BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

Radio 4, BBC2's Newsnight and BBC News Channel to be affected by 'Delivering Quality First' cost savings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012.../bbc-news-cuts

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

So you dont use there services what so ever ?

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

Have you ever posted a link from the BBC news site on this forum or do you EVER go to any BBC website ???

BTW here's a hint

YOU DO

And you state in your info you have TV so you are getting the BBC whether you like it or not. Pay your tax like the rest of us

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

The BBC caters for a wide audience but Radio 4 is good. BBC 1 and 2 have their moments, Newsnight and Panorama are pretty good. The odd drama and comedy show etc. The Website and iPlayer are also good quality.

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

Exactly. We all use the BBC as much as we want to. Some simply use it more than others. To show pleasure that anyone is now unemployed is not very nice at all.

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

Good riddance to an over paid, over staffed + over funded publically body. They had taken the devils shilling so now have bear what come with it, by paying with there not needed job in the first place... just like the soon to be formal TVL agents! Cost savings my left foot, the BBC radio operation has more staff than it ever needed compared to a private radio operation on the open market, which delivers a better more leaner quality programme format:dunce: on a much smaller crew normally 3 people ...BBC you're looking at 8 -10 basic crew so there where your money gets wasted folks.

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

They could save a few quid by ditching Gary Lineker (@£1.5m pa) and some of the other overpaid football pundits like Alan Hansen (@£40,000 per appearance on MOTD). I'm sure there are plenty of ex-footballers who could do the job just as well for a whole lot less.

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

By what benchmark are you measuring? What is your experience in the sector that makes you qualified to make such a sweeping generalisation?


Okay. Which jobs, specifically, are "not needed" and why?

Really? I assume you really do have no clue as to how these things work?

Here's one for you then. Most "private radio operations" will pay one person to voice-track (ie basically pre-record) their week'-worth of shows and therefore can pay them less than they would to do all the shows in 'real time'; and that's just the one person who, if they did do their programmes "live" would be the only person in the studio; barring a possible Producer.

Compare and contrast that with BBC Radio 1 where (as far as I know) most shows are broadcast LIVE; certainly the daytime ones. And Radio 4? Well they're mostly talk, so they will have some people in the studio, a producer and at least one or two "technical" folk to control everything rather than being "self-op" like Radio 1 or any commercial station.

Subjective. You might think that. Others might not.

No. As I explained, it's usually the other way round.

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

agreed but the BBC seem to be loyal to there presenters on TV and radio,unless there all on very long contracts

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

Let me me begin to say hello my fellow gent carlwaring;)
Lets get right to the answers now..... ok buddy :o:

Well a tax payer in general carl plus a private sector worker for many years who seen all how the public sectors workers get for doing sweet fanny adams nothing but moan when they have work by pulling their finger out to work for there "self called" little amount of money..... like the BBC workers are public servants right ? Yes it's publicly funded for peats sake:dozey:
So like any other public owned service it should be run on a tight shoe string no more extra expense than need unlike now days.
You have person for H & S person for paper pushing, person for that then this, then that it goes on!!! Typical time wasting exercises to fool unquestioning fellow tax payer/s paying their wages I may add, then they ask for a license fee on top after we paid for them already pure utter down right cheek :mad::td: I never leave nothing anything to chance as you have gathered, you have question everything leave nothing unturned I may add in todays world if you don't you will never know how little we a taxpayers have to rightly pay not be mugged at every corner with tax like untold numbers that do willing & not wake there feeling to the system of big government that make them slaves to the system.

Good question, fellow kind sir.... well all the red tape jobs first & easy one like as that of a eg; personal manager, all H + S enforcers staff + alike then work your way from the top down, like it should be like. Shear off most top level management, then their paid followers. Then the assistant to all the middle management, then last cap all salaries below the point of inflation/interest rates not above like now!!! Hows for a start my second would be to drive down the cost of production to the minimum unlike now even only pay on percentage then the rest on performance rated pay.

