The Cuts - Spending Review Coverage

OK let's put this in a scenario you'll understand.

The BBC budget is the counter of Subway. BBC News is an anchovy.

Wow I certainly have hit a nerve by suggesting the BBC scales back it's news budget and by pointing out the uselessness of the BBC News Channel in terms of public service. All I seem to get back, is that I don't understand how TV works or something related guff.

It's supporters on this thread have to resort to immature (and inappropriate) slagging. I think I won this one.

Yes, I think it's unanimous. You won.

Touchy people on this! People implying I have some agenda - they seem to have a very pro BBC agenda and don't mind paying an expensive television licence!

I think you've won.

The only reason you "won" (yeah right ) was because you conveniently ignored counter-arguments put forward by other members and kept coming back with relentless unsubstantiated drivel.

Strewth, are you still blathering on ?

Expensive ? It works out at 40p a day. I'm not the BBC's biggest advocate, but even I can recognise the value in that.

Now, with respect take your small minded petty argument over to Digital Spy, and allow the grown ups to discuss the original premise of this thread. Ta.

Yes.

Interesting to read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/20/mark-thompson-email-spending-review that the BBC funding of the World Service won't come in until 2014/5, so this isn't as sudden as I thought originally.

You didn't all have his number after post six?

I refer the honourable gentlemen to my original suggesting of ignoring him.

{Wow - he's touchy, how childish etc ad nauseum}

Yes, of course there are savings to be had that won't affect on-air. However it seems that the BBC has done it's sums and can take on the extra costs - after all it was their idea. There are savings to be made with integrating the World Service and by 2015 they'll be long shot of TV Centre, Bush House and all the expenditure on Salford will be history.

It may seem strange to those who don't work in the industry but £20 million a year in the context of television is nothing. There's no question of the BBC closing it's news channel and as I mentioned before there would be serious implications if it did close and leave Sky as the only game in town

Have you tried the DigitalSpy forums? I believe they're very good...

Yes and it does sum up my views on the decision quite well.

It is, in the main, a good deal for the BBC. It gets some stability and security for the next 6 or 7 years without being used as a political football, and it doesn't have to shell out for the pensioners. It has 4 years to prepare to take on the World Service (and S4C if it happens) which it will run with less government interference than now. If that article is to be believed, and it makes sense, the Beeb already knew they could afford the extra burden before they went into the negotiations.

Roy Greenslade on the Media Guardian website today made a good point that none of the usual suspects in the newspaper world reported on the story this morning which is surprising and can only be a good thing.