26-03-2023, 02:23 PM
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.
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.