The 38 degrees petition has reached 300,000 now which is impressive. Though ironically still a long way behind the 1,000,000 who backed the "keep Jeremy Clarkson at the BBC" petition (though that petition got an awful lot of press coverage on TV).
My concern is the Government may just ignore the 300,000 petition, as they've stated the only official ways to take part in the public consultation are by email, post or their lengthy online survey. So those 300,000 may get ignored yet they probably think they've backed the BBC. Same for all the people using #BacktheBBC hashtag on twitter.
This new petition tries to address that, and sends off an email to the Government to the right email address for each new signature: (Something I don't think the 38 degrees petition does)
The 38 degrees petition has reached 300,000 now which is impressive. Though ironically still a long way behind the 1,000,000 who backed the "keep Jeremy Clarkson at the BBC" petition (though that petition got an awful lot of press coverage on TV).
My concern is the Government may just ignore the 300,000 petition, as they've stated the only official ways to take part in the public consultation are by email, post or their lengthy online survey. So those 300,000 may get ignored yet they probably think they've backed the BBC. Same for all the people using #BacktheBBC hashtag on twitter.
This new petition tries to address that, and sends off an email to the Government to the right email address for each new signature: (Something I don't think the 38 degrees petition does)
Well, they effectively ignored the "WOW petition", so it wouldn't surprise me.
Internet petitions are worthless, no one takes any interest in them at all. The only reason politicians took an interest in petitions before the internet is that the sacks of mail brought the parliamentary post room to a halt.
Internet petitions are worthless, no one takes any interest in them at all. The only reason politicians took an interest in petitions before the internet is that the sacks of mail brought the parliamentary post room to a halt.
I think you are correct. i was doing a report about benefit sanctions and the hardship they cause, and i found tons of petitions out there - many with hundreds of thousands of signatures on, all ignored.
From being decimated and reduced to a shadow of it's former self in order for the government to appease Murdoch and Dacre?
You do know that the BBC will be more or less business as usual after the Charter renewal don't you? I have taken part in the DCMS consultation and that is the thing the Government is interested in.
I think you are correct. i was doing a report about benefit sanctions and the hardship they cause, and i found tons of petitions out there - many with hundreds of thousands of signatures on, all ignored.
Because petitions based on sentiment rather than common sense cant be taken seriously.
I think you are correct. i was doing a report about benefit sanctions and the hardship they cause, and i found tons of petitions out there - many with hundreds of thousands of signatures on, all ignored.
I can believe this is true, I've seen the same thing as you, that's why I'm worried in a way that 300,000 people subconciously think they've sent a message to government about the BBC and that they "#BacktheBBC" on twitter, and then just 2,000 or so mainly anti BBC people actually take part in the public consultation.
As least in the new petition it actually emails the right government department.
All the other BBC petitions out there - there seem to be around 10 started in the past month, just tweet David Cameron in the main. I suspect those tweets will count for nothing.
You do know that the BBC will be more or less business as usual after the Charter renewal don't you? I have taken part in the DCMS consultation and that is the thing the Government is interested in.
I think it will cut back BBC online services though, if you need the latest DCMS blogs, they seem to be putting a strong case for that.
The 38 degrees petition has reached 300,000 now which is impressive. Though ironically still a long way behind the 1,000,000 who backed the "keep Jeremy Clarkson at the BBC" petition (though that petition got an awful lot of press coverage on TV).
My concern is the Government may just ignore the 300,000 petition, as they've stated the only official ways to take part in the public consultation are by email, post or their lengthy online survey. So those 300,000 may get ignored yet they probably think they've backed the BBC. Same for all the people using #BacktheBBC hashtag on twitter.
This new petition tries to address that, and sends off an email to the Government to the right email address for each new signature: (Something I don't think the 38 degrees petition does)
I can believe this is true, I've seen the same thing as you, that's why I'm worried in a way that 300,000 people subconciously think they've sent a message to government about the BBC and that they "#BacktheBBC" on twitter, and then just 2,000 or so mainly anti BBC people actually take part in the public consultation.
As least in the new petition it actually emails the right government department.
All the other BBC petitions out there - there seem to be around 10 started in the past month, just tweet David Cameron in the main. I suspect those tweets will count for nothing.
How many signed the petition to "save" Clarkeson?
It was always going to be a lost cause. The BBC knew that.
Any petition would struggle to get more signatures than a few percent of the total number of licence payers.
Exactly - the BBC bosses should have thought it through BEFORE they "messed" with the Pre-election Cameron interviews. That was the last straw.
The future of the BBC has already been decided, but it has to "Be seen" to be consulting Tom dick & Mossy , before the Axe is sharpened ready for action.
I think it will cut back BBC online services though, if you need the latest DCMS blogs, they seem to be putting a strong case for that.
Interestingly, there was a very pertinent section on Radio 4's Media Show yesterday (I recommend this weekly programme as it really does get behind the headlines and interviews the movers and the shakers). There was an interview with the CEO of Archant, a large local newspaper group which has titles all over the UK. He was talking about how he has increased revenue and profits in his local newspapers for the first time in 8 years after taking over last year. His assertion was that the newspapers had become stagnant and complacent, moaning about their demise and that he needed to change attitude and direction and encourage new revenue streams.
It was complaints by local newspaper groups as well as Murdoch and Dacre that encouraged all the discussion about the BBC's website choking off other news. The Daily Mail certainly can't complain with 14 million readers of its online site. Murdoch has put much of his titles behind paywalls, which is why he hates anyone providing free news when he would prefer that he was generating money for himself from his own sites. Who'd have thought it, Murdoch trying to stifle competition, wanting more regulation?
So, now it is clear that local news groups can also thrive in the news digital environment if they adapt and change, the argument about the BBC's website crowding out commercial rivals is completely phoney. It all amounts to media organisations using the BBC as a soft target because it wants access to easy revenue by diminishing a rival that produces content that is better and free.
Exactly - the BBC bosses should have thought it through BEFORE they "messed" with the Pre-election Cameron interviews. That was the last straw.
The future of the BBC has already been decided, but it has to "Be seen" to be consulting Tom dick & Mossy , before the Axe is sharpened ready for action.
"messed with" - says the Conservative press office, Cameron was causing the issue by throwing out demands.
Actually, commercially, the BBC has a great future, the brand alone is know around the world, it's worth a fortune.
However, it'll just be another commercial behomoth, costing a lot to watch, and providing very little diversity and paying much higher salaries than it currently does - and we already have plenty of them
Instead of focusing attention on pie in the sky petitions, why not focus on what's already under threat? Like BBC News channel going online (surely news and sport should be the last to go online) or almost every TV channel apart from populist BBC1 being under threat at the slightest cut. Where is the outrage over that?
Comments
My concern is the Government may just ignore the 300,000 petition, as they've stated the only official ways to take part in the public consultation are by email, post or their lengthy online survey. So those 300,000 may get ignored yet they probably think they've backed the BBC. Same for all the people using #BacktheBBC hashtag on twitter.
This new petition tries to address that, and sends off an email to the Government to the right email address for each new signature: (Something I don't think the 38 degrees petition does)
https://www.change.org/p/department-for-culture-media-and-sports-save-all-bbc-services-keep-bbc-free-from-political-interference-stop-cuts-to-bbc-services
Hopefully someone at 38 degrees will think to send the 300,000 signatures to the Department for Media or they may not count !
Well, they effectively ignored the "WOW petition", so it wouldn't surprise me.
Is it stranded on a desert island?
From being decimated and reduced to a shadow of it's former self in order for the government to appease Murdoch and Dacre?
Internet petitions are worthless, no one takes any interest in them at all. The only reason politicians took an interest in petitions before the internet is that the sacks of mail brought the parliamentary post room to a halt.
I think you are correct. i was doing a report about benefit sanctions and the hardship they cause, and i found tons of petitions out there - many with hundreds of thousands of signatures on, all ignored.
You do know that the BBC will be more or less business as usual after the Charter renewal don't you? I have taken part in the DCMS consultation and that is the thing the Government is interested in.
Because petitions based on sentiment rather than common sense cant be taken seriously.
I can believe this is true, I've seen the same thing as you, that's why I'm worried in a way that 300,000 people subconciously think they've sent a message to government about the BBC and that they "#BacktheBBC" on twitter, and then just 2,000 or so mainly anti BBC people actually take part in the public consultation.
As least in the new petition it actually emails the right government department.
All the other BBC petitions out there - there seem to be around 10 started in the past month, just tweet David Cameron in the main. I suspect those tweets will count for nothing.
Aren't both things - sentiment and common sense - subjective and based on an individual's values and beliefs?
#Discuss: 3,000 word esssay due next Thursday please.
It was always going to be a lost cause. The BBC knew that.
Any petition would struggle to get more signatures than a few percent of the total number of licence payers.
I think it will cut back BBC online services though, if you need the latest DCMS blogs, they seem to be putting a strong case for that.
Do you have a link for the blogs please? Would be interesting to read.
Signed it mate.
What happened to only posting facts, Rowey?
Over 400,000 now.
Exactly - the BBC bosses should have thought it through BEFORE they "messed" with the Pre-election Cameron interviews. That was the last straw.
The future
Interestingly, there was a very pertinent section on Radio 4's Media Show yesterday (I recommend this weekly programme as it really does get behind the headlines and interviews the movers and the shakers). There was an interview with the CEO of Archant, a large local newspaper group which has titles all over the UK. He was talking about how he has increased revenue and profits in his local newspapers for the first time in 8 years after taking over last year. His assertion was that the newspapers had become stagnant and complacent, moaning about their demise and that he needed to change attitude and direction and encourage new revenue streams.
It was complaints by local newspaper groups as well as Murdoch and Dacre that encouraged all the discussion about the BBC's website choking off other news. The Daily Mail certainly can't complain with 14 million readers of its online site. Murdoch has put much of his titles behind paywalls, which is why he hates anyone providing free news when he would prefer that he was generating money for himself from his own sites. Who'd have thought it, Murdoch trying to stifle competition, wanting more regulation?
So, now it is clear that local news groups can also thrive in the news digital environment if they adapt and change, the argument about the BBC's website crowding out commercial rivals is completely phoney. It all amounts to media organisations using the BBC as a soft target because it wants access to easy revenue by diminishing a rival that produces content that is better and free.
"messed with" - says the Conservative press office, Cameron was causing the issue by throwing out demands.
Actually, commercially, the BBC has a great future, the brand alone is know around the world, it's worth a fortune.
However, it'll just be another commercial behomoth, costing a lot to watch, and providing very little diversity and paying much higher salaries than it currently does - and we already have plenty of them