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."
Everyone knows that you can cut costs substantially by switching to open source. This is a good time for them to get back to using open source and open standards: get rid of your flash-based, linux-unfriendly, iPlayer and stick with open source (theora, etc). They could also stop using word/excel etc and move to open office... I bet the savings on licence costs would be large!
metageek
James Murdoch can get bent. The BBC News service is not free. It's provided by the license fee so it is clearly not free - I've already pay for it. I like the BBC News and would rather that than have to pay for the (more) biased reporting from any of his stable of rags.
The BBC has a pretty good web presence. I certainly prefer BBC News, Democracy Live and the other services they provide to anything that is tainted by Rupert Murdoch. Just because Murdoch doesn't understand the web and has no sense to realise that, quality news sources like the BBC shouldn't just provide a more shitty service to make Murdoch lose less money.
In this case, a public service is providing great service and if you can't compete with that, instead of whining maybe you should go bankrupt.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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.'
Little James Murdoch recently also said that the BBC is killing Democracy. Funny, here I was thinking that the BBC is the only big media organization with the balls to stand up and support the democratic process, while the scholarly literature into corporate controlled media showing exact opposite. Little Dr James Murdoch must be confused... or not?
If they would just start selling full episodes of Top Gear (amongst others) over here in the states. My British counterparts get to see full one-hour episodes of Top Gear when they are in the UK. But here in the US I cannot have that from the BBC, for any amount of money. BBC America shows me the butchered 40-minute episodes. Sure, I can accept that they need to sell advertising space here. But why can't they sell the full episodes on DVD here? If I buy the BBC America DVDs I get the same 40-minute episodes that they show on TV here. And BBC UK won't sell me the regular DVDs - they are region encoded (and PAL) but that doesn't matter since they won't sell them to me anyways.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"Your actions don't suit my business model-- stop it." Now where have we heard this before?
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
Murdoch has also been making a lot of noise about the Australian broacasting commission's (ABC) "stealing" his audience. The state sponsered TV channels in Oz are the only one's left with any real journalists, this prick won't be satisfied until he removes every last skeric of independence.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
(1) I applaud the decision to reduce expenditure on US television shows. Some of them are brilliant, but it is not really the BBC's place to broadcast them.
(2) The BBC needs to go back to a principle of quality over quantity. Output from such channels as BBC Three would not pass for a mediocre school production. "Hole in the Wall" might not pretend to be anything but light entertainment, but it is not adding to the knowledge or the culture of Britain. Digital radio is in general a failure, and it is good that they have tacitly acknowledged this. Meanwhile, the BBC News Internet site is excellent, and should not be the first choice for cuts despite evident political pressure for those who do not like the balance provided by the BBC.
(3) The BBC needs to stop privatising or outsourcing its research and development, so it can go back to long-term efforts in improving the state-of-the-art in broadcasting. It needs to go back to a technical-driven culture: for example, it needs to cooperate in efforts to prevent pollution to the shortwave spectrum, and it needs to reverse all efforts to introduce Digital Restrictions Management. We've already paid for what you produce, and you are our public broadcasting service: you don't get to dictate how we enjoy your productions.
There's no "politicians' favor" either. If you're going to lift a quote out of a UK newspaper, at least have the decency to leave the spelling as it is, thanks.
The word is the same, it's just a variant spelling. You'd figure the people who invented the language would know that. Cultural imperialism? Huh?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
So the Empire of Murdoch can't emtirely dominate in the UK due to the BBC
So The Sun, the UK's most popular paper and owned by the Empie of Murdoch, changes its support from Labour to the Conservatives
And the BBC's board back down.
Abso-bloody-lutely marvellous. Now we can have news of the quality and independence served to the US by Fox.
Will you PLEASE F off with the Fing beta now?
So where does Murdoch's mythical right to extract money from the public come from? Or, more to the point, Murdoch's right to prevent anyone from competing with services he might prefer we pay for?
Especially when the public have already paid for the news to be gathered, and the BBC are only making available (at modest extra cost to the BBC) the information they have already been paid to gather - to the people who paid for it (even if it is also available to non-licence payers).
Isn't it the BBC's mission to inform and entertain? And why not do that via the internet as well as the airwaves?
