MI
It is important that we have a variety of sources of news in this country and that means we should have choice over 24 hour news channels. I would argue the same if Sky News was to close. All providers are liable to bias whether deliberate or inadvertent.
My concern is that to reduce the BBC costs the end up having to dispose of a service which targets a specific audience, perhaps Radio 1. This would then lead to the BBC no longer serving the entire population which is what it is supposed to do through one firm or another.
My concern is that to reduce the BBC costs the end up having to dispose of a service which targets a specific audience, perhaps Radio 1. This would then lead to the BBC no longer serving the entire population which is what it is supposed to do through one firm or another.
PE
But it also means that BBC licence fee payers are now going to be paying for services that are not aimed at them, nor indeed receivable by them. Taking the radio station for example: BBC World Service's availability and remit in the UK is largely filled by the other television and radio services. Is it just the English version of World Service my £145 is going on, or the other 31 languages as well?
The S4/C announcement is also worthy of mention - why should people living on Shetland fund a service of negligible use and (without satellite or cable receiving equipment) no way of viewing it?
I'm surprised the Daily Mail haven't kicked up a fuss over that yet but then I suppose it would be seen as backing the BBC. I know I'd certainly be peev'd if part of my license fee went to fund a service in the middle of nowhere that I have no intention being able to listen to nor interpret.
Yes I can see the needs for it but why we, as license fee payers, have to cough up the bill is another matter. Makes you wonder if advertising was even discussed for the station.
peterrocket
Founding member
Michael Crick reports a BBC management source that moving the World Service funding source to the licence fee makes sense because soon BBC and World Service journalists will share the same building. Looks like this could also lead to more integration between BBC World Service, BBC World News and online services to cut down in costs and avoid duplication where possible.
But it also means that BBC licence fee payers are now going to be paying for services that are not aimed at them, nor indeed receivable by them. Taking the radio station for example: BBC World Service's availability and remit in the UK is largely filled by the other television and radio services. Is it just the English version of World Service my £145 is going on, or the other 31 languages as well?
The S4/C announcement is also worthy of mention - why should people living on Shetland fund a service of negligible use and (without satellite or cable receiving equipment) no way of viewing it?
I'm surprised the Daily Mail haven't kicked up a fuss over that yet but then I suppose it would be seen as backing the BBC. I know I'd certainly be peev'd if part of my license fee went to fund a service in the middle of nowhere that I have no intention being able to listen to nor interpret.
Yes I can see the needs for it but why we, as license fee payers, have to cough up the bill is another matter. Makes you wonder if advertising was even discussed for the station.
MI
But it also means that BBC licence fee payers are now going to be paying for services that are not aimed at them, nor indeed receivable by them. Taking the radio station for example: BBC World Service's availability and remit in the UK is largely filled by the other television and radio services. Is it just the English version of World Service my £145 is going on, or the other 31 languages as well?
The S4/C announcement is also worthy of mention - why should people living on Shetland fund a service of negligible use and (without satellite or cable receiving equipment) no way of viewing it?
I'm surprised the Daily Mail haven't kicked up a fuss over that yet but then I suppose it would be seen as backing the BBC. I know I'd certainly be peev'd if part of my license fee went to fund a service in the middle of nowhere that I have no intention being able to listen to nor interpret.
Yes I can see the needs for it but why we, as license fee payers, have to cough up the bill is another matter. Makes you wonder if advertising was even discussed for the station.
Probably cost a lot more to set up a targeted advertising method for each region - imagine Heart on a larger scale...
Michael Crick reports a BBC management source that moving the World Service funding source to the licence fee makes sense because soon BBC and World Service journalists will share the same building. Looks like this could also lead to more integration between BBC World Service, BBC World News and online services to cut down in costs and avoid duplication where possible.
But it also means that BBC licence fee payers are now going to be paying for services that are not aimed at them, nor indeed receivable by them. Taking the radio station for example: BBC World Service's availability and remit in the UK is largely filled by the other television and radio services. Is it just the English version of World Service my £145 is going on, or the other 31 languages as well?
