19-04-2023, 09:13 PM
(19-04-2023, 09:02 PM)DTV Wrote:(19-04-2023, 08:23 PM)Kojak Wrote: I still think other things could and should have been cut first.But which services would you have cut first? I know this isn't a popular view here, but I honestly can't see how ringfencing the old News channel could possibly have been justified any longer - it had remained relatively unscathed throughout several prior rounds of cuts (to the extent of actually increasing its budget in real terms) and has, regardless of thoughts on the output, been actually able to retain the same level of original programming as before - which isn't something that could be said of other cutback services.
For starters, BBC Three. What was the point of bringing that back as a linear channel, doubling its budget to £80 million, only for the BBC to then announce a couple of months later that BBC Four, CBBC and the News Channel were for the chop? Now there is talk that BBC Four might stay and Three could be shut down again - so what was the point? BBC Three's target audience just don't watch linear TV. That extra £40 million could have paid for the News Channel multiple times over.
Quote:While there might have been other options (none of which would have been popular here either) and, even with a merger, there would have been several crucial things I personally would have done differently, I find it hard to see the cuts to the News channel as unfair or see services that should have shouldered extra cuts (or even be wholly eliminated) to save it.
Even if weekends and evenings had to be fully merged, I still think a separate weekday daytime service could and should have been preserved. As I said, I don't think there was any need to bring back BBC Three - just a fraction of the money spent on its revival could easily have gone towards maintaining the News Channel.