Slashdot Mirror
BBC To Make Deep Cuts In Internet Services
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that the BBC has yielded to critics of its aggressive expansion, and is planning to make sweeping cuts in spending on its Web site and other digital operations. Members of the Conservative Party, which is expected to make electoral gains at the expense of the governing Labor Party, have called for the BBC to be reined in and last year James Murdoch criticized the BBC for providing 'free news' on the internet, making it 'incredibly hard for private news organizations to ask people to pay for their news.' Mark Thompson, director-general of the BBC, said 'After years of expansion of our services in the UK, we are proposing some reductions.' The BBC is proposing a 25 percent reduction in its spending on the Web, as well as the closure of several digital radio stations and a reduction in outlays on US television shows. The Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union, which represents thousands of workers at the BBC, says that instead of appeasing critics, the proposed cuts could backfire. 'The BBC will not secure the politicians' favor with these proposals and nor will the corporation appease the commercial sector, which will see what the BBC is prepared to sacrifice and will pile on the pressure for more cuts,' says Gerry Morrissey, general secretary of the union."
Save 6music!
http://www.petition.fm/petitions/6musicasiannet/1000/
www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=278123313911
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/02/bbc-protests-change-mind-6music
When Murdoch says shit, politicians jump on the shovel. Here is a recent example of how this arsehole does bussiness.
The meat from the (non-Murdoch) link...
"Last week Mr Smith [shadow communications minister] gave qualified support to the hand-out, saying the opposition acknowledged financial support for the networks was warranted during the transition to digital television. But on Tuesday, after the meeting with Mr Murdoch, Mr Abbott [opposition leader] blasted the hand-out as ''dodgy'' and an election-year bribe to free-to-air networks."
Between my OP above and this post I watched the Larry Flint doco The right to be left alone on ABC. This is the second time in the last few years I have seen the doco on state sponsred TV, it's an excellent doco that no commercial station here would play because of the way Flynt highlights their bullshit. To quote Flynt - "I watch the mainstream news to see what they leave out....The problem with the MSM is it's corporate...The models they put in front of the camera have to tow the corporate line".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
A Freesat decoder box costs about £50. Buy one, have it shipped to Denmark, hook it up, done. It's not encrypted, you don't need a subscription, what's the problem?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
This seems to be a case of "like father, like son": Rupert Murdoch never had any problems with the idea of saying outrageous lies in order to strengthen his political position in order to strengthen his bank balance. Never mind that what James says is absolute bollocks, concentrate on what he's actually trying to accomplish, namely weakening the BBC in favor of his own publications.
The BBC is a truly fine institution, one that shows the potential of public broadcasting. The Murdoch family's, on the other hand, is most definitely not. For instance, the Wall Street Journal has gone dramatically downhill on the quality of its news reporting since News Corp took it over.
I am officially gone from
Labours election strategy is roughly: "What choice do you have?"
Anyone who can remember back to Major and Thatcher... well... all of sudden Blair ain't all that bad. France had the same problem. Elect the crook or the extremist.
Democracy: "Choose me, because I am not as bad as the others".
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Just curious: are you satisfied with what you were getting for your money?
Would you prefer to pay less and have BBC make these cuts?
FWIW, the BBC is still one of the most respected media organizations in the world.
Unfortunately it's not very capitalistic or "free market"-ish to force everyone with a TV (or equivalent) to pay for the BBC. But if the alternative is more Rupert Murdoch and Friends...
Dude, the largest IT company in India with over 100,000 employees switched from MS Office to Openoffice overnight without any warning and they just told the employees to get used to it.
So it can indeed happen!
You are utterly, utterly wrong. The BBC takes a £3.5 billion/year subsidy from the British taxpayer, collected from a £142.50/year per-household 'television license'.
In America we have something called the "Public Broadcasting Service" which receives public funds. Of course, PBS gets less than 1/5th of what the BBC receives and the end result is that PBS stations are something of a TV sideshow instead of sitting in center stage like the BBC.
/PBS is where I first started watching Dr. Who & Red Dwarf
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Who gets to decide what's "crap"? You? Me? If I had my way, Eastenders, Strictly Come Dancing and all sorts of "crap" would go. If I asked one of the 8million+ people who regularly watch those shows however (& whom also pay their license fees), I'm sure they'd have very different views on the subject.
Essentially all you've suggested is that the BBC should employ the tyranny of the majority to their output. That doesn't sound like a great idea to me: it's how ITV has ended up the cesspool it currently is.
I wouldn't worry too much, I don't think the cuts are due to have any effect on the main news site to be honest.
Most the stuff being cut is crap like this, which people don't even realise exists:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/switch/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/switch/slink/
It shouldn't harm the BBC's news operation, and despite media linking it to Murdoch and so forth I don't think it's actually anything to do with that. I think the BBC just realises there's a lot of needless sprawl, and that cash will get tight if it continues with that and it's literally just cutting away all the crap.
The news section if the BBC sites bread and butter, and it's award winning, I doubt for a minute they'd be willing to make any cuts into that, for precisely the reasons you point out- it's perhaps one of the finest elements they have in reaching out globally to show their existence and bring in further viewers.
Here in the states, the BBC World News is by far the most objective and balanced reporting available. They even do a good job of covering US politics, whereas the US based news organizations appear to assume their listeners want to remain blissfully ignorant to what is going on in the rest of the world. Hell, even Al Jazeera has better journalism standards than most US News organizations. Is James Murdoch any relation to Rupert Murdoch? They both appear to have a business model based on whining that their customers aren't paying enough for their product.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
See the parent post? It's this kind of dismissive attitude that all media are biased that allows some news media to crap all over everything. If everyone knows that all the media is equally biased, then it doesn't matter what they do, because obviously it can't be any worse than what the other news media do.
(For a concrete example: take a look at the BBC's reporting of scandals involving the BBC. Now compare with the Murdoch media empire's reporting of scandals involving parts of said empire - or more commonly, the lack thereof.)