrong with BBC World having advertising (apart from the fact it doesn't have all that much advertising - at least not over here in the Asia Pacific region, and as a result we're exposed to endless amounts of the breakfiller)? It doesn't seem to me that advertising on BBC World has in any way compromised the independent journalism that the BBC is renowned for. Why couldn't World Service radio be funded in the same way? I don't accept that it needs the government to hold its hand in order for it to work.
Finally, as to your point about the Thatcher government - it's not about being anti-BBC. It's about recognising what a government is and isn't, what it should and shouldn't be doing. A government has no place in running businesses - and make no mistake, media operations are businesses. The private sector has proven itself pretty competent at providing media services. We may not like a lot of the tripe that's on our TV screens. We may bemoan the fact that commercial news has gone downmarket, and isn't as hard-hitting as it once was. For that reason, among others, I absolutely accept there's a role for public service broadcasting - that is the sort of service that ought to be provided by government. It's hardly public service broadcasting though if the government is footing the bill for a service that its own people can't access.
It seems like an incredibly specious claim to me that the British people would benefit from footing the bill for a TV channel that they themselves can't watch, but people like me, halfway around the globe, can.
You have an incredibly insular view of the world. There is more to life outside an individual nation. The British government for one recognizes this, as does the Australian government, which is why it supports Radio Australia.
I would be horrified if the only source of news in Terran was the Iranian state broadcaster.
And would be petrified if we left everything to the free market and all we all had to endure the impartiality of Fox News
BBC World does loses money. Mainly because it is very limited as to what it can advertise, and as soon as it gets big audiences, because of a major event, it has to drop all advertising.
Even if it breaks even buy its target date of 2008 then it will still have a tiny budget. My point is that if it was funded properly then it could be a service envied around the world. Hell it could even have a proper studio rather than being stuck in an office where the air conditioning drowns out the presenters and the set cant't be shot properly because of the pillars holding up the ceiling.
I think the channel as a whole is wrongly branded.. 'World' seems to suggest that it broadcasts to an international remit which it doesn'treally compared to CNNI and much of World's output is London based... and why don't they invest in a proper set instead of that tiny lego set
Because I, as a license payer, wouldn't want my money wasted on a service that I can only see by booking myself into a foreign hotel!
There is however an argument for BBC World being funded by the Foreign Office in the same way BBC World Service radio is.
After all they will be funding an Arabic TV station next year, why not an English one to help spread British values and across the world?
What on earth is the value in having the government fund an international news channel? Public service broadcasting is one thing, but it is not the job of government to get involved in the global media industry. BBC World may not be making a profit - that is none of the British government's concern. It should be the concern of BBC Worldwide's management, and if they feel there is a problem there, then they ought to make the necessary changes to fix things. If they're happy to run BBC World at a loss, with the view that it may deliver profits over the long term, or that it's simply a good operation to have for the BBC's international reputation, then that's entirely their choice as a commercial operation. There is absolutely no justification for government intervention, certainly not on the grounds of "spreading British values" around the globe - that is not and should not be the mandate for any independent media organisation.
Well you have been paying, through your taxes, for World Service Radio to do that for the last 65 years, both in English and in many foreign languages.
It's the reason that the BBC is so well known and admired around the world. BBC World service is one of the best ambassadors this country has. The foreign office release this which is why they fund the service.
It's not the government's position to intervene in broadcasting, and they never have been allowed to, but there is a very good argument for funding an overseas service.
Apart from all the British nationals the service would serve it does spread freedom of information and unbiased journalism across the world.
When World service TV was set up the original plan was for it to be funded by government. However the Thatcher regime was so anti BBC they insisted it went commercial.
From next year the goverment will be paying for a BBC Arabic service, and a service is planned for Iran, so why not fund an english version
It's not my taxes, I can assure you, that pay for the BBC World Service - I'm in Australia.
That aside, you're not going to see me trying to justify government funding for an international radio network, just as I'm not in favour of government funding an international TV station. The role of government isn't to be the world's broadcaster. Unless I'm very much mistaken, there's not a chronic lack of media operations in the rest of the world. It seems like a bit of a joke to me the claim that the rest of the world needs the British government to fund a international media operation.
