Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BBC to Provide Extensive RSS

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the lots-of-simple-syndication dept.

Georgie2032 writes "The BBC News Online's Editor states that beginning in the middle of May, the BBC will be 'completely liberating the availability of its content' using its Really Simple Syndication (RSS) tool. 'So in May we'll be happy for outside websites to dip in and take our headlines'"

10 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. Just imagine by katana · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they do this for press releases, Slashdot won't even need editors anymore!

    1. Re:Just imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Slashdot has editors?! All this new information, oh the headache!

  2. the BBC by sg310l · · Score: 5, Informative

    The BBC is a public information service and doesnt rely on advert to get money but every english perosn paying for the privilage of having a TV or radio, this may be an alien concept to many americans but this is why the BBC can give other sites access to their RSS feed, because they dont cling to users visiting their site to keep their heads above water and resorting to obnoxious flash adverts and popups

    1. Re:the BBC by salvorHardin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I willingly pay that sum every year, because I think it's worth it. The quality of programming found on BBC, is generally far higher than what the competition can come up with. And there's the lack of adverts. I like that. I've seen TV in the US, where it seems every 5 minutes, there's yet another ad break. The commercial stations over here leave it about 15 minutes between breaks (excepting sporting events, where it'd be 45 minutes) - and they have to, because they can't push further than what's tolerable in the eyes of the public, in comparison to the competition.

    2. Re:the BBC by mugstar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      British. The word you're looking for is British, not English.

  3. And it's doing a good job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The BBC is an out of date tax on broadcast media that it morally wrong and uncompetitive. The BBC itself is an organization riddled with beaurocracy, massive egos, huge salaries, unhealthy festering cliques and class A drug habits paid for off the back of the British people.

    Yes, it's all those things, and yet it does a better job than all your free market organizations riddled with their bureaucracy, massive egos, huge salaries, unhealthy festering cliques and class A drug habits paid for off the back of their subscribers.

    You simply don't like the fact that our TV crap is better quality than your TV crap, doesn't irritate the hell out of people with adverts, and is free to RSS to the world. Grow up, and enjoy the competition resulting from a different market model. Oh and by the way, our tax is a hell of a lot less than you guys pay for TV.

  4. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by TheoGB · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually I'd disagree that the BBC News is biased. The problem is that all the other news services in this country are obsessively shallow and/or right-wing biased. Just watching Sky News for a bit brings home to you how disgusting they are. I remember the rail crash near Paddington in '99. The hotel only had Sky on and they kept showing footage of the crash interspersed with comments about how this footage was exclusive and brought to them by a loyal Sky News watcher.

    Essentially the BBC's job is to question the government and the opposition. They are a about as un-biased as you will get but the rest of the media makes them seem biased because they follow the route of hounding after 'celebrities' and the money big business provides. Or else they pander (like the Daily Mail) to small-minded thoughts that cease to have any bearing 3 miles outside someone's home: The "lock up the criminal scum (poor/black/non-christian people) but don't you dare build any prisons near MY house" mentality.

  5. Re:Too bad you can't opt out of BBC News by FhnuZoag · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally, I'd point to the recent election broadcasts as evidence that the BBC aren't especially biased. If they have any point of view, it is a cynical point of view regarding *all* politicians. Which, in a democracy, is only healthy.

    Relative to the US media, they are left wing. But the US broadcast media is very right wing, in any case.

  6. Re:But this exists already... by henrywood · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The BBC is a well-respected source of unbiased news. (Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell disagree with that, but events have proved how wrong they are.)

    To have other sites using their news feed will enhance the reputation of the Corporation further and can only be a good thing as far as they are concerned. Because they strongly depend upon their reputation when it comes to gettting funding it's a win-win situation.

    That's a very good reason for the decision.

    --
    Something is happening here but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones.
  7. Re:But this exists already... by Uber+Banker · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nearly exterminate? There are still more than a few news organisations with online presences:

    Reuters
    The Times
    The Guardian (interesting... the content is free but if you want to read it in a paper format you can subscribe)
    The Sun
    The Mirror
    ITN Sites, e.g. Channel 4 News
    The Scotsman (a surprisingly large online presence)

    The sites you mention: FT and Telegraph, it isn't surprising they charge as they have concentrated readerships with higher levels of disposable income, so why not go for a straightforward revenue model?

    I have no doubt that the popularity of BBC news is for reasons consistent with the popularity of their television and radio news: high quality and impartial in a way commercially sponsored news could not be (commercial news also remains very popular: the total cross-media circulation of ITN, Times, Sun, etc is massive).