Most public service work for there own cause, but it should never have been that way, blame the unions for that - they seam to want everything & anything for their members but never think theres a fine line between in the black or in the red mist + your on your own way to losing your job money wise.
As public servants, we paying their wages also to add giving them their job in the first place, respect should from top down to the tax payers... you don't see that when you hear about the chief exc bonuses or there expense claims no you don't just it's all take not in-thinking where there money came from in the primary stages. If these people want respect they have to earn it the hard way not slack away from there neck downwards. I know all about balancing costs as I work in private sector (SME), where cost are tight but there work to be had but overall we have a higher work rate & production than if it was run by public funded body, to compare eg private sector vs council (tax payer funded) doing the same jobs.
Yes you guessed it + most likely seen it too the "council" take longer, cost 3x as much even most times have to be redone from the private sector as errors have been made from day one!
Plus I've seen for myself on many times, public bodies employing "yes" agreeing brain zombies to do middle/higher management dirty work if that doesn't stink from high heaven what doesn't. Who gets the can first? it's the brain zombie not the management as the brainless idiot gets replace with another one or two hence the words "red tape" or " over the top government bureaucracy" come to mind > useless bunch the lot of them.

Well like all of the BBC's assortment of media outlets, they leach from other sources rather that source it for themselves, it's how BBC been ran since bean counters have taken over, oh way back when. Reading a piece the other day, how the BBC is trying to muscle out all the commercial sources in all type of media these days, take "the voice" on BBC1 theres a good example for you where corp' is heading - wanting to be a commercial but still over funded by tax payers squeezing out the smaller players that produce a higher quality of programming other than what rubbish the BBC produces in todays world. All repeats, poor lack luster type of programming, no new ideas + or themes but the old form of produced rubbish; then they wonder why are they viewing figure are falling big each year... any one guess why?
Btw I no need to watch any of BBC content as it all same I've though the years, even there radio stations > utter dire need of full removal, to free up the air waves for others to broadcast content on a local level.

Thats true, each of us have our own views but the BBC corp needs to brought down to it's knees & it to be cut down to it real size - cut 75% of the lot of it, employ the empy space (programming) on a free lance basis like the commercial sector does, easy as that - plus run on shoe string budget no extra expense !! than it needs that way you cut cost & improve quality - a tried + tested formula for years.

So I hope I've answered all your questions, if not don't be afraid to ask carl buddy, enjoy your day whenever your reading this

---------- Post added at 22:45 ---------- Previous post was at 22:23 ----------

Hia heero & Sirius having a good day?

Sorry I have agree with heero, on this one Sirius it says it all on back of your TV license look for yourself, I have even on the TVL web site ....... you only need a license if only your viewing a live feed broadcast only that not anything else.

Not: owning a number of TV's , DVD players, Moblie phone, computer etc

As long you use you equipment to watch Tv on demand, catch up services like BBC I player (not live) recorded programmed content you within your legal rights. Don't think one minute those TVL persons are for your benefit to visit you, there to collect a illegal tax which they have no power to in the first place, do remember that too.
Say nothing to them, don't answer there questions send them packing full stop.

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

So basically no actual relevant experience to say whether or not the BBC are actually over-staffed then. Just a general feeling that "well they're public sector workers so they must be? Okay. Glad we got that cleared up and we can safely ignore your opinion as just that.

Except that they're actually not "public sector" workers in the sense that you mean it.

So do you have any examples of this "extra un-necessary expense" then, or are you just parroting the Daily Wail?

This makes no sense, so I'm going to have to ignore it as nonsense.

More nonsense. What have we "paid them already" that they then shouldn't need to "ask for a Licence Fee for"? :confused:

:confused: :wtf::nutter:

I thought so.

I assume you mean "personnel" manager?

So the BBC shouldn't employ anyone who is "..responsible for managing the welfare and performance of everyone within the organization." (link) You don't think the welfare and performance of a company's employees is anything for said company to bother about? :confused:


Well they're cutting their pay. That's a start :)

The BBC already pays far less than any equivalent commercial-sector job, so I don't think there's any reason to cut things further. However, there is a more cuts to come and it's all detailed here.

{snip a load of stuff I cba to read}

Again, you're going to have to provide some examples of what you mean because I don't know what you're on about :confused:

No, they really aren't :rolleyes:

They don't "want to be commercial" at all. No commercial channel wants them to be commercial either because it would be very bad for them. But it is true that the BBC does operate in a commercial media environment.

