Posts: 121
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 741 in 95 posts
Likes Given: 63
Joined: Jul 2022
(22-01-2023, 07:04 PM)Newshound47 Wrote: I think a big issue when talking about funding will be that money is still being spent on projects that I can’t see a benefit for the BBC like the Shamima Begum podcast.
Arguably this is te kind of journalism the BBC SHOULD be doing (more of). There is a clear PSB element, it's original, investigative, high quality journalism. It's also something most other news outlets wouldn't commission themselves.
Posts: 566
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 321 in 173 posts
Likes Given: 37
Joined: Oct 2022
(22-01-2023, 07:31 PM)bbctvtechop Wrote: (22-01-2023, 07:04 PM)Newshound47 Wrote: I think a big issue when talking about funding will be that money is still being spent on projects that I can’t see a benefit for the BBC like the Shamima Begum podcast.
Arguably this is te kind of journalism the BBC SHOULD be doing (more of). There is a clear PSB element, it's original, investigative, high quality journalism. It's also something most other news outlets wouldn't commission themselves.
All true but it’s such a controversial topic that the downsides are potentially massive.
Posts: 879
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 1,807 in 531 posts
Likes Given: 911
Joined: Aug 2022
(22-01-2023, 07:37 PM)Newshound47 Wrote: (22-01-2023, 07:31 PM)bbctvtechop Wrote: Arguably this is te kind of journalism the BBC SHOULD be doing (more of). There is a clear PSB element, it's original, investigative, high quality journalism. It's also something most other news outlets wouldn't commission themselves.
All true but it’s such a controversial topic that the downsides are potentially massive.
I have to press you again on context. What downsides are massive? There is no point in commenting without.
Posts: 121
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 741 in 95 posts
Likes Given: 63
Joined: Jul 2022
(22-01-2023, 07:37 PM)Newshound47 Wrote: (22-01-2023, 07:31 PM)bbctvtechop Wrote: Arguably this is te kind of journalism the BBC SHOULD be doing (more of). There is a clear PSB element, it's original, investigative, high quality journalism. It's also something most other news outlets wouldn't commission themselves.
All true but it’s such a controversial topic that the downsides are potentially massive.
There is never a downside to good quality controversial journalism.
Posts: 21
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 7 in 5 posts
Likes Given: 3
Joined: Oct 2022
(22-01-2023, 04:09 PM)Scratch_Perry Wrote: (22-01-2023, 10:59 AM)AaronTV Wrote: I think people are getting really quite carried away about this, certainly straying into melodramatics.
The reality is that the BBC has been incredibly privileged to have had the ability to fund its news operation in the way it has done, without being limited in the way that its commercial rivals have been. That now has to be done differently.
As for the quality of journalism dropping as a result of cuts, I simply don’t buy this argument. ITV News produces excellent coverage with a much, much, smaller budget and pool of resources. Channel 4 News and 5 News are also vastly smaller services. As noted in The Times, the BBC has already fallen behind somewhat in terms of its rivals at ITV and Sky in terms of finding exclusives. That certainly isn’t budget related.
Most importantly, the vast majority of those who consume their news through the BBC do so by the traditional bulletins and through the website/app/social media. That isn’t changing.
The News Channel certainly is not this enormously watched service, therefore, and I would be willing to bet that most people don’t notice the merger has even taken place.
They will do when they notice the newsreader refer to - or caption - Rishi Sunak as the "British (or UK) Prime Minister", Jeremy Hunt as the "British Finance Minister" and Suella Braverman as the "British Interior Minister"!
They will only notice when the wrong job descriptions (as you have written) are used. Quite frankly, if the viewer does not know what the 'PM' is in a UK political report, there's really no point them watching. For example you would never describe King Charles III (of the United Kingdom)...
Posts: 121
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 741 in 95 posts
Likes Given: 63
Joined: Jul 2022
(22-01-2023, 08:23 PM)Fluffy Bunny Feet Wrote: (22-01-2023, 04:09 PM)Scratch_Perry Wrote: They will do when they notice the newsreader refer to - or caption - Rishi Sunak as the "British (or UK) Prime Minister", Jeremy Hunt as the "British Finance Minister" and Suella Braverman as the "British Interior Minister"!
They will only notice when the wrong job descriptions (as you have written) are used. Quite frankly, if the viewer does not know what the 'PM' is in a UK political report, there's really no point them watching. For example you would never describe King Charles III (of the United Kingdom)...
BiB - We as UK citizens wouldn't, you're right. But what if there is another King Charles somewhere else in the world - you would expect an international news channel to define and differentiate who they're referring to unless the context is strong already.
Posts: 566
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 321 in 173 posts
Likes Given: 37
Joined: Oct 2022
(22-01-2023, 07:44 PM)bbctvtechop Wrote: (22-01-2023, 07:37 PM)Newshound47 Wrote: All true but it’s such a controversial topic that the downsides are potentially massive.
There is never a downside to good quality controversial journalism.
It is when it’s used as an example of the BBC having a liberal bias and other familiar criticisms.
Posts: 151
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 76 in 42 posts
Likes Given: 1,405
Joined: Oct 2022
(22-01-2023, 07:21 PM)Newsroom Wrote: (22-01-2023, 07:04 PM)Newshound47 Wrote: I think a big issue when talking about funding will be that money is still being spent on projects that I can’t see a benefit for the BBC like the Shamima Begum podcast.
Could you provide context here please?
Second series of I'm Not A Monster.
Posts: 334
Threads: 7
Likes Received: 664 in 193 posts
Likes Given: 42
Joined: Jul 2022
(22-01-2023, 08:29 PM)Newshound47 Wrote: (22-01-2023, 07:44 PM)bbctvtechop Wrote: There is never a downside to good quality controversial journalism.
It is when it’s used as an example of the BBC having a liberal bias and other familiar criticisms.
I don't think it would be wise for the BBC to water-down its journalism to satisfy a small group of vocal but dim critics.
Posts: 590
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 1,511 in 385 posts
Likes Given: 282
Joined: Jul 2022
(22-01-2023, 07:37 PM)Newshound47 Wrote: (22-01-2023, 07:31 PM)bbctvtechop Wrote: Arguably this is te kind of journalism the BBC SHOULD be doing (more of). There is a clear PSB element, it's original, investigative, high quality journalism. It's also something most other news outlets wouldn't commission themselves.
All true but it’s such a controversial topic that the downsides are potentially massive.
Tell me you haven’t listened to it without telling me you haven’t listened to it.