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
The word is the same, it's just a variant spelling.
You don't apply variant spelling to proper nouns.
Mr Murdoch slammed Radio 2's effort to woo younger listeners by hiring presenters on "salaries no commercial competitor could afford".
Bollocks. If a private company had half the country listening, it's advertising revenue would MORE THAN cover the salaries of a bunch of presenters.
"There is general agreement that the natural operation of the market is inadequate, and that a better outcome can be achieved through the wisdom and activity of governments and regulators."
"This creationist approach is similar to the industrial planning which went out of fashion in other sectors in the 1970s. It failed then. It's failing now."
Come again? I read: The natural operation of the market is inadequate, and a better outcome has been reached through the wisdom and activity of governments and regulators.
While the approach may not have worked in the 1970s, they clearly have a winning strategy right now, and it's leaving other private enterprises out in the cold.
Sorry, but when private enterprise can't do a good enough job, and a publically funded organisation start showing them up, it's time for them to reel back? Piss off mate. That's the EXACT opposite of market freedom. The guy is just annoyed that HIS company doesn't have half of Britain listening, and that the BBC are providing an excellent service from public funds for free to the public that pay for it - along with ALL THE ADVERTISERS.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the days that the BBC wasn't in the black from it's own revenue are long history. Amazingly popular shows on it's TV side (Nature docos, popular shows like Top Gear) and their now massive DVD sales sure must line the bottom line of BBC quite well.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
If American commercial media had anything as good as the quality of BBC News (Radio, TV or online) I would listen, watch and read it, and even put up with commercials.
I actively avoid the complete and utter crap Murdoch's medial outlets spew out.
Murdoch, if you want to make money, sell a quality product.
The BBC reflects very well on Britain. My very positive view of the country is due at least in part to the programming I've received via the BBC. Curtailing that programming would have unfortunate results far outweighing any potential benefit to Murdoch's bottom line.
He sells advertising. The news is just bait to get people to buy.
The idea that the BBC 'giving' news away is undermining 'paying' for news. So far as I am aware, no major news site charges for content, or at least not for major headline articles less than 2 days old. If News Corp truly thinks that by eliminating the BBC's presence they can begin to shape market expectations of people 'paying' for news, I think they need take a deeper look at the nature of the Web itself. Duplication and propagation are in its very nature, and the idea that alternative, free-to-view sources will not spring up (or current ones have their traffic increased), or that their 'pay for' articles won't be reposted across blogs and forums within minutes of appearing on their sites is naieve in the least. The music and movie industries have enough trouble keeping enormous amounts of music and movie files flying about the place - how on earth do they think they will stop something that can be duplicated with two keyboard shortcuts? I suppose this will begin the search for a 'copy/paste disabled browser' or somesuch tool - then I guess it really will be screenshot or it didn't happen.
It begs the question, how many people pay for news now? As an example, quick google search will show in 2005 the NYT had 1.1 million subscribers, the Sunday paper 1.7 in 2005. By charging for online access, do we really expect a significant increase in the new combined digital/paper subscribers total? I would submit if you're not paying for news now, and you didn't when paper was the only format, you're unlikely to start now.
It also belies something a little more sinister. Does this mean that all 'government corporations' (a type of entity in growing popularity, seemingly) are subject to supervision of Corporate interests? The BBC was and has always been free to its many listeners and, later, readers - it was a public institution set up to provide a service, a World Service even. Could you imagine telling someone in Britain in the mid-20th Century that, unfortunately, the BBC was going to have to curtail its activities because some multinational corporation was finding it too hard to charge you for listening to its private media on your own radio set? Of course, we can argue that the BBC is government media just like News Corp is private media, but any discerning reader understands that bias is part of reporting intentionally or not. In any case, I'd like my bias free, as in beer, thank you, and goodnight.
it's about time, godless commies... Now, switch over to FOX news for the REAL story
"incredibly hard for private news organizations to ask people to pay for their news."
it's not hard to ask i just don't want your news.
i want to pay my tv license and have an organisation that tells me what's going on and not what they think sells papers.
I can't wait for a reduction in our TV licenses, due to all this money the BBC will now be saving!
