LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Reports suggest that the BBC will make sweeping reductions in services, including plans to shut down two radio stations and cut back web services by 50 per cent.
Read more.Reports suggest that the BBC will make sweeping reductions in services, including plans to shut down two radio stations and cut back web services by 50 per cent.
Getting rid of the Asian radio station? Racists.
Does this mean the TV tax will drop in price as well?
Originally Posted by PeterStoba
Getting rid of the Asian radio station? Racists.
I really admire the BBC... the deal they are doing with "Apple" means I can watch the BBC iplayer on my iPhone. Mmmmmm Nice
PLEASE do NOT get rid of BBC Asian Network. I will cry if they do
If they can 6music, i will cry.
And no, I'm not joking about this.
I would also be very disappointed to see 6 Music go.
Bruce Dickinson's Rock Show and The Graig Charles Funk and Soul show were the only reasons i bought a Digital Radio and bought an in car one as well.
Cutting digital radio stations would be pretty short sighted when the government is looking to push DAB as a replacement for FM over the next few years.
I can see the audience for these two stations exploding once people actually have digital radio in cars.
I suppose they had to make cuts somewhere to pay for the new £1bn Broadcasting House redevelopment. Nice chairs for the execs to sit on no content for the public. Fantastic.
□ΞVΞ□
Well, it raises the whole question of what the BBC should be doing, given that it's funded by a compulsory levy.
They raise funds by what boils down to a tax on the public, so it's tempting to think "we have the money, so what can we spend it on?", when the real question is "what needs to be provided by the BBC, and how much will it cost?" and then raise the funds that are necessary.
The other thing that ought to be considered us whether something the BBC is doing that it doesn't need to be doing is stifling independent companies from doing it because the BBC does it, and they can't compete with the BBC.
It seems to me that while the BBC provides some core services that are at least highly desirable if not necessary, and within it's remit, it is a bit like a seam monster .... the bits you can see hide the vast network of tentacles lurking out of sight. It's grown to use the available money, rather than only raising the money that's necessary.
It is high time the BBC was radically trimmed to get rid of surplus (and often ludicrously expensive) talent, and that includes "stars" like Ross, and a substantial amount of disgracefully well-paid "management".
The rest of the country, both individuals and businesses (except, it seems, banks) are facing hard times, probably for several years, and I see no reason why the BBC should be spared the pain. Cut it's cloth according to the country's means, cut operations, and cut the damn licence fee.
Did you mention "stars", "Talent" and "Ross" in the same sentence???
The BBC does seem to have been obsessed with ratings and competing with commercial stations. Perhaps if it concentrated more on growing its own talent, and setting standards, rather than following them (down) I might be a little more sympathetic.
That said, it does seem to be getting the balance between popular culture and the less mainstream stuff better than it was. (IMHO)
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Ah. Erm .... errrrrr ..... oh yeah .....Did you mention "stars", "Talent" and "Ross" in the same sentence???
...
.... I did put "stars" in commas to indicate both that I am a quoting BBC references to some individuals and that it was a dubious description in relation to Ross, intended to be satirical, and the 'talent' is a generic description used by the arty types of distinguish between front-of-camera performers and the technical staff rather than an assertion that they necessarily actually have any.
Did I get away with that?
However, Ross does appear to have some talent. At least two in fact. One is for pee-ing off a very large number of people in a short space of time, and the other is for extracting vast and entirely unjustified amounts of wedge from licence-fee payers for his puerile antics, courtesy of the muppets in BBC management that thought it was a good idea. I suppose on one level, you've got to admire someone that can turn being a mediocre one-trick pony into a lucrative career. I can despise him for it .... while being jealous that it wasn't me that managed to get away with it for so long.
But I think you're being harsh about me using "stars", talent and Ross all in one sentence. How about ....
"What surprises me is that the BBC let someone so hugely bereft of any real talent as Ross masquerade as a "star" for so long".
Will that do for a sentence?
All they need to do now is that playing adverts and stop taxing us, how can they say it doesn't work? it clearly does for everybody else.
if they did that you would find a lot more generic crap on the BBC.
□ΞVΞ□
Clearly it doesn't
ITV to cut 600 jobs as losses swell to £2.7bn
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle5843378.ece
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote