In excess of 2000 journalists on the payroll as stated by the BBC, might give you a clue.
You need to understand how businesses are run. Line managers can try to kid their superiors that everyone in their department is essential. Unless you know exactly what everyone is doing, then to make economies is very difficult.
"Quick! The boss is coming, look busy!"
"Work expands to fill the time available."
They need independent management consultants to go in and examine every aspect of the business, to see where and if, economies can be made.
I've a friend who does exactly that. If they're in a department for a whole week, it's hard graft, but it's impossible to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.
They've saved big companies huge sums of money, by restructuring the way things are done, much of it because of duplication of effort, or services.
"We've always done it this way."
is a common excuse for wasted effort.
How is 2000 journalists too much then?
Actually i know how businesses work and, the media business in particular, you don't.
Actually i know how businesses work and, the media business in particular, you don't.
Where do you get your information?
Hmm..
You can't be expected to see the whole picture that much better than most, given what you say you do (not for the BBC, as you say you don't work for them).
Let me try to reduce it to how I and I'm sure many might see it.
Presently we've a TV service where there have been endless complaints of the number of repeats.
That's one promise Mark Thompson kept, on which he blamed the refusal of the government to give the BBC more cash and therefore he promised we'd be getting more of them.
Given our decreasing influence in the world, the BBC still boasts that they've the biggest (and therefore likely the most expensive) news gathering service in the world.
"What's wrong with this picture?"
Digressing a bit, I've never understood the media obsession with "exclusives."
Nothing is "exclusive" for more than twenty-four hours and very little happens in this world, that might affect me if I didn't find out about it for a day.
You can't be expected to see the whole picture that much better than most, given what you say you do (not for the BBC, as you say you don't work for them).
Huh? He "can't be expected to see the whole picture that much better than most" despite the fact that he works IN the industry under discussion? Seriously? :eek:
(I really need that "rolleyes" smiley back for posts like this! :mad:)
Presently we've a TV service where there have been endless complaints of the number of repeats.
That's one promise Mark Thompson kept, on which he blamed the refusal of the government to give the BBC more cash and therefore he promised we'd be getting more of them.
True. With you so far.
Given our decreasing influence in the world, the BBC still boasts that they've the biggest (and therefore likely the most expensive) news gathering service in the world.
Biggest in the world? Do they actually claim that? I think AP might argue the point.
"What's wrong with this picture?"
Well for a start the number of repeats has nothing to do with news-gathering.
Only 2,000? Really? Is that just for the UK LF-funded channels or all of the BBC's News output world-wide? Either way it's not really that many.
Huh? He "can't be expected to see the whole picture that much better than most" despite the fact that he works IN the industry under discussion? Seriously? :eek:
(I really need that "rolleyes" smiley back for posts like this! :mad:)
Hmm..
My grandfather was a maintenance man at a big hotel in London and he didn't have the full picture of how things work there, either.
Here's a bit of information and opinion for you.
Once again, a clear demonstration that the News Department is out of control, 140 staff sent to cover Mandela’s memorial service. ITV sent nine.
This is what happens when you’ve an embarrassment of employees.
I guess it’s better than “always sending them out to lunch at the same time.” Someone is sure to cotton on to that ploy.
James Harding, the director of BBC News came up with the excuse for so many people sent, that “President Mandela was the most significant statesman of the last 100 years.”
I guess at the age of forty-four, Harding who’d have been in school during the seventies and eighties, when they’d by then “stopped doing history,” can be excused for such a ridiculous statement.
Apparently to fill quiet moments, they were reduced to “interviewing each other.” I’m sure I’ve read about that happening at other events, where they’d sent so many staff.
Yes the BBC is the largest broadcast news service in the world.
Seriously? :eek: You might want to think about that for a moment.
(Where's that ruddy smiley when need it )
ITV = Three daily news broadcasts; one website.
BBC = One 24-hour rolling news channel, one website, five national radio stations, BBC World News channel, etc.
Gee! I wonder why the BBC needed more people. (I really miss that smiley )
(For comparison, Sky send 120 people to cover one, 90-minute UK-only football match.)
No. This is what happens when you're a global news organisation.
Note to DS: I need my smiley back!!