The S4/C announcement is also worthy of mention - why should people living on Shetland fund a service of negligible use and (without satellite or cable receiving equipment) no way of viewing it?
I'm surprised the Daily Mail haven't kicked up a fuss over that yet but then I suppose it would be seen as backing the BBC. I know I'd certainly be peev'd if part of my license fee went to fund a service in the middle of nowhere that I have no intention being able to listen to nor interpret.
Yes I can see the needs for it but why we, as license fee payers, have to cough up the bill is another matter. Makes you wonder if advertising was even discussed for the station.
Probably cost a lot more to set up a targeted advertising method for each region - imagine Heart on a larger scale...
BR
Lol..The size of the BBC is just unbelievable though. A few cuts here and there will do no harm.
They have less channels than Sky. And "here and there" doesn't involve letting your lot have free reign on the 24-hour news market in this country.
Ha I don't work for Sky.
There's no public service function of the BBC News Channel. It's a pointless waste of money.
... says the guy with a BSB strap as his signature. Go away, let us pro BBC people cry together at this terrible news.
Lol..The size of the BBC is just unbelievable though. A few cuts here and there will do no harm.
They have less channels than Sky. And "here and there" doesn't involve letting your lot have free reign on the 24-hour news market in this country.
Ha I don't work for Sky.
There's no public service function of the BBC News Channel. It's a pointless waste of money.
SE
Square Eyes
Founding member
These are apparently what the BBC are to be funding per year under the terms of the settlement.
World Service £272m
S4C £102m
Rollout of superfast broadband to rural areas £150m
BBC Monitoring £25m
As opposed to the £556m cost of providing free TV licences for pensioners.
In return the BBC get the stability of a frozen licence fee for 6 years.
World Service £272m
S4C £102m
Rollout of superfast broadband to rural areas £150m
BBC Monitoring £25m
As opposed to the £556m cost of providing free TV licences for pensioners.
In return the BBC get the stability of a frozen licence fee for 6 years.
MI
Lol..The size of the BBC is just unbelievable though. A few cuts here and there will do no harm.
They have less channels than Sky. And "here and there" doesn't involve letting your lot have free reign on the 24-hour news market in this country.
Ha I don't work for Sky.
There's no public service function of the BBC News Channel. It's a pointless waste of money.
But judging by your signature, you do have some sort of affection, preference or fetish for the channel.
And no public service function? You mean apart from providing the public with uninterrupted news, sport and weather, covering stories in a much more in-depth and authoritative way than Sky News' tabloid-sized chunks? Yeh, they do bugger all.
... says the guy with a BSB strap as his signature. Go away, let us pro BBC people cry together at this terrible news.
Lol..The size of the BBC is just unbelievable though. A few cuts here and there will do no harm.
They have less channels than Sky. And "here and there" doesn't involve letting your lot have free reign on the 24-hour news market in this country.
Ha I don't work for Sky.
There's no public service function of the BBC News Channel. It's a pointless waste of money.
But judging by your signature, you do have some sort of affection, preference or fetish for the channel.
And no public service function? You mean apart from providing the public with uninterrupted news, sport and weather, covering stories in a much more in-depth and authoritative way than Sky News' tabloid-sized chunks? Yeh, they do bugger all.
GI
No-one suggested you work for Sky. Only that you've been brainwashed by them.
Ha I don't work for Sky.
There's no public service function of the BBC News Channel. It's a pointless waste of money.
There's no public service function of the BBC News Channel. It's a pointless waste of money.
No-one suggested you work for Sky. Only that you've been brainwashed by them.
BR
Lol..The size of the BBC is just unbelievable though. A few cuts here and there will do no harm.
They have less channels than Sky. And "here and there" doesn't involve letting your lot have free reign on the 24-hour news market in this country.
Ha I don't work for Sky.
There's no public service function of the BBC News Channel. It's a pointless waste of money.
But judging by your signature, you do have some sort of affection, preference or fetish for the channel.
And no public service function? You mean apart from providing the public with uninterrupted news, sport and weather, covering stories in a much more in-depth and authoritative way than Sky News' tabloid-sized chunks? Yeh, they do b****r all.
