The Newsroom

The Cuts - Spending Review Coverage

Licence fee freeze for 6 years, World Service funding withdrawn ? (October 2010)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
NG
noggin Founding member
breakingnews posted:
Brekkie posted:
breakingnews posted:
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?

Your logic is 13 years out of date, but seemingly as you want a media ran exclusively by Mr Murdoch your thinking is probably rather in line with the current government.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


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.


The contrary argument is that the BBC licence fee payer is funding a network of journalists and production facilities - and with the changes in technology - the incremental cost of implementing a 24 hour news network isn't that huge, and also creates a huge amount of AV content for the BBC News website. To not maximise the public's ability to access this content would surely be a waste of licence fee payers money.

The fact that BBC News is available on the same platforms as Sky News but consistently outperforms Sky News also suggests that the licence fee payers prefer the BBC offering...
GI
gilsta
Thomas posted:
I think cuts could be made to the BBC News Channel, such as using double-headed presentation for much of the day. Every time I turn it on there is normally two newsreaders, a sports presenter, a weather presenter and occasionally a business presenter. Certainly there is room to cut the number of on-screen presenters at specific times.


I love this logic - "it looks a lot so it must be too many". There is a reason such a presentation format evolved, there is far more to the job than sitting there reading autocue.

breakingnews posted:
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.


So where in this is the cost saving? You've still got to have the staff on standby for a major breaking news story - do you think it makes more sense to have them sitting around waiting for a story to break or running a 24 hour news channel that is prepared to cover such a story?
BR
breakingnews
noggin posted:
breakingnews posted:
Brekkie posted:
breakingnews posted:
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?

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.


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.


The contrary argument is that the BBC licence fee payer is funding a network of journalists and production facilities - and with the changes in technology - the incremental cost of implementing a 24 hour news network isn't that huge, and also creates a huge amount of AV content for the BBC News website. To not maximise the public's ability to access this content would surely be a waste of licence fee payers money.

The fact that BBC News is available on the same platforms as Sky News but consistently outperforms Sky News also suggests that the licence fee payers prefer the BBC offering...


The BBC News Channel outperforms Sky News because it has an unfair advantage - more resources and it doesn't break for commercials.
BR
breakingnews
gilsta posted:
Thomas posted:
I think cuts could be made to the BBC News Channel, such as using double-headed presentation for much of the day. Every time I turn it on there is normally two newsreaders, a sports presenter, a weather presenter and occasionally a business presenter. Certainly there is room to cut the number of on-screen presenters at specific times.


I love this logic - "it looks a lot so it must be too many". There is a reason such a presentation format evolved, there is far more to the job than sitting there reading autocue.

breakingnews posted:
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.


So where in this is the cost saving? You've still got to have the staff on standby for a major breaking news story - do you think it makes more sense to have them sitting around waiting for a story to break or running a 24 hour news channel that is prepared to cover such a story?


There was no BBC News Channel when Diana died, yet they managed to provide rolling news throughout the day.

They used to provide plenty of coverage of major events prior to 97 without the news channel.
MA
Magoo
On the topic of the coverage, this from Twitter:

@skynews SR Special from 11am, anchored by Dermot Murnaghan. Adam Boulton is on Ab Green with the big political hitters, Kay Burley joins locals in South Wales, Joel Hills gauges reaction in the City and Dharshini David is joined by a panel of experts to decipher the figures.
GI
gilsta
breakingnews posted:

There was no BBC News Channel when Diana died, yet they managed to provide rolling news throughout the day.

They used to provide plenty of coverage of major events prior to 97 without the news channel.


There was BBC World when Diana died, it formed the basis for operations.

Prior to that it would have to be an incredibly important story to interrupt programming in any more than a news flash. That's easily forgotten these days.
BR
breakingnews
gilsta posted:
breakingnews posted:

There was no BBC News Channel when Diana died, yet they managed to provide rolling news throughout the day.

They used to provide plenty of coverage of major events prior to 97 without the news channel.


There was BBC World when Diana died, it formed the basis for operations.

Prior to that it would have to be an incredibly important story to interrupt programming in any more than a news flash. That's easily forgotten these days.


Which is the way things should be - an incredibly important story interrupting the normal schedule.
FO
fodg09
As Nick Robinson says in his blog on the matter, it does seem odd that potentially the future of British broadcasting has been decided over discussions in a 24 hour period.
Quote:
In the space of 24 hours the government has gone from proposing a plan that would have cut the BBC's budget by over a quarter to freezing the licence fee for six years, which, combined with additional costs, amounts to a 16% real terms cut in funding.

The negotiations began, I'm told, with the BBC Trust warning that it would fight "tooth and nail" to resist a proposal that the corporation pay for free TV licences for the over-75s. Trust members argued the move would turn the BBC into an arm of the welfare state and undermine its independence.

Discussions ended with all-night consideration of a package that the corporation decided would be tough, but would preserve its size and scope and guarantee its finances until after the next election.

The Treasury believes it forced the BBC to adapt to the age of austerity. The BBC hopes it has short-circuited a long and potentially painful debate about cutting it down to size and now has the certainty to plan for the future.

Whoever's right, it's a pretty curious way to determine the future of British broadcasting.

I wonder what Rupert Murdoch will have to say about it when he speaks in London on Thursday.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/10/carry_on_broadc.html
GI
gilsta
breakingnews posted:
gilsta posted:
breakingnews posted:

There was no BBC News Channel when Diana died, yet they managed to provide rolling news throughout the day.

They used to provide plenty of coverage of major events prior to 97 without the news channel.


