BBC BLOGS - The Editors
« Previous | Main | Next »

BBC in the news, Monday

Host Host | 11:29 UK time, Monday, 16 October 2006

Sunday Telegraph: 'BBC is to have independent review into its business news coverage.' (Link)

The People: Traffic to MI5 website doubles after each episode of BBC One's Spooks. (Link)

Sunday Telegraph: BBC to challenge Freedom of Information ruling about a Middle East report. (Link)

The Guardian: Letter saying Ofcom should restrict news programmes to events in preceeding 24 hours. (Link)

The Independent: Columnist says 'BBC could afford move to Salford if it wanted.' (Link)

The Financial Times: BBC 'ranked at or near the top of the list of ideal employers for every ethnic group surveyed this summer'. (Link)


  • 1.
  • At 12:38 PM on 16 Oct 2006,
  • Sam wrote:

Fair play that was kept nearly as quiet as the BBC's TV license review!

Well i can't say i'm surprised, personally i am very anti israel but the BBC does have a tendancy to point out Israels failiures to uphold international law and yet ignores other countries that do the same ie: Palestine.

For me though all this points to the fact that as a legally enforced tax subsidised service it doesn't actually seem to make the BBC any more impartial which makes me then think why on earth am i being forced to pay for it?

Make the BBC a subscription service and you can be as bias as you like and if you cease to be so be it, i for one strongly resent being forced to pay for it, we are NOT communists in England last time i checked.

  • 2.
  • At 03:42 PM on 16 Oct 2006,
  • Ed wrote:

Sam: Then how could the BBC justify making programs for "minorities", such as children or documentaries. Look how ITV has had to scrap much of its programming as it doesn't make money - this isn't an issue for the BBC. If the BBC was a voluntary subscription, it would never be able to afford to the cost of many of the productions it puts on.

As has been said by the BBC themselves, its the better of two evils...

  • 3.
  • At 12:11 PM on 18 Oct 2006,
  • Sam wrote:

That may be true, but unfortunatley you miss the point that i personally don't really care about programs for minorities or documentries. I only watch the news for around 20 mins each day when i have a cup of tea before work in the morning.

From my own perspective the only purpose the BBC serves as a legally enforced tax subsidised entity is to produce truly impartial news which is paramount in maintaining a informed electorate. But as recent publications point out the BBC isn't that impartial.

Ironically when specifically talking about Israel i'd be inclined to agree with the BBC's view but the BBC isn't meant to have a view its meant to present the news.

So you tell me why i should pay for it, just to be allowed to purchase a television set? When there are many channels that are free, why can't i opt out of watching the BBC and not pay the fee?

And even if i accepted it why should i pay the same fee as someone earning 3 times as much as me? Or someone like oaps etc that earn half what i earn? Again ironically for a leftist biased broadcaster the BBC seem to have a very right wing view of taxation.

Also listening to many broadcasters from the BBC it is plain they get paid so much money they are truly out of touch with real people. I heard a presenter on radio 2 recently arguing with listeners saying 'nobody needs more than 20k a year' more than that is greed. Well guess what Mr BBC Ivory tower who earns 60K a year i work as a network Manager for a high school and would KILL for 20K a year as would the majority of people paying your wages.

Its time the BBC's ivory tower came crashing down.

  • 4.
  • At 09:21 AM on 19 Oct 2006,
  • Beret Atkinson wrote:

Bully for you! In N.Z., announcers get $600k a year or 20 times the national average wage.
In an hour of "news" we get less than 5 minutes of actual news, which incidently is often local only, 5 minutes of garbled weather most of which is around the capital (Wellington with a quater the population that Auckland has) and 20 minutes or more of un-interrupted sport.The rest is advertising on our national T.V. channel. It must be owned by Murdock, although I understand he has much better coverage usually.
But, get real, people. T.V. is big time propoganda and is usually used just for that. I mean usually.
Your coverage of M.E. events is abysmal, but it's no better or worse than anyone else. You, of all people should know of the use of media to promote causes; you should examine every photo minutely, and reject any source not to your liking.

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.