I don't need you to tell me what the BBC do, what I'd like you to do, is given the progressively poorer service as regards increased numbers repeats that licence payers are getting, is tell me why we should be paying for such a large news gathering organisation, given how little influence we have in the world and the number of opportunities and ways people can access news these days.
I think you need to calm down and start applying a bit of logic "and think about that for a bit."
Well sorry but obviously I do if you think that taking only 140 people to cover such a massive event as Mr Mandela's passing. (And only 20 more than Sky need to cover one, 90-minute footy match!)
...what I'd like you to do, is given the progressively poorer service as regards increased numbers repeats that licence payers are getting, is tell me why we should be paying for such a large news gathering organisation, given how little influence we have in the world and the number of opportunities and ways people can access news these days.
And, as I said before, what does one (number of repeats) have to do with the completely separate news-gathering department?
But mikw is a broadcaster and this is the broadcasting forum. So I think what he says certainly holds more validity than anything you might think.
Fair point. I mis-read a part of your original quote.
Onto the new stuff.
Well sorry but obviously I do if you think that taking only 140 people to cover such a massive event as Mr Mandela's passing. (And only 20 more than Sky need to cover one, 90-minute footy match!)
And, as I said before, what does one (number of repeats) have to do with the completely separate news-gathering department?
I don't want to rub it in, but "what part of your licence fee do you think is just for news and what part is just for programmes?
The money for everything comes out of the same pot.
I've only suggested the news department is scaled down, "economies of scale" as I put it, in the light of it's reduced global importance due to increased technology and our reduced influence in world affairs. Not done away with as someone has already suggested is what I'd like.
Mandela's funeral will be as "massive" as the BBC want to make it.
I don't want to rub it in, but "what part of your licence fee do you think is just for news and what part is just for programmes?
The money for everything comes out of the same pot.
I've only suggested the news department is scaled down, "economies of scale" as I put it, in the light of it's reduced global importance due to increased technology and our reduced influence in world affairs. Not done away with as someone has already suggested is what I'd like.
Mandela's funeral will be as "massive" as the BBC want to make it.
The suggestion is fine, however, Mandela's funeral (a massive world event) only requires a few more staff than Sky take to a "Super Sunday" game - and it's for news across several outlets, so it's not a massive number at all, when put in context.
And, while we're on the subject of sport, do you know that for F1 the Beeb take HALF the amount of staff than Sky do for a live race?
Context is important, otherwise you're just making stuff up
I don't want to rub it in, but "what part of your licence fee do you think is just for news and what part is just for programmes?
The money for everything comes out of the same pot.
I've only suggested the news department is scaled down, "economies of scale" as I put it, in the light of it's reduced global importance due to increased technology and our reduced influence in world affairs. Not done away with as someone has already suggested is what I'd like.
Mandela's funeral will be as "massive" as the BBC want to make it.
To my eyes the news department has been scaled down, with local overseas reporters replacing BBC personnel. The frequent appearance of World Service staff to provide background information is another example. Do you have evidence of, "...it's reduced global importance due to increased technology"?
To my eyes the news department has been scaled down, with local overseas reporters replacing BBC personnel. The frequent appearance of World Service staff to provide background information is another example. Do you have evidence of, "...it's reduced global importance due to increased technology"?
I think the fact that the BBC are proud to say they're (still) the biggest TV news organisation might give you a clue how much "scaling down" has been done. Common sense says it obviously needs more scaling down.
No one anywhere in the world needs to rely on the BBC for news now. They can now access newspapers anywhere on-line.
"They can choose whichever bias they like, from that of the BBC to that of the Daily Mail or whatever."
The current situation with news, given the reduction in programmes that people have available on the BBC makes no sense to me.
If you've a different opinion, that's fine, but it won't change mine.
tell me why we should be paying for such a large news gathering organisation
Ha ha. Good one, though it's difficult to tell when you're joking or not.
The BBC is given £3,600 MILLION every year.
On that. £1.46 Bn is spent just on the BBC1 channel - an increase over 2012 of £125M (which is almost all of the budget increase for all TV, over the 2012 budget). The budgets for The News Channel and Radio 4 are £61.5M and £122.1M, respectively. That's one eighth of what BBC1 cost - and about 5% of the total.