There was BBC World when Diana died, it formed the basis for operations.

Prior to that it would have to be an incredibly important story to interrupt programming in any more than a news flash. That's easily forgotten these days.


Which is the way things should be - an incredibly important story interrupting the normal schedule.


Now retreat back 5 minutes when I said you'd still need the staff on standby so you may as well have them running a news channel.

We've moved on from newsflashes, technology makes 24 hour news possible and that's what viewers rightly expect.
HO
House
noggin posted:
House posted:
If the license fee payers are to pay for the World division, this presumably includes World News?


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.

Quote:

If so I don't see license fee payers should be paying for a channel and service they cannot access - would producing "World News" bulletins between 10pm and 1am, for example, when fewer amounts of UK-centric breaking news comes in? That would save a little money, surely, even if it did mean the loss of UK business, sports and papers review segments?


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'...)


Noggin - part of my post was meant to ask if WN was part of the World Service brief. If it is completely commercially funded, this presumably makes it part of BBC Worldwide (or a division or subdivision of Worldwide)?

And re: the licence/ license error - one of the few words I have never been able to remember the correct spelling of.

By the way, World Service (as in the radio service) is available in this country, is it not? Would it be possible (note possible, not ideal) to make it advertising based outside of the UK, but continue broadcasting advertising-free in this country? In the same way a WN/ NC simulcast can see WN viewers opt-out of N8 coverage for adverts while British viewers see UK reports/ segments? (I ask, though I suspect it is possible, because I know very little about radio.
HO
House
breakingnews posted:
fodg09 posted:
As Nick Robinson says in his blog on the matter, it does seem odd that potentially the future of British broadcasting has been decided over discussions in a 24 hour period.
Quote:
In the space of 24 hours the government has gone from proposing a plan that would have cut the BBC's budget by over a quarter to freezing the licence fee for six years, which, combined with additional costs, amounts to a 16% real terms cut in funding.

The negotiations began, I'm told, with the BBC Trust warning that it would fight "tooth and nail" to resist a proposal that the corporation pay for free TV licences for the over-75s. Trust members argued the move would turn the BBC into an arm of the welfare state and undermine its independence.

Discussions ended with all-night consideration of a package that the corporation decided would be tough, but would preserve its size and scope and guarantee its finances until after the next election.

The Treasury believes it forced the BBC to adapt to the age of austerity. The BBC hopes it has short-circuited a long and potentially painful debate about cutting it down to size and now has the certainty to plan for the future.

Whoever's right, it's a pretty curious way to determine the future of British broadcasting.

I wonder what Rupert Murdoch will have to say about it when he speaks in London on Thursday.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/10/carry_on_broadc.html


He hasn't thrown any light on the enormous salaries of bbc presenters, newsreaders and reporters and instead wants to imply that Murdock influenced these decisions. I thought the BBC were impartial??


Crikey.

Some - and that's a very small proportion - of BBC employees either are or were being paid substantial salaries that provoked some cause for concern amongst some people. Some employees. And as we've seen recently, the BBC is already working to reduce "star" and management pay, and trying to get more for less.

However I think you're on incredibly dodgy ground suggesting BBC newsreaders and reporters are on "enormous salaries". I sincerely doubt BBC journalists are paid dramatically more than those at Sky and ITN, and when trying to provide both a national and worldwide standard in news coverage, the BBC should be paying market rates. To suggest otherwise tells me you'll never succeed in a business environment, but I for one want talent and quality out of the licence fee.

It really does strike me you have a huge axe to grind against the BBC.


Regarding Murdoch, I didn't read that above excerpt and think Nick Robinson was suggesting Murdoch had "influenced these decisions" - I read into it Nick Robinson is interested in knowing what Murdoch's reaction to this move would - and will - be given his families personal attacks on the corporation and persistent calls for a dramatic reduction to the BBC.

And regarding the BBC's "impartiality", I see no issue with the excerpt above. None at all. I think Nick's piece is a hell of a lot more impartial than the look on Adam Boulton's face as he broke the news about the licence fee when I switched to Sky earlier.


Now please, stop.
MI
m_in_m
breakingnews posted:
fodg09 posted:
As Nick Robinson says in his blog on the matter, it does seem odd that potentially the future of British broadcasting has been decided over discussions in a 24 hour period.
Quote:
In the space of 24 hours the government has gone from proposing a plan that would have cut the BBC's budget by over a quarter to freezing the licence fee for six years, which, combined with additional costs, amounts to a 16% real terms cut in funding.

The negotiations began, I'm told, with the BBC Trust warning that it would fight "tooth and nail" to resist a proposal that the corporation pay for free TV licences for the over-75s. Trust members argued the move would turn the BBC into an arm of the welfare state and undermine its independence.

Discussions ended with all-night consideration of a package that the corporation decided would be tough, but would preserve its size and scope and guarantee its finances until after the next election.

The Treasury believes it forced the BBC to adapt to the age of austerity. The BBC hopes it has short-circuited a long and potentially painful debate about cutting it down to size and now has the certainty to plan for the future.

Whoever's right, it's a pretty curious way to determine the future of British broadcasting.

I wonder what Rupert Murdoch will have to say about it when he speaks in London on Thursday.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/10/carry_on_broadc.html


He hasn't thrown any light on the enormous salaries of bbc presenters, newsreaders and reporters and instead wants to imply that Murdock influenced these decisions. I thought the BBC were impartial??


The blog isn't trying to cover all the points - it just makes a very valid point about is deciding the future funding and therefore shape of the BBC in 24 hours - as opposed to a full licence fee funding settlement is the correct way to tackle this.

Newer posts