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Licence fee freeze for 6 years, World Service funding withdrawn ?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
IS
Inspector Sands
breakingnews posted:
The BBC News Channel outperforms Sky News because it has an unfair advantage - more resources and it doesn't break for commercials.

That's irrelevant, especially as Sky is in very good financial health at the moment. Sky News is well resourced, the difference is that their resources are all dedicated whereas the BBC NC uses those shared with other services. It's very cost efficient

The fact is that without any other alternatives, Sky News as the UK's only 24 hour (TV) news channel would have very serious implications for plurality and democracy. And arguably not good for Sky either, a lack of competition would mean it will get lazy and have increased scrutiny

Sure ITN could start a news channel again, they wouldn't though
IS
Inspector Sands
Square Eyes posted:
Hmm, so regardless of the virtues of the BBC News Channel, and it's public service credentials Rolling Eyes , 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 ?

It is 4/5 years away and in that time things could be very different anyway. We're already seeing the move from broadcasting to on-demand. I suspect that a least one BBC service will close in full or part though, there's already plenty of time being filled especially during the day.

There's also some cost savings in bringing the World Service into the 'regular' BBC - now the money for each is kept seperate and there's extra admin and bureaucracy whenever the 2 meet. This will be obsolete in 2015. I'd say there's also scope for the 2 to share programming, there's lots of good stuff on Radio 4 and the WS that would be at home on the other.

I'd like to see the BBC have more control over S4C, if it's going to fund all or part of it then it should. There is scope for cost savings by integrating it fully with BBC Wales.


I wonder if minimum service requirements will be given by the government? For example is it committed to keep producing all the WS language services?
DV
DVB Cornwall
Some assurances in this article about the BBC's ability to cope ....

here….

WWW.GUARDIAN.CO.UK/MEDIA
20-Oct-2010 @ 13:46
IS
Inspector Sands
DVB Cornwall posted:
Some assurances in this article about the BBC's ability to cope ....

here….

WWW.GUARDIAN.CO.UK/MEDIA
20-Oct-2010 @ 13:46

Interesting about them funding local TV services... when a few years ago they were stopped from setting up their own


Seems S4C aren't that happy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/20/s4c-bbc-spending-review
DV
DVB Cornwall
Seems in all but name S4C is to become BBC Alba MK2.

In the expected Broadcasting Bill, I can see S4C's position clarified and a new model for 'new' S4C, BBC Alba and Tele-G set out. It wouldn't surprise me to see all three transferred to their respective National Governments to make the relevant decisions on funding.

EDIT

BBC Trust and brief Executive response to the settlement.....

WWW.BBC.CO.UK/BBCTRUST
20-Oct-2010 @ 14:17
IS
Inspector Sands
DVB Cornwall posted:
Seems in all but name S4C is to become BBC Alba MK2.

Albeit with commercials, depending on the level of integration with the BBC I can imagine them being an issue
BR
breakingnews
House posted:
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.


I have no axe to grind, I find that suggestion hilarious.

And you have your opinion and I have mine.

The BBC has less money and it needs to make cuts. I'm suggesting that they scale back on their news output. Is the size of the BBC News department really justified...Seems like to me they waste a huge amount of their money on the BBC News Channel, something they lived without up til 1997.
ST
Stuart
breakingnews posted:
The BBC has less money and it needs to make cuts. I'm suggesting that they scale back on their news output. Is the size of the BBC News department really justified...Seems like to me they waste a huge amount of their money on the BBC News Channel, something they lived without up til 1997 .

I'm sure there is waste in every department of the BBC. However, if they were to consider closing TV channels, I think BBC News should be a long way down the list.

We managed with a single BBC channel until 1964, are you suggesting returning to that situation?
BR
breakingnews
Stuart posted:
breakingnews posted:
The BBC has less money and it needs to make cuts. I'm suggesting that they scale back on their news output. Is the size of the BBC News department really justified...Seems like to me they waste a huge amount of their money on the BBC News Channel, something they lived without up til 1997 .

I'm sure there is waste in every department of the BBC. However, if they were to consider closing TV channels, I think BBC News should be a long way down the list.

We managed with a single BBC channel until 1964, are you suggesting returning to that situation?


Why should the licence fee pay for it?
JO
Joe
So you're against the licence fee rather than the News channel? It becomes clear.

Also, whilst there may be waste within BBC News, why shut the whole channel down? I dislike parts of my house - but I don't set the whole building on fire.
GI
gilsta
breakingnews posted:
The BBC has less money and it needs to make cuts. I'm suggesting that they scale back on their news output. Is the size of the BBC News department really justified...Seems like to me they waste a huge amount of their money on the BBC News Channel, something they lived without up til 1997.


And it was pointed out to you the News Channel doesn't cost that much to run and the media landscape has evolved since 1997. Or do you ignore that because it doesn't suit you?
SP
Steve in Pudsey
ok let's look at the evidence - the BBC Annual Report

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/bbc_ar_online_2009_10.pdf

BBC News Channel cost £61 Million but of that (see note vi) £41 Million is the general newsgathering and content/production cost for BBC News as a whole. Therefore the cost of packaging up that newsgathering as the news channel costs £20 Million - which in the scheme of things is sod all. It's two thirds of what the BBC Red Button service costs.

Newer posts