So large? Not a chance. Maybe in relation to what other TV organisations choose to spend on TV news, but that simply reflects the parlous state of their finances and that news is a luxury, or obligation, that makes them no money. If it was profitable, they's do more of it.
As to why did the BBC send so many people on a "jolly" to South Africa? The simple reason is that they could - and that there was no oversight or questioning. Let's face it a nice little holiday in the southern hemisphere's summer (away from dreary old England in the winter) is cheaper than a pay rise and I'm sure they all had a lovely time there, on expenses.
Ha ha. Good one, though it's difficult to tell when you're joking or not.
The BBC is given £3,600 MILLION every year.
On that. £1.46 Bn is spent just on the BBC1 channel - an increase over 2012 of £125M (which is almost all of the budget increase for all TV, over the 2012 budget). The budgets for The News Channel and Radio 4 are £61.5M and £122.1M, respectively. That's one eighth of what BBC1 cost - and about 5% of the total.
So large? Not a chance. Maybe in relation to what other TV organisations choose to spend on TV news, but that simply reflects the parlous state of their finances and that news is a luxury, or obligation, that makes them no money. If it was profitable, they's do more of it.
As to why did the BBC send so many people on a "jolly" to South Africa? The simple reason is that they could - and that there was no oversight or questioning. Let's face it a nice little holiday in the southern hemisphere's summer (away from dreary old England in the winter) is cheaper than a pay rise and probably more of an incentive, too.
Yes, I can understand that logic, "we get so much money from the licence payer who has no choice about it, we can spend as much of it as we like on anything."
Comparing what is spent on news with the total receipts, is not an excuse for spending more than is necessary.
But that's been endemic at the BBC for decades, that's why Lord Hall (finally) said they had to be more careful with the licence payer's cash.
It's so easy to spend someone else's money.
Still, as the BBC say, "it's only 40p a day."
I'm not suggesting that savings in news would make a significant improvemente in the general quality of programme output, but is one area where anyone can see there could be savings made.
There will be more areas.
But much of the BBC's affairs are "clouded in secrecy" that only gets revealed by FOIA investigations.
Yes, I can understand that logic, "we get so much money from the licence payer who has no choice about it, we can spend as much of it as we like on anything."
That's the key. It's crucial to bear in mind that organisations don't spend money: they spend budgets. So if you give a department a budget of £X, one shouldn't be surprised if they find ways of spending exactly £X. The problem is the lack of oversight and scrutiny.
The whole BBC "thing": corporation, trust etc is all one big, happy, nepotism-riddled old-boys club. I suspect that if someone was prepared to grab the bull by the balls they could cut the BBC budget in half and (apart from a loud wailing coming from their overpaid staff) it would have little or no effect on the amount of content they push out. BBC1, for all it's billions still transmits about 50% repeats every day (though admittedly, that's daytime and nighttime - when they would have been closed, in earlier decades - but keeping the lights on and a lone announcer awake doens't cost very much).
However, they still work to a budget, rather than a value-for-moeny proposition. So until their budget is put under pressure, there is no incentive for efficiency or financial responsibility.
I think the fact that the BBC are proud to say they're (still) the biggest TV news organisation might give you a clue how much "scaling down" has been done. Common sense says it obviously needs more scaling down.
No one anywhere in the world needs to rely on the BBC for news now. They can now access newspapers anywhere on-line.
"They can choose whichever bias they like, from that of the BBC to that of the Daily Mail or whatever."
BBC is global, it now funds the World Service so it's bound to be large. They could rely on cut and paste stories about celebs like the Mail but is that news? CNN used to be prominent, where is it now...hardly any of its footage makes the main networks.
"No one anywhere in the world needs to rely on the BBC for news", except the Ukraine and Russia, Syria and many African states?
The BBC also provides National, Regional & Local news, which takes staff to investigate, report and edit. We've seen the affect on ITV of 'scaling down' where local means reports from outside one's region to save money. Does commercial radio do local news apart from rip & read traffic reports?
What you seem to want is one or two sources of news like PR puffs which papers & magazines all repeat but in their own style.
You seem to want to follow the Putin model of broadcasting.