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
In other news, Mr. Sleedwidge Numbscull of Oxygen Bottling Inc. criticised farmers and the forestry commission for providing free oxygen in the atmosphere, making it 'incredibly hard for private oxygen bottlers to ask people to pay for their oxygen.'
There was always free news available in some form or another. Newspapers were able to make money by providing more value than the news that was freely available. If the quality of the free news increases, if you still want to make money, you have to find a new or at least improved business model.
BBC3 is really a sandbox for new programmes they would have only ever previously piloted on BBC2. Hence there is a lot of rubbish, but also a few real gems that now are mostly on BBC2. I don't know if it is a worthwhile use of the license fee or not, but some of my favourite comedy programmes in years have started out on BBC3. BBC4 is the Radio4 of TV, and I guess it has a very specific target audience, but the programming is generally good. Obviously both have a lot of repeats too, which most of the time makes them not worth watching.
Nothing to see here.
Yeah Heinlein was a crank but he is spot on in that quote.
Since when is it the obligation of the taxpayers to support Murdoch if he can't even provide himself with a viable business model? Corporate welfare beggars like Murdoch posing as businessmen really waste a lot of our resources and just seem to have no other purpose than to try to make things suck as much as they can.
I bet the fight against open standards may be at the bottom and that the real goal is getting at and stopping Dirac. It's a good codec and royalty-free.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
By "democracy" he actually means "my Dad's ability to tell people who to vote for".
You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
I vaguelly remember an article in the newspaper that listed the BBC employee costs. A significant part of those was in paying "super-stars" (those entertainers that get payed millions of pounds per-year).
In a country like the UK with a long tradition of great humourists, paying a single comedian like Johnathan Ross 18 million pounds a year to host a couple of talk-shows is incredibly bad value for money.
Just for comparisson sake, the budget of BBC Radio 6 Music (which they're also planning on closing) is half as much. That's 24h/day, 7 days a weak, 52 weeks a year of music for half the price of maybe 10h/week of programming with Johnathan Ross. Measured in in hours-of-entertainment/pound terms that means that Johnathan Ross costs almost 34x more than BBC Radio 6 Music (and he's definetly not 34 times better).
Ditch that guy and couple more like him and replace them with new blood and you'll probably be able to cover the 110 million pounds that the BBC Internet operations cost. It will even have the nice side effect of enhancing even more the BBC's work in developing and promoting new talents in the UK.
Politics is Murdoch's bread and butter. As far as political interference goes, that old traitor Rupert (and I call him a traitor, because he renounced his Australian citizenship for commercial reasons) would sell his mother for a Mars Bar, and would say and do anything to advance his own interests.
This sneak-attack on the BBC's online news operation will go down in history as one of the nastiest, shittiest commercial and political power plays in history. This is a classic case of the evils of allowing people like Rupert Murdoch to become as powerful as he has -- he has effectively kneecapped one of the world's greatest news organisations, so he can force people to pay for his filthy, biased low-grade garbage (optimistically called "news").
Murdoch is threatening to turn the world into a supersized version of the US; with few large independent voices, and a news market dominated by undemocratic, fascistic shit like FOX News. And with a for-profit, partisan, low-quality mass media that shills for its corporate masters, rather than doing its job, we are talking about a basic and dire threat to our society.
The Murdochs are a walking disaster area for our democracy, and not enough is being done to challenge them and their minions. Old Rupert himself is a very old man, and undoubtedly his appointment with Old Nick is imminent; however that's not to say that his sons won't follow in his footsteps.
I work as a boom operator. It's almost none existent to work as a boom op for the BBC, unless it is drama, they have made huge cuts in production costs. They have also got rid of sound recordists for many productions, it is now done by the camera operator. We call this a "one man band", a jack of all trades, a master of none.
The BBC have almost stopped all technical training. The masters of the trade are disappearing, many have no technological know how or engineering skills, they just know how to switch a device on and press record. The only people with engineering skills at the BBC are those old skool types, those who have worked at the BBC since the 1970's and 80's.
The only work I have done for the BBC is in drama, the productions were partly funded by HBO or AMC.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the days that the BBC wasn't in the black from it's own revenue are long history. Amazingly popular shows on it's TV side (Nature docos, popular shows like Top Gear) and their now massive DVD sales sure must line the bottom line of BBC quite well.
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'. (Figures source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom ).
If you watch TV (or own a working TV) without a license, there is a £1000 fine and the possibility of jail.
That's why some people here in the UK occasionally get pissed off with the BBC's spending and operations; we're all directly funding them, by law.
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
The ABC/SBS is set up like the BBC but we got rid of the licenses in the 70's. The money now comes from general taxation. Most Aussies will know the expression "My 8 cents worth". It refers to a 1990's promotion the ABC ran informing taxpayers what the ABC was costing them per day. Taking inflation into account it's probably double that now. Even if you don't personally watch it, it's still a far better investment than any of Murdoch's daily rags.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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...
I'm not sure that you thought that through really well. I've lived in the UK and the US. In the US people pay for all kinds of programming they don't want just to get a few channels they do want, and they pay much more than 142.50 pounds sterling per year for the privilege of watching the A team in Spanish and hearing the holy rollers who want to save you... for a price. I know it's not the same, but the fact remains the British public is actually getting good value for the money. If the BBC were scrapped altogether, the British public would be MUCH worse off. That it operates in the black is a good thing, even if you have quibbles about what black actually means in this case. It appears that no matter what you pick, the viewers end up paying for stuff they don't want, don't need, and can truly live better without. Complaining does not get you perfection. Replacing the BBC on the basis that it's not a free market enterprise ignores the fact that the free market has not shown a desire to bring you programming of the same quality. Baby and bathwater as they say. If other broadcasting firms were to provide the same quality or better, it would be silly to argue, but that is not the case. Would you throw away a great painting because it was commissioned by the King? Or worse, jail the painter?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
The fact of the matter is that while the BBC *does* produce some damn fine programming, every good program is accompanied with a torrent of pointless shit. It's funny how people like yourself use the 5% good programming too justify 100% (or more) of the compulsory taxation that funds the remaining 95%.
I'd personally be happy if they cut the crap and concentrated on the distinctive and valuable stuff that people seem to assume is all they do.
You talk about (presumably) people in the USA and elsewhere choosing to pay for cable, satellite or whichever other TV service. That happens here too. The point is that here we *HAVE* to pay the tax to watch anything at all, even 'free to air' TV.
Would you throw away a great painting because it was commissioned by the King? Or worse, jail the painter?
No, but if the King is spending billions on paintings every year, 95% of which are artless garbage, by raising a massively regressive tax that becomes a sizeable burden on the poorest in society; then I have the right to be pissed off.
Complaining does not get you perfection.
Oh, I'm sorry; how dare I give a toss where my taxes go.
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
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.
Much the opposite; if the show is THAT popular then they would have no trouble whatsoever attracting advertisers to pay for it instead of taxation, therefore the BBC doesn't need to produce it.
It can't be said that programming like Eastenders etc. "could not be provided by commercial broadcasters" so why the hell do I have to subsidise what already exists?
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
if the show is THAT popular then they would have no trouble whatsoever attracting advertisers to pay for it instead of taxation
And how do the advertisers afford to pay for the show? They add it to the cost of their goods. Eventually you end up paying for shows that you don't watch. At least with the BBC model you have a chance that something uncommercial, but revolutionary will get made.
It can't be said that programming like Eastenders etc. "could not be provided by commercial broadcasters" so why the hell do I have to subsidise what already exists?
So if it is popular then the Beeb shouldn't do it, and yet if they only did unpopular stuff then I can't imagine that you would be happy with that. If it helps, just assume that all your money went to some show that you really like and ignore the other stuff.
Oh, bad news. I just did a search and found that your particular £142.50 went to repairing a photocopier that someone spilled coffee on. I guess its going to be another year of disappointment for you!
Shit, man, I would pay ~$200 a year to guarantee that they'll keep on making Dr. Who and shows like Life on Mars. I don't think you realize how horrible television is in the States; I pay $60 a month for absolute shit with a couple of good shows mixed in. $200 a year is peanuts.
So:
Basically the ONLY thing they can add additional value is *quality* in reporting. Ironically, the BBCs quality is much higher than Mr. Murdochs quality in my opinion.
Probably *because* their priority can be the quality, not the immediate revenue.
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.