This is not a Sky Versus BBC thing.
Why is the BBC News Channel not made available to all viewers if it's deemed a valued public service.
The BBC provides an excellent news service with several bulletins a day on BBC 1 and Newsnight on BBC 2. When there is a national event - elections, state opening of parliament, major breaking story etc, BBC1 and 2 is there to broadcast those events. There is no need for a rolling news station paid for by the licence fee.
It's a bit childish to be completely supportive of the BBC News Channel and accuse critics of the organisation as Murdoch sympathisers, rather than examining the waste of money at the BBC. The News Channel can be done without.
... says the guy with a BSB strap as his signature. Go away, let us pro BBC people cry together at this terrible news.
Lol..The size of the BBC is just unbelievable though. A few cuts here and there will do no harm.
They have less channels than Sky. And "here and there" doesn't involve letting your lot have free reign on the 24-hour news market in this country.
Ha I don't work for Sky.
There's no public service function of the BBC News Channel. It's a pointless waste of money.
But judging by your signature, you do have some sort of affection, preference or fetish for the channel.
And no public service function? You mean apart from providing the public with uninterrupted news, sport and weather, covering stories in a much more in-depth and authoritative way than Sky News' tabloid-sized chunks? Yeh, they do b****r all.
This is not a Sky Versus BBC thing.
Why is the BBC News Channel not made available to all viewers if it's deemed a valued public service.
The BBC provides an excellent news service with several bulletins a day on BBC 1 and Newsnight on BBC 2. When there is a national event - elections, state opening of parliament, major breaking story etc, BBC1 and 2 is there to broadcast those events. There is no need for a rolling news station paid for by the licence fee.
It's a bit childish to be completely supportive of the BBC News Channel and accuse critics of the organisation as Murdoch sympathisers, rather than examining the waste of money at the BBC. The News Channel can be done without.
BR
and exactly whom is it not made available to?
It's not a terristerial channel.
Why is the BBC News Channel not made available to all viewers if it's deemed a valued public service.
and exactly whom is it not made available to?
It's not a terristerial channel.
LM
Ummm, the BBC News Channel IS available to a lot of viewers already, and WILL be available to anyone who can receive basic BBC services once digital switchover is complete.
The future of TV news is going to depend ever more on 24 hour news in the future. Fixed bulletins will decrease in importance as people can watch the news when they want. Why should the BBC, as one of the most important providers of news in the country, not meet this demand? Why should the BBC leave Sky News a monopoly on 24 hour news, and not provide competition and a choice of news channels?
Why is the BBC News Channel not made available to all viewers if it's deemed a valued public service.
The BBC provides an excellent news service with several bulletins a day on BBC 1 and Newsnight on BBC 2. When there is a national event - elections, state opening of parliament, major breaking story etc, BBC1 and 2 is there to broadcast those events. There is no need for a rolling news station paid for by the licence fee.
It's a bit childish to be completely supportive of the BBC News Channel and accuse critics of the organisation as Murdoch sympathisers, rather than examining the waste of money at the BBC. The News Channel can be done without.
The BBC provides an excellent news service with several bulletins a day on BBC 1 and Newsnight on BBC 2. When there is a national event - elections, state opening of parliament, major breaking story etc, BBC1 and 2 is there to broadcast those events. There is no need for a rolling news station paid for by the licence fee.
It's a bit childish to be completely supportive of the BBC News Channel and accuse critics of the organisation as Murdoch sympathisers, rather than examining the waste of money at the BBC. The News Channel can be done without.
Ummm, the BBC News Channel IS available to a lot of viewers already, and WILL be available to anyone who can receive basic BBC services once digital switchover is complete.
The future of TV news is going to depend ever more on 24 hour news in the future. Fixed bulletins will decrease in importance as people can watch the news when they want. Why should the BBC, as one of the most important providers of news in the country, not meet this demand? Why should the BBC leave Sky News a monopoly on 24 hour news, and not provide competition and a choice of news channels?