Yes, I can understand that logic, "we get so much money from the licence payer who has no choice about it, we can spend as much of it as we like on anything."
But much of the BBC's affairs are "clouded in secrecy" that only gets revealed by FOIA investigations.
Why don't YOU be honest? You want to force up the cost of watching TV for the overwhelming majority of the population.
Be honest, you will never be satisfied with the BBC whatever they answer or do.
They are far more open than any other broadcaster, but that's not good enough, you want the licence fee spent answering questions rather than making programmes.
I've defended their actions in disciplining Graham Norton on the dedicated thread this week.
So that argument's out the window.
But nice try.
They are far more open than any other broadcaster, but that's not good enough, you want the licence fee spent answering questions rather than making programmes.
Now you're getting desperate as I said nothing of the sort.
They should be open, it's our money they're spending.
More openness would reduce excessive spending significantly.
That's the key. It's crucial to bear in mind that organisations don't spend money: they spend budgets. So if you give a department a budget of £X, one shouldn't be surprised if they find ways of spending exactly £X. The problem is the lack of oversight and scrutiny.
The whole BBC "thing": corporation, trust etc is all one big, happy, nepotism-riddled old-boys club. I suspect that if someone was prepared to grab the bull by the balls they could cut the BBC budget in half and (apart from a loud wailing coming from their overpaid staff) it would have little or no effect on the amount of content they push out. BBC1, for all it's billions still transmits about 50% repeats every day (though admittedly, that's daytime and nighttime - when they would have been closed, in earlier decades - but keeping the lights on and a lone announcer awake doens't cost very much).
However, they still work to a budget, rather than a value-for-moeny proposition. So until their budget is put under pressure, there is no incentive for efficiency or financial responsibility.
Wasn't it Fincham in the "good old days" who was reported to have said to his successor, "You'll have difficulty spending the budget?"
I've worked with budgets all my working life. Coming in on budgets, for me was crucial as my annual bonus depended on it.
Budgets must be realistic and attainable, though not without careful financial control, otherwise there's no incentive.
They should not be too generous as common sense tells anyone that if you come in, having made a significant saving on the budget, it'll be cut the next time. That's why many managers in any business, spend the whole budget.
I'm reminded of a question I asked of the BBC many years ago as to why a poorly received programme series had four dedicated message boards, when more popular programmes had none.
The answer was "'cos it was in the budget."
BBC is global, it now funds the World Service so it's bound to be large.
The BBC will fund the £250M cost of the WS from 2014. When you include the BBC Worldwide sales (£1.4Bn), the corporation has an annual income of just over £5Bn. So the cost of WS is only 5% of that total.
I didn't realise the DS forums ran an exchange deal with the Daily Mail ones. If you cannot see why Nelson Mandela's death is so huge you probably show go back to the DM and post about how EDL/UKIP will solve everything.
I didn't realise the DS forums ran an exchange deal with the Daily Mail ones. If you cannot see why Nelson Mandela's death is so huge you probably show go back to the DM and post about how EDL/UKIP will solve everything.
I don't want to rub it in, but "what part of your licence fee do you think is just for news and what part is just for programmes?
The money for everything comes out of the same pot.
Yes. And gets allocated accordingly. So what? I don't think They can't just take some from, say, the Drama budget and put it into news; or vice versa.
(And I didn't read mikw's post after yours before posting mine )
I've only suggested the news department is scaled down
When the BBC can cover Mandela's funeral with only 20 more people than it takes Sky to cover one football match, I'm not exactly sure it needs "scaling back" at all.
The whole BBC "thing": corporation, trust etc is all one big, happy, nepotism-riddled old-boys club. I suspect that if someone was prepared to grab the bull by the balls they could cut the BBC budget in half and (apart from a loud wailing coming from their overpaid staff) it would have little or no effect on the amount of content they push out.
BIB. Sorry. Demonstrably incorrect. BBC staff are paid a lot less than their commercial equivalents. Try doing some research. You can start with the "boss" of, say, The Daily Wail if you like. Or even the DG equivalent at Channel 4 (probably the closest comparison to the BBC). Or how about the Chair of any NHS Hospital.
Also, out of interest, what are your credentials for being able to come to this conclusion?
