[DTV]

Aside from the fact that TV itself isn't really necessary and even a programme where its prime function is to educate and inform can be entertaining, entertainment is more expensive to make because of what and who's involved (as a general rule of thumb). When the BBC have cuts to make, those types of shows should go first, but it's likely the case that the BBC don't want to do this because of how many more people would stop paying the licence fee if these shows were axed.

Entertainment programming might be more expensive per minute, but it also has a far greater commercial return and repeat value, plus the BBC produces fewer hours of it than certain non-entertainment genres (News, for instance, is by far the largest part of output-related expenditure). As I've said before and you allude to, it's also an essential part of the PSB bargain that allows the BBC to finance the more 'worthy' parts of its output. And, of course, some of the BBC's biggest entertainment successes (Strictly, Doctor Who) are only successes because of risks only the BBC took. All in all, I personally value those parts of the BBC as much as the rest.

Also, the thing with the 'news first' and 'shouldn't do what commercial broadcasters can' approaches to the BBC that a lot of people on this forum seem to have is what BBC News TV output do commercial alternatives not do? You might have been able to say something years ago, but, partially thanks to the detabloidisation of ITV and Sky News and partly down to cuts, pretty much anything that BBC News does on TV is done to an at least similar quality elsewhere. Now you can argue that BBC News should be doing more different things, but - as things stand - I think it's hard to argue that BBC TV's news output is more unique than its entertainment output.