Is there anything wrong with BBC World having advertising (apart from the fact it doesn't have all that much advertising - at least not over here in the Asia Pacific region, and as a result we're exposed to endless amounts of the breakfiller)? It doesn't seem to me that advertising on BBC World has in any way compromised the independent journalism that the BBC is renowned for. Why couldn't World Service radio be funded in the same way? I don't accept that it needs the government to hold its hand in order for it to work.
Finally, as to your point about the Thatcher government - it's not about being anti-BBC. It's about recognising what a government is and isn't, what it should and shouldn't be doing. A government has no place in running businesses - and make no mistake, media operations are businesses. The private sector has proven itself pretty competent at providing media services. We may not like a lot of the tripe that's on our TV screens. We may bemoan the fact that commercial news has gone downmarket, and isn't as hard-hitting as it once was. For that reason, among others, I absolutely accept there's a role for public service broadcasting - that is the sort of service that ought to be provided by government. It's hardly public service broadcasting though if the government is footing the bill for a service that its own people can't access.
It seems like an incredibly specious claim to me that the British people would benefit from footing the bill for a TV channel that they themselves can't watch, but people like me, halfway around the globe, can.
You have an incredibly insular view of the world. There is more to life outside an individual nation. The British government for one recognizes this, as does the Australian government, which is why it supports Radio Australia.
I would be horrified if the only source of news in Terran was the Iranian state broadcaster.
And would be petrified if we left everything to the free market and all we all had to endure the impartiality of Fox News
BBC World does loses money. Mainly because it is very limited as to what it can advertise, and as soon as it gets big audiences, because of a major event, it has to drop all advertising.
Even if it breaks even buy its target date of 2008 then it will still have a tiny budget. My point is that if it was funded properly then it could be a service envied around the world. Hell it could even have a proper studio rather than being stuck in an office where the air conditioning drowns out the presenters and the set cant't be shot properly because of the pillars holding up the ceiling.
It's not about having an insular view of the world at all. I enjoy having access to international media outlets. It gives me a broader understanding of the world. But I can get that broader understanding of the world from various private sector media outlets. I watch CNN. I read The Economist. I access Jeremy Clarkson's reviews off the Times' website. The private sector seems to be doing a pretty solid job in this area. If your greatest argument for the British government funding international media operations is the existence of Fox News, then it's not much of an argument at all. Fox News might dominate US cable news, but it plays a very small role in the mainstream international media.
If BBC World starts getting funding from the British government, should the US government start funding CNN? Maybe Sky News should get an allowance from the government, since it broadcasts around the world too? Doesn't it promote Britain to the world? Or is it only the BBC that has that right, because it is... well... the BBC?
If the government is going to fund something, it should have a point. Giving BBC World government funding so it can have a new set really doesn't seem like a good value investment for British taxpayers. CNN, as a private sector operation, seems to do fairly well at redoing sets, unveiling new graphics, having presenter interaction and whatever else you might like without the aid of government assistance. Why on earth can't BBC World?
I have no problem with the idea of public service broadcasting. I think there is a role for the BBC in the British domestic TV landscape - although I'd prefer a much narrower role than what it currently has. Public service broadcasting is not about offering a state-run
competitor
to the private sector - it's about offering a state-funded
complement
to the private sector, offering the sort of content that for whatever reason the private sector can't or doesn't provide. I'm yet to see how a government-funded BBC World might do that (but then again, I certainly don't see how a government-funded BBC News 24 does that within the UK either).
I have no problems with the UK, the US or any other government funding alternatives to the state-run propaganda outlets in Iran or any despotic regime. What you're talking about with respect of Tehran is qualitatively different to the international media environment in which BBC World operates. Simply saying because the UK is going to fund a service into Iran does not offer any real justification for funding an international news/information channel that spans the globe, and competes with a range of other local, foreign and international media players.
If you want to see a BBC World that is envied around the globe, there's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean the solution is to get British taxpayers to cough up the money to pay for such luxuries. They, quite rightly, have their own priorities.