BBC1, for all it's billions still transmits about 50% repeats every day (though admittedly, that's daytime and nighttime - when they would have been closed, in earlier decades - but keeping the lights on and a lone announcer awake doens't cost very much).
Yes. New shows cost more money whereas the BBC now have 20% less and have been told to do more with it.
And what about commercial channels? Sky1, for example, is almost 100% repeats every day.
However, they still work to a budget, rather than a value-for-moeny proposition.
Yes. And gets allocated accordingly. So what? I don't think They can't just take some from, say, the Drama budget and put it into news; or vice versa.
(And I didn't read mikw's post after yours before posting mine )
When the BBC can cover Mandela's funeral with only 20 more people than it takes Sky to cover one football match, I'm not exactly sure it needs "scaling back" at all.
Hmm..
Who said anything about taking money from one budget to another?
I'm suggesting they spend less.
Who's posts you read before mine, is of little interest to me.
How many people Sky send anywhere, I'd suggest is the concern of those who subscribe to the service. They pay enough for it. If bothers them, the can just cancel their subscription.
How many people the BBC send anywhere is the concern of the licence payers and they can't cancel their subscription.
Stop comparing apples with oranges.
Your post seems to be growing every time I look at this board.
But it hardly matters, I've made my points.
I didn't realise the DS forums ran an exchange deal with the Daily Mail ones. If you cannot see why Nelson Mandela's death is so huge you probably show go back to the DM and post about how EDL/UKIP will solve everything.
From a British perspective there two much bigger news stories that day, the east coast floods and Chancellor's Autumn Statement.
This is not South Africa and nothing Mandela did in his lifetime makes any difference to the people who live here.
By the way I'm not a fan of either the Daily Mail or UKIP.
Comments
How is 2000 journalists too much then?
Actually i know how businesses work and, the media business in particular, you don't.
Where do you get your information?
Hmm..
You can't be expected to see the whole picture that much better than most, given what you say you do (not for the BBC, as you say you don't work for them).
Let me try to reduce it to how I and I'm sure many might see it.
Presently we've a TV service where there have been endless complaints of the number of repeats.
That's one promise Mark Thompson kept, on which he blamed the refusal of the government to give the BBC more cash and therefore he promised we'd be getting more of them.
Given our decreasing influence in the world, the BBC still boasts that they've the biggest (and therefore likely the most expensive) news gathering service in the world.
"What's wrong with this picture?"
Digressing a bit, I've never understood the media obsession with "exclusives."
Nothing is "exclusive" for more than twenty-four hours and very little happens in this world, that might affect me if I didn't find out about it for a day.
Quite.
Huh? He "can't be expected to see the whole picture that much better than most" despite the fact that he works IN the industry under discussion? Seriously? :eek:
(I really need that "rolleyes" smiley back for posts like this! :mad:)
True. With you so far.
Biggest in the world? Do they actually claim that? I think AP might argue the point.
Well for a start the number of repeats has nothing to do with news-gathering.
Hmm..
My grandfather was a maintenance man at a big hotel in London and he didn't have the full picture of how things work there, either.
Here's a bit of information and opinion for you.
Once again, a clear demonstration that the News Department is out of control, 140 staff sent to cover Mandela’s memorial service. ITV sent nine.
This is what happens when you’ve an embarrassment of employees.
I guess it’s better than “always sending them out to lunch at the same time.” Someone is sure to cotton on to that ploy.
James Harding, the director of BBC News came up with the excuse for so many people sent, that “President Mandela was the most significant statesman of the last 100 years.”
I guess at the age of forty-four, Harding who’d have been in school during the seventies and eighties, when they’d by then “stopped doing history,” can be excused for such a ridiculous statement.
Apparently to fill quiet moments, they were reduced to “interviewing each other.” I’m sure I’ve read about that happening at other events, where they’d sent so many staff.
Yes the BBC is the largest broadcast news service in the world.
Err.. They say so.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/aboutbbcnews/hi/this_is_bbc_news/
(Where's that ruddy smiley when need it
ITV = Three daily news broadcasts; one website.
BBC = One 24-hour rolling news channel, one website, five national radio stations, BBC World News channel, etc.
Gee! I wonder why the BBC needed more people. (I really miss that smiley
(For comparison, Sky send 120 people to cover one, 90-minute UK-only football match.)
