[oscillon]

As an aside, I was listening to BBC World Service on the radio last weekend and they had extensive coverage of Cyclone Freddy.

It is even more curious that recent BBC myopia has only seemingly affected TV and not Radio (although I’m thankful that not all BBC output has gone downhill!). I’m concerned, personally, that it’s a reflection of cutbacks behind the scenes in newsgathering and production. We are getting a poorer journalistic output as a result.

World Service, unlike World News (and now, by extension, joint service), is not commercial and is funded by either licence fee or the Foreign Office grant (it was surely the latter back in the day, but I have a memory that it had changed), so it does not have to cater to US audience.

Although I do wonder whether they have any additional revenue from those NPR stations that air the Newshour or simulcast during US overnights.

[Stuart]

World Service, unlike World News (and now, by extension, joint service), is not commercial and is funded by either licence fee or the Foreign Office grant (it was surely the latter back in the day, but I have a memory that it had changed), so it does not have to cater to US audience.

The FCDO do still provide some funding from the Overseas Aid Budget towards the BBC World Service.  I think that's an important contribution as the UK (through the BBC) is respected as an international provider of news, especially in parts of the world where impartiality is rare.

[Radio_man]

World Service, unlike World News (and now, by extension, joint service), is not commercial and is funded by either licence fee or the Foreign Office grant (it was surely the latter back in the day, but I have a memory that it had changed), so it does not have to cater to US audience.

The FCDO do still provide some funding from the Overseas Aid Budget towards the BBC World Service.  I think that's an important contribution as the UK (through the BBC) is respected as an international provider of news, especially in parts of the world where impartiality is rare.

The Foreign Office does still provide some funding for the World Service, but it was massively cut by George Osborne, meaning the license fee has to pick up the majority of the funding for WS now. Same for free over 75 TV licenses, which the government no longer funds and now comes out of the license fee (again, thanks to George Osborne).
Along with the license fee being frozen when inflation is sky rocketing, this all contributes to why we're seeing the cuts were now seeing.

[interestednovice]

World Service, unlike World News (and now, by extension, joint service), is not commercial and is funded by either licence fee or the Foreign Office grant (it was surely the latter back in the day, but I have a memory that it had changed), so it does not have to cater to US audience.

The FCDO do still provide some funding from the Overseas Aid Budget towards the BBC World Service.  I think that's an important contribution as the UK (through the BBC) is respected as an international provider of news, especially in parts of the world where impartiality is rare.

Exactly, and that’s why proper coverage of world events is so important. I was referring specifically to world events in my original post because it was intended mainly as a reply to comments about Storm Freddy.

I was aware of the cuts to local news, but there are other sources of local news so it’s not quite “as bad”, in my opinion. It still is bad though and I disagree with the BBC’s funding decisions completely. News is the very definition of PSB content and should be protected, otherwise there is no point to PSB status. Cut elsewhere instead, and if we must have a more streamlined BBC model it on PBS (“boring”, proper PSB content, cuts to entertainment which will be provided by commercial competitors). Nobody else will “fill the gap” with news.

Every time I say this someone brings up the Reithian mission to “inform, educate and entertain”. Firstly, the importance of those three tenants is in that order on purpose in my view; inform is most important. Secondly, since Reith’s day entertainment has exploded so it is available elsewhere. The BBC could still do some entertainment, but could afford to do less of it. They should also focus on education through proper Children’s programming (also keeping CBBC) and factual documentaries (keeping BBC Four). This is stuff nobody else will produce. Other content is quite literally less important because it is more replaceable in the commercial sector.

[DTV]

I mean this view keeps coming up, but I don't think it's fair or particularly reasonable.

I think the idea that nobody could 'fill the gap' (even if we suppose massive gaps are opening) in news is somewhat undermined by the litany of other news sources that are available in the UK - some of which are of comparable quality to the BBC. And the BBC isn't abandoning news by any means - it's just shrinking its news operation in proportion to the reduction in other services. Are the cuts ideal or desirable, absolutely not - but they are happening, deeper than ever before and I don't think that, where cuts can reasonably be made, no department or channel than can make them should be excepted.

Ultimately, the BBC spends far more on news output than any other genre of programming and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Even after the cuts, it'll still produce far more news output than its direct competitors. Cuts are simply more visible because its is harder to paper over the cracks and because many staff involved in News are employed directly.

And while there are aspects of news that the BBC is somewhat unique in doing, you can also say the same of sections of its entertainment output - there are dozens of drama, comedy or entertainment series that wouldn't have been commissioned by other broadcasters. And, like it or not, but 'entertain' is the part of the Reithian mission that creates consent for the other parts to get funding. BBC News has value, but so does the rest of the BBC and I don't think it would be at all fair in a time of severe cuts for other parts of the BBC to (again) disproportionately take the hit so that secondary news services (none of which are being wholly eliminated) can continue to be funded at past levels.

[ViridianFan]

There’s also the fact that the cost of living is having a massive impact on the disposable income people have to spend on entertain be it tickets to the cinema or see a show to just going for a meal out. You’re going to find a lot of peoples are going to be turning to the TV to fill that gap.

When you look at the price of sky or even subscriptions to Netflix etc, that’s an additional cost people may have to start trimming back. I think there’s the possibility that people will be tuning back to the BBC

I do think that we’ve got to a situation where when people talk about “the BBC” that they often just think of the news division and forget all of the other things it does. I think it’s where a lot of the unhappiness with the license fee comes from. The educate and entertain sometimes feels like it comes secondary to the news.  If you reduced the spending on them further to maintain the news people are going to be even less happy paying it. 

 Personal opinion, they need to reclaim the idea that “the BBC” is more than just the news it’s documentaries, it’s dramas, it’s entertainment shows you watch as a family and it’s for everyone

[DTV]

Personal opinion, they need to reclaim the idea that “the BBC” is more than just the news it’s documentaries, it’s dramas, it’s entertainment shows you watch as a family and it’s for everyone

Well certainly, and I think things like the 'This is our BBC' campaign can remind people of that. That's not to diminish BBC News which, particularly its primary news operations, serve an important civic role, but I'd absolutely agree that the News-first view of the BBC - which is particularly prevalent among politicians and other media - is not especially helpful and can even be detrimental to the BBC a whole. It's also something that causes a bit of resentment among those who work in other parts of the BBC, who can often view News as the executive's darling.

[bbctvtechop]

I was aware of the cuts to local news, but there are other sources of local news so it’s not quite “as bad”, in my opinion.

Please could you identify this source of good-quality, high-quantity local news which (a) has journalists based in the local area and (b) doesn't take some money away from the license fee? I appreciate in some (larger) cities this exists, but it's most certainly not elsewhere.

---

I do think that we’ve got to a situation where when people talk about “the BBC” that they often just think of the news division and forget all of the other things it does. I think it’s where a lot of the unhappiness with the license fee comes from. 

Agree, but I believe the bigger problem is its name - "TV license". It should be called the "public service media license" to encapsulate everything it now pays for.

[Steve in Pudsey]

Indeed, in many areas the only other credible provider of local news is ITV. Local commercial radio does the bare minimum to keep under ofcom's radar and many local newspapers have been reduced to clickbait factories.

Honourable exceptions apply to all of the above, of course.

[London Lite]

There are also hyperlocal news websites not associated with any traditional publisher, these are usually one-man bands, but have been known to break stories and also supply content to Private Eye.