howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
This will go down well with the right who see the BBC as a mouthpiece for the communist threat that is lying dormant and just waiting the call to arms.
I am sure there are 'savings' to be made but is it means more repeats or imports then it will be a great loss.
The BBC still sets the standards that other broadcasters aspire to and rightly so.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
They set a standard but they are very inefficient and bloated like all non-commercial 'enterprises'. There are many stories about the number of journalists etc they send out to cover a major event for example, far in excess of what other broadcasters seem to require.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Barry, I agree!!!!!
Why news programmes have to have the 'anchorman' in situ when there are perfectly adequate reporters there already has long puzzled me.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
At the last Olympics the BBC had more staff in China than Team GB had competitors!!!!
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
plenty of scope for cuts, over paid stars should get the chop first though, they are a public service boadcaster and should concentrate on quality more than viewing figures.
i often wonder where the money that was paid for top drawer sporting events has gone, reality stuff costs next to nothing.
having said that they are still the place where top quality television comes from, other channels cannot compete with attenborough programmes or stuff like "walking with dinosaurs".
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Spot on Howard, quality threshold not rating chasing should be their role.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Agree completely Howard and the other posters, the BBC have squandered money for years.
Did anybody see the excellent programme called Transplant on BBC1 the other night, the best medical documentary I have seen for a long time, if not well worth watching on catch-up or iPlayer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Sadly I see the BBC have lost some of the worthwhile ones...top journalists like Laura Kuensberg who did all the politics and was extremely good has gone to ITV. Matt Frei who did the American Politics from Washington has also gone, this time to Channel 4. There may be others that I havent noticed as yet. Great pity to lose quality personnel like this. These guys were good.
The BBC brought itself into the mire paying Jonathan Ross an absolute fortune..this resulted in outrage and disgust and eventiually led to this cut.
The BBC are cutting backroom staff, frontline staff, programming, but are still keeping all pursued strands afloat. Big mistake. Running a TV station like BBC3 in order to repeat soaps is a huge waste, continuing with the World Service as if we still had an empire is ludicrous. They have more radio stations than you can shake a stick at..and I believe their website costs something like £13million a year...just a tad more than this one!
Essentially they are doing too much, far better to produce quality in a central core, rather than try to fill too many airwaves, too many stations, with repeats which is inevitable now. The cash they have is spread too thin with fingers in too many broadcasting pies and quality will suffer.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Perhaps they should step up the quality of BBC1 to that of BBC2, keeping only the best of the BBC1 shows, dropping the game shows, fewer soaps and the reality shows. Then step up the quality of BBC to BBC4 standards but keeping some the the 'higher brow' BBC2 shows on there. Drop BBC3 and with a concentration of quality on 1 and 2 drop 4 too. Keep BBC News 24 and feed that news to all other channels at appropriate times. They could franchise off the existing Freeview bandwidth that 4 and 3 use to commercial providers earn revenue. They could also reduce their radio stations as well in a similar way, drop R1 for instance and focus on R2/3 and 4 plus World Service. Local station franchised off alongside R1 air width. A much more compact and quality focussed organisation would result and that is what we would need to raise overall broadcasting standards.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
100 % with you barry.
currently the best programming seems reserved to bbc 2, 3 and 4 and channel 4.
far to many radio stations now, many commercial stations carry the content of radio 1 spread around diffeent times.
add to that the website could be dumped making a considerable saving.
Alec Sheldon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 18 Aug 2008
- Posts: 1,037
PaulB, Michael Crick seems to have gone over to Channel 4 as well. I used to like him on Newsnght with Paxman.