No. This is what happens when you're a global news organisation.
Note to DS: I need my smiley back!!
I don't need you to tell me what the BBC do, what I'd like you to do, is given the progressively poorer service as regards increased numbers repeats that licence payers are getting, is tell me why we should be paying for such a large news gathering organisation, given how little influence we have in the world and the number of opportunities and ways people can access news these days.
I think you need to calm down and start applying a bit of logic "and think about that for a bit."
But mikw is a broadcaster and this is the broadcasting forum. So I think what he says certainly holds more validity than anything you might think.
Fair point. I mis-read a part of your original quote.
Onto the new stuff.
Well sorry but obviously I do if you think that taking only 140 people to cover such a massive event as Mr Mandela's passing. (And only 20 more than Sky need to cover one, 90-minute footy match!)
And, as I said before, what does one (number of repeats) have to do with the completely separate news-gathering department?
I don't want to rub it in, but "what part of your licence fee do you think is just for news and what part is just for programmes?
The money for everything comes out of the same pot.
I've only suggested the news department is scaled down, "economies of scale" as I put it, in the light of it's reduced global importance due to increased technology and our reduced influence in world affairs. Not done away with as someone has already suggested is what I'd like.
Mandela's funeral will be as "massive" as the BBC want to make it.
The suggestion is fine, however, Mandela's funeral (a massive world event) only requires a few more staff than Sky take to a "Super Sunday" game - and it's for news across several outlets, so it's not a massive number at all, when put in context.
And, while we're on the subject of sport, do you know that for F1 the Beeb take HALF the amount of staff than Sky do for a live race?
Context is important, otherwise you're just making stuff up
To my eyes the news department has been scaled down, with local overseas reporters replacing BBC personnel. The frequent appearance of World Service staff to provide background information is another example. Do you have evidence of, "...it's reduced global importance due to increased technology"?
I think the fact that the BBC are proud to say they're (still) the biggest TV news organisation might give you a clue how much "scaling down" has been done. Common sense says it obviously needs more scaling down.
No one anywhere in the world needs to rely on the BBC for news now. They can now access newspapers anywhere on-line.
"They can choose whichever bias they like, from that of the BBC to that of the Daily Mail or whatever."
The current situation with news, given the reduction in programmes that people have available on the BBC makes no sense to me.
If you've a different opinion, that's fine, but it won't change mine.
The BBC is given £3,600 MILLION every year.
On that. £1.46 Bn
So large? Not a chance. Maybe in relation to what other TV organisations choose to spend on TV news, but that simply reflects the parlous state of their finances and that news is a luxury, or obligation, that makes them no money. If it was profitable, they's do more of it.
As to why did the BBC send so many people on a "jolly" to South Africa? The simple reason is that they could - and that there was no oversight or questioning. Let's face it a nice little holiday in the southern hemisphere's summer (away from dreary old England in the winter) is cheaper than a pay rise and I'm sure they all had a lovely time there, on expenses.
[url="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/2012-13/bbc-full-financial-statements-2012-13.pdf] source: PDF [/url]
Yes, I can understand that logic, "we get so much money from the licence payer who has no choice about it, we can spend as much of it as we like on anything."
Comparing what is spent on news with the total receipts, is not an excuse for spending more than is necessary.
But that's been endemic at the BBC for decades, that's why Lord Hall (finally) said they had to be more careful with the licence payer's cash.
It's so easy to spend someone else's money.
Still, as the BBC say, "it's only 40p a day."
I'm not suggesting that savings in news would make a significant improvemente in the general quality of programme output, but is one area where anyone can see there could be savings made.
There will be more areas.
But much of the BBC's affairs are "clouded in secrecy" that only gets revealed by FOIA investigations.
That's the key. It's crucial to bear in mind that organisations don't spend money: they spend budgets. So if you give a department a budget of £X, one shouldn't be surprised if they find ways of spending exactly £X. The problem is the lack of oversight and scrutiny.