Massive over-statement there :rolleyes:

Subjective. I disagree.

Because ever TV channel viewing figures are falling due to there being ever more channels to watch.

However, despite that, BBC1 and BBC2 remain by far the most-watched pair of channels from any single broadcaster.

As I understand it, a report a few years ago by the Conservative Party concluded that, to strip the BBC down to "PSB only" (though they didn't say whose definition of PSB they were using) would save each LF payer a grand total of just £6 per year. So they buried it and turned it into "LF freeze" instead.

You got any examples? Here's one. For the entire Beijing Olympics, the BBC took a team of a little over 400 people. That's for their entire coverage; start to finish on all outlets. For one, standard, 90m football match in the UK, Sky use 120 people. So, in your opinion, which of those is the more wasteful?

Not so much, really. You've ranted a lot, though. Hope you feel better now :)

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

Here's one, a point I have raised before.

I was listening to the radio in the car, and flicking through the channels noted that radio 2, radio 4 and radio 5 all had virtually the same news bulletin and travel information, all being read out by different people.

Surely not beyond the realms of possibility to centralise that is it?

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

I think some of you should read Flat Earth News by Nick Davis.

You might start to appreciate just how the gathering of everyday news has been cheapened by the cut throat press barons who demand high turnover and churn at the expense of actually ethically sourcing the news.
This is the reason why every newspaper and news channel and radio news has exactly the damned same news stories.They basically all go to the same flawed sources where cutting costs is the motto rather than getting the news.At least the BBC has had the financial ability to try and source news ethically.That is up until Murdoch putting his size 9s all over influencing the present government over the cuts to the BBC's funding.

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

You have to remember that each of those stations will deliver there news in different styles according to the listener demographic.

However, I believe that is one thing they are, indeed, looking at doing.

Not the first time I have had that book recommended when discussing this subject.

Someone I know of (on the DS forums) who is a freelancer, tells how some commercial stations get their news stories from the BBC website!!

Funnily enough, that's not the first time (or second or third!) that I have read that comment too :D

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

Sadly there was a time when reading the same facts in more than one newspaper actually meant that the story was likely to be true.Now it just means they use the same sources..

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

Yet again, another reason why the BBC should have 100% control of the licence fee, This is nothing more than a attempt to keep Murdoch happy. :mad:

All this will do is reduce quality in the BBC and further reduce quality news and current affairs! :td:

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------

What about news agencies like Associated Press and Retuers?

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

I reiterate that you really should read Flat Earth News by Nick Davis..


The modern day press barons have screwed as much profit out of every news source to the point that each and every news agency(national or international) is cut to the bone staff wise and there are not enough bodies on the ground actually doing any research or sourcing of real actual news.

Reuters is a pale shadow of the once stellar organisation it once was.

Today's papers tend to stea...errr repeat the news from other papers or just make them up or use press releases from PAs trying to promote the interests of a company,political party or product.

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

Rubbish

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

What a surprise!!! :shocked::shocked::shocked: :D

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

I remember reading in an article by Private Eye about the myth the 24 hour rolling news is good.

Well, on a basic level, and ignoring the repetitive nature of it, it is. It is handy to be able to turn on the TV at any time and get a quick run through of what's happening in the world.

The problems start when there is a big news item. Private Eye gave the example of the BBC's coverage of the last Gulf war. The BBC and Sky apparently both had so much footage coming in that they were both playing footage on the channel without anyone with journalistic experience seeing and verifying it to be correct.

Part of that problem was a complete lack of qualified journalists.

I remember one night, I was watching ITV news, and for 45 minutes, their complete news coverage was live night vision video of a road in Iraq, which the news reader not apparently knowing what was happening but furiously scrambling to come up with "facts" to keep the viewer interested.

Anyway, I digress..

Part of the problem for the BBC is that it's competition is very powerful (or was :) ). The Daily Mail and Murdoch in particular. Two organisations that will happily use their complete range of media outlets to publically criticise the BBC whenever it does anything even slightly dodgy while remaining oddly uncritical of each others own transgressions. Think about that for a second.. When have you *ever* seen a tabloid (apart from the Mirror, which does seem happy to criticise others) criticise another tabloid?

I think this thread indicates something i thing is a problem for the media in general. It takes time, money and personnel to investigate good stories. Indeed, it can take months and thousands of pounds.

The broadsheets do apparently still do this, but the tabloids have worked out it's cheaper to fill their pages with pictures of z list slebs doing any kind of random crap that will get them a column inch or two, and fill the rest of the paper with Sport and their own agenda disguised as news.

I just hope the BBC don't do that.

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

I would do, but I fear it might depress me too much :D

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

I meant that since the beginning of News Agencies, Newspapers share stories because they get it from the same source (news agencies) for the past 100 years or so.

We need more non-profit news sources and the BBC is one of them, it about time the media was taken control by BBC-style companies

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

And the ones you would like are not those that the majority would like i can bet.


Maybe you should show them your twitter feed i am sure they can get a story or two from that ;)

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

What do you mean the majority, have you asked what news outlet do thet like?

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

The problem with your socialist view of the world (assuming you do actually believe what you say and aren't making it up) is that you see people as passive and that they need to be spoon fed your twisted version of reality.

The reason that Murdoch is successful is not because of some crazy mind control that he has over people. Break it down to the basic level and then you see that his organisations deliver exactly what people want in a format that they want. He isn't subliminally controlling the masses - he is simply giving them exactly what they want through his outlets.

If people didn't want it they wouldn't have it. The problem with your world view is that you can't place the responsibility at the individual. If people wanted better news they would vote with their feet and get it.

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

Since when have I suggested that Rupert Murdoch has mind control over people? (Unless he is a member of the Jedi :D)

Anyway, he took control of Britains highest selling newspaper and used it to his ends, Murdoch (and other media outlets) do deals with poltical parties so that he gets what he wants and in return his newspapers express his poltical views

Now media giants have the power to control policy, A lot of people beleve in what the media say's, so you cannot say that media giants have no influence over people opinions

Remember the term:

"Your Provide the Pictures, I will provide the War"

The trouble is that people have got used to a system and they don't like chance (its a human instinct), but when it comes to a point where they have no hope in life, that can chage pretty fast

I would not describe myself as a socialist, they are too corrputed by many things (including links with Islamists) and by the way, I want a un-biased media!

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

Then start at home with your biased view of the world.

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

Error!

When Rupert Murdoch bought the Sun newspaper in 1969, its circulation was in decline, and it was haemorrhaging money - he turned it from a broadsheet into a tabloid, and into the biggest selling newspaper by giving people what they thought they wanted (including page 3)....

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

There you go again suggesting that the media controls people. No it does not!

People have minds of their own. You are confusing the facts here. Media giants are big because they provide a product that people want and not because they brainwash people into their point of view.

There is no such thing as bias free media. Everyone has an opinion, including journalists. People buy Murdochs media because his media shares the persons point of view and not because they are trying to buy in to his way of thinking - they already think the same he does on those issues.

His political influence, or any other outlets influence for that matter, is due to the fact that they know that their consumer base supports their view. It really is that simple.

If tomorrow Murdochs outlet headlines 'Lets all be paedos', will Britain become a nation of paedophiles? Under your world view yes, but in reality no because at this point the view of the consumer and media outlet would differ so the consumers vote with their feet and find a more appropriate media outlet.

Re: BBC News cuts: 140 posts to go.
 

We are all biased anyway

---------- Post added at 12:09 ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 ----------

True, but as first he did not change its political viewpoint, until he did a deal with the Tories, in return, they did things in his favour (by then it was the UK's highest selling newspaper). That has been the case for 30 years

Remember what happen to a certain Neil Kinnock?

---------- Post added at 12:15 ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 ----------

I am not suggesting the media controls people, but it the information it gives to them can be manipulated in their favour (both left wing and right wing have done this)

The reason is he has political influence is that the biased info they have given their readers (the Daily Mail and Express do the same) has helped them share the same political views as the newspaper they read

Also they use they popularity to lobby for political change (Sarah's Law for example), I don't think Murdoch will ever suggest that about being Paedos, because of their long campaigns against them, then there are the close links between Press and government...