The Cuts - Spending Review Coverage

£272m to run World Service. OK, I know it's in several languages and I suspect further localised changes too, but seems a hefty bill. I guess though either way the UK taxpayer is paying, unless of course it's moved across to BBC Worldwide and at least in part funded by advertising.


Anyway, let's see the Tories do more damage to the country in one day tomorrow than Gordon Brown did over a decade. Quick question, but are these cuts all set in stone once announced or will they actually go through a democratic process of being voted on over the coming weeks.

Even if Parliament votes on it, it'll go through. The Lib Dems seem to veto and reject very little, if anything at all. I'd like to see how they would have voted had it been the last government proposing such a move.

Sky was a commercial station, it's not a fair comparison. My basic point was that if it was a set up for public service, why was it only available to some and not all?

Beloved Sky News?? Where are you getting that from. Childish.

I really find it bizarre that people stick up for the BBC when there are clearly areas where they could cut back..one of them being the BBC News Channel.

Let's see if the news channel was scrapped tomorrow. We would still have a 3 hour breakfast programme on BBC1. Hourly updates throughout the morning - Lunchtime news at 1 - Update at 3 - Early Evening news at 6 - Update at 8 - Evening news at 10 - Newsnight t 10.30. Not to mention, BBC2 coverage of all things political, including PMQs. Any state event, major story will be covered by BBC1.

Yes the sky won't fall in the BBC News Channel goes.

The BBC News Channel does not always act on the basis of public service. More often than not, it cover stories that would not be regarded as public service - the Moat case recently and the Madeleine story. Seemed like to me, they just wanted to steal viewers from Sky News.

I have SKY but can't stand SKY News.

Prefer the Beeb.

I can think of many things that the BBC could axe to save money (BBC Three, BBC Radio 1Xtra, BBC Switch, very overly-commercialised programming on BBC1) but the BBC News Channel isn't one of them. BBC News is one of the most important things that the BBC does.

Hmm, so regardless of the virtues of the BBC News Channel, and it's public service credentials , I'm wondering what impact a 6 year freeze on the licence fee, and the funding of these additional commitments are likely to have on screen.

Further erosion of sports rights, channel closures, high profile programme axing, letting go of more talent ?

If the BBC News Channel was to be axed (heaven forbid ) what would happen to all it's presenters? And it's top-of-the-hour countdowns?!

Your logic is 13 years out of date, but seemingly as you want a media ran exclusively by Mr Murdoch your thinking is probably rather in line with the current government.


One thing not mentioned so far here that I've seen is the idea the BBC will fund the rollout of broadband in rural areas. Now, how exactly is that in their remit? World Service and S4C you can make a case for - but the BBC should be no more expected to foot the bill for broadband roll out than they should for say ensuring mobile reception in rural areas.

BBC Switch has already been axed hasn't it? Wasn't it announced as a closure along with BBC Blast, BBC 6Music and the BBC Asian Network? BBC 6Music is now reprieved - but I didn't think the other services were.

Excuse me but if anyone is being childish it is you. You were the one who replied to a counterargument with "whatever" and the complaint that "it was only available to a few when launched" can equally apply to BBC2, BBC1 and for that matter, Sky News so yet another one of your main point is moot.

You've failed to convince anyone of any good reason why there should not be a BBC 24 hour news channel. If News exists elsewhere then why is there a Sky channel? They have bulletins on Channel Five do they not?

Nope - the continued misunderstanding of the difference between BBC World Service services (BBC World Service Radio services, BBC Arabic TV, BBC Persian TV etc.) and BBC World News and other commercial services continues.

BBC World Service services are funded - currently - by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This means that they are currently neither funded by the licence fee NOR by commercial advertising, sponsorship and direct syndication. The reported proposal is for the BBC World Service FCO funding to be replaced by licence fee funding.

BBC World News - the international TV channel - is funded differently. It is not funded directly by the licence fee, nor is it FCO funded. It is funded by commercial advertising, sponsorship and some syndication fees I believe, along with some subscription revenue on some platforms. It may also make a loss...

BBC World News - in turn - pay the BBC News division to make their news programmes I believe, and they also purchase/license content from BBC Worldwide for broadcast.



They won't be. BBC World News (the TV service) is not part of the FCO - possibly soon licence-fee - funded BBC World Service operation. They may be part of the same BBC International division - but they are separately funded.

(And I suspect I'm going to get VERY annoyed by the continued confusion between the noun 'licence' and the verb 'to license'...)

This is getting ridiculous.

I'm not advocating the abolition of the BBC, I just don't see a need for the BBC News Channel. BBC1 and 2 do a great job and did a great job right up until 1997. Who knows, maybe the ITV News Channel would have survived if the BBC News Channel wasn't there, with it's unfair advantage.