The whole BBC "thing": corporation, trust etc is all one big, happy, nepotism-riddled old-boys club. I suspect that if someone was prepared to grab the bull by the balls they could cut the BBC budget in half and (apart from a loud wailing coming from their overpaid staff) it would have little or no effect on the amount of content they push out. BBC1, for all it's billions still transmits about 50% repeats every day (though admittedly, that's daytime and nighttime - when they would have been closed, in earlier decades - but keeping the lights on and a lone announcer awake doens't cost very much).
However, they still work to a budget, rather than a value-for-moeny proposition. So until their budget is put under pressure, there is no incentive for efficiency or financial responsibility.
BBC is global, it now funds the World Service so it's bound to be large. They could rely on cut and paste stories about celebs like the Mail but is that news? CNN used to be prominent, where is it now...hardly any of its footage makes the main networks.
"No one anywhere in the world needs to rely on the BBC for news", except the Ukraine and Russia, Syria and many African states?
The BBC also provides National, Regional & Local news, which takes staff to investigate, report and edit. We've seen the affect on ITV of 'scaling down' where local means reports from outside one's region to save money. Does commercial radio do local news apart from rip & read traffic reports?
What you seem to want is one or two sources of news like PR puffs which papers & magazines all repeat but in their own style.
You seem to want to follow the Putin model of broadcasting.
Why don't YOU be honest? You want to force up the cost of watching TV for the overwhelming majority of the population.
Be honest, you will never be satisfied with the BBC whatever they answer or do.
They are far more open than any other broadcaster, but that's not good enough, you want the licence fee spent answering questions rather than making programmes.
Where did I say that?
Oh yes! No I didn't.
I've started enough threads on BBC programmes I think worthwhile.
The latest was "The Silent War," last week. Looking forward to part two this week.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1917525&highlight=the+silent+war
I've defended their actions in disciplining Graham Norton on the dedicated thread this week.
So that argument's out the window.
But nice try.
Now you're getting desperate as I said nothing of the sort.
They should be open, it's our money they're spending.
More openness would reduce excessive spending significantly.
Wasn't it Fincham in the "good old days" who was reported to have said to his successor, "You'll have difficulty spending the budget?"
I've worked with budgets all my working life. Coming in on budgets, for me was crucial as my annual bonus depended on it.
Budgets must be realistic and attainable, though not without careful financial control, otherwise there's no incentive.
They should not be too generous as common sense tells anyone that if you come in, having made a significant saving on the budget, it'll be cut the next time. That's why many managers in any business, spend the whole budget.
I'm reminded of a question I asked of the BBC many years ago as to why a poorly received programme series had four dedicated message boards, when more popular programmes had none.
The answer was "'cos it was in the budget."
Doh!
Hmm..
Love it!
Can't beat DS for amusing posts.
(And I didn't read mikw's post after yours before posting mine
When the BBC can cover Mandela's funeral with only 20 more people than it takes Sky to cover one football match, I'm not exactly sure it needs "scaling back" at all.
BIB. Sorry. Demonstrably incorrect. BBC staff are paid a lot less than their commercial equivalents. Try doing some research. You can start with the "boss" of, say, The Daily Wail if you like. Or even the DG equivalent at Channel 4 (probably the closest comparison to the BBC). Or how about the Chair of any NHS Hospital.
Also, out of interest, what are your credentials for being able to come to this conclusion?
Yes. New shows cost more money whereas the BBC now have 20% less and have been told to do more with it.
And what about commercial channels? Sky1, for example, is almost 100% repeats every day.
The BBC is actually better VFM now compared to 20 years ago.
And yet, even after all the DQF efficiency and jobs-culling, they're still doing it.
Hmm..
Who said anything about taking money from one budget to another?
I'm suggesting they spend less.
Who's posts you read before mine, is of little interest to me.
How many people Sky send anywhere, I'd suggest is the concern of those who subscribe to the service. They pay enough for it. If bothers them, the can just cancel their subscription.
How many people the BBC send anywhere is the concern of the licence payers and they can't cancel their subscription.
Stop comparing apples with oranges.
Your post seems to be growing every time I look at this board.
But it hardly matters, I've made my points.
From a British perspective there two much bigger news stories that day, the east coast floods and Chancellor's Autumn Statement.
This is not South Africa and nothing Mandela did in his lifetime makes any difference to the people who live here.
By the way I'm not a fan of either the Daily Mail or UKIP.