BBC News Expecting Staff Loses
occy
Posts: 64,968 Forum Member
✭✭
Staff in the BBC's news and radio divisions are bracing themselves for a further round of up to 600 job cuts as part of the latest phase of cost savings which began three years ago
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/03/bbc-cut-600-jobs-news-radio-james-harding?CMP=twt_fd
____________
Radio 2 budget cuts, not BBC News.
0
Comments
If only their presenters & reporters appreciated the importance of remaining impartial they might have more public support.
If you no longer watch or listen, how can you say that they are not impartial? Makes you sound rather ignorant doesn't it?
I stopped watching when I recognised that they were simply pushing their own agenda. That was a couple of years ago and since then I've found that news is best accessed from a variety of different sources on the internet.
I've already answered that question - "their own agenda"
Purely by coincidence, their agenda mirrors the Westminster "bubble" agenda:)
Leave radio 2 alone. It does a good job and has excellent listening figures.
Murdoch and Dacre will be loving this, they've both pushed for it
Notice it's minority interest programming and news that suffers the most, the only thing that seperates the BBC from all the rest get's cut!
The reason?, it's just like in politics; short-term self-interest of those people in charge. They aren't thinking of what's best for the BBC at all.
No, you have yet to explain what "their own agenda" is. How does it manifest itself so that YOU can see it as an agenda? What agenda are they following?
Seeing as how you ask, I'll have a go at explaining...
First and foremost, in common with the redtop newspapers, the content is too often dictated by "human interest" stories of little or no relevance to the public at large but reported at length and in great detail nonetheless.
Major issues which affect millions such as charges to state pensions and benefits are consistently reported through the prism of Westminster politics. With the Tories and Lib Dems in charge, the effect of this is that there's only a story to report where Labour disagrees with something that the government is doing. And that doesn't happen very often, does it?
What would've kept me watching is a serious attempt by the BBC to use the huge resources at its disposal to get behind the headlines and explain what's going on in this country, who's lying and who's telling the truth, how the rich are getting richer at a time when we've got more than half of all households on means tested benefits paid for by borrowing.
Also, some of us would like to know what's happening to real people in the rest of Europe where more than 50% are currently unemployed in places like Spain and Greece. But we don't get to see anything about that do we?
I could go on, but I think that's enough to be going on with.
You are clearly watching a different BBC News programme from the one I see almost nightly. Last night there were reports from Syria and an expose of child abuse in Rochdale allegedly involving the late MP Cyril Smith.I have seen plenty of coverage from Spain and Greece and there was a piece about pensions on Breakfast this morning. I appreciate you can't watch every news programme but you have been extremely selective in your remarks.
The real story here is "who knew what was going on and who covered it up"?
I bet you're none the wiser following the BBC "expose".
Cover up by Rochdale council according to the BBC, police are investigating, report next month - clear enough to me.
I also disagree with that - there's plenty of reporting of such matters with respect to how they affect people generally. Just look at the Business section of the website as well.
I don't quite get the thrust of that at all.
Now come on, that is nothing to do with news, that's more to do with background analysis. And that is there, although more likely to be on a programme such as Newsnight, Panorama, or Inside Out, as well as the appropriate section of the website or blog. But such items are also on the main news when appropriate.
So, what you detail is not an agenda as such, it's simply the fact that the BBC does not report how you want things reported, does not provide the detailed background analysis that you expect in the programmes where you expect it.
Plenty of such reporting on the News Channel, and certainly on the BBC World News sections simulcast on BBC Two and BBC Four.. Perhaps Panorama and Newsnight again. Would people expect to see such reporting in 30-min news bulletins where there is a wealth of other national and international news to report upon? No, not really.
An important story broken by the BBC. I didn't see it mentioned on Sky or ITN, the news organisations often championed on DS.
Well, from what you say you would be none the wiser from the "expose" seeing as you do not watch BBC news.
Yeah, bit of a funny one that. He says that he does not watch BBC News because of it's agenda, however it more looks like he is the one with one, apart from being (and proven to be) misinformed.
Interesting as well to note the personal criticism directed at me that's been thrown into the mix for simply expressing a personal opinion on one aspect of the performance of (what's supposed to be) a public service broadcaster.
To those joining in the stone throwing, I have this to say...
I don't agree with you that my views are rendered invalid simply because I chose to stop watching BBC news & current affairs programmes. Most organisations which lose customers want to find out where they went wrong and at least consider what they can do to win you back. This fundamental rule of business doesn't of course apply to the BBC who still receive my licence fee money each month whether or not I continue to avail myself of their services.
The broadcasting forum in a nutshell......;-)
Hardly "broken". This story has been going on for some time, for example in the press in 2012, and Channel 4 last November .