IN
Except that it is not £100m of our money down the drain. As a commercial operation, BBC World is isolated from the main, public part of the BBC. There is no way any licence fee money would be used to prop up BBC World, the politicans would be raving mad if that were the case.
An increase of simulcasting just would not work; BBC World News is targeted at a worldwide audience, thus has vastly different priorities than BBC News 24, which, like Sky News and ITV NC, focuses on British news.
Brekkie Boy posted:
If it's lost £100m since launch - with no sign of breaking even - it should go. That's our money down the drain.
However, maybe first downsizing the operation so it includes more simulcasts of news from BBC News 24 and the main BBC News programmes would be a start!
However, maybe first downsizing the operation so it includes more simulcasts of news from BBC News 24 and the main BBC News programmes would be a start!
Except that it is not £100m of our money down the drain. As a commercial operation, BBC World is isolated from the main, public part of the BBC. There is no way any licence fee money would be used to prop up BBC World, the politicans would be raving mad if that were the case.
An increase of simulcasting just would not work; BBC World News is targeted at a worldwide audience, thus has vastly different priorities than BBC News 24, which, like Sky News and ITV NC, focuses on British news.
NG
Yes - but its losses are sustained by BBC Worldwide - which is designed to plough money back into the main BBC to make better programmes for the licence fee payers who support it.
The losses made by BBC World are less than the profits made by BBC Worldwide - but obviously reduce the amount ploughed back into the wider BBC programme making sphere.
You could semantically argue that either this is a loss to the licence fee payer, or a reduction in their gain (as Worldwide still makes money for the licence fee payer through other activities, such as BBC Prime, Programme sales, publishing, DVD/Video/CD sales, joint venture channels, merchandising etc.)
noggin
Founding member
Bogaboy19 posted:
I thought BBC world was funded only by suscription fees and advertisement....
Yes - but its losses are sustained by BBC Worldwide - which is designed to plough money back into the main BBC to make better programmes for the licence fee payers who support it.
The losses made by BBC World are less than the profits made by BBC Worldwide - but obviously reduce the amount ploughed back into the wider BBC programme making sphere.
You could semantically argue that either this is a loss to the licence fee payer, or a reduction in their gain (as Worldwide still makes money for the licence fee payer through other activities, such as BBC Prime, Programme sales, publishing, DVD/Video/CD sales, joint venture channels, merchandising etc.)
JC
James, I like the "...vey unlikely" sub-heading in your thread title. 
When he was Channel Controller of BBC1 in the mid-1980s, the man named in your thread title (whose name I refuse to utter), did some nasty things to the programme Doctor Who (which I'm a big fan of) for reasons that were all too personal to him (i.e. because he hated the show (and science fiction in general)). The poor nature of his reasoning for his Doctor Who decisions seem extremely unprofessional to me.
Example story: Colin Baker (the 6th Doctor) and his wife split (on very bad terms) whilst Colin was in still in Doctor Who. Colin's estranged wife was a close friend of MG. So, basically, MG didn't want Colin Baker working at the BBC, because he'd "taken sides" with Colin's wife over their seperation. So, something that should've been PERSONAL between Colin and his wife (and CERTAINLY had NOTHING to do with Doctor Who/the BBC) lead to to a decision about a TV programme (the lead actor, Colin, being sacked). How barmy is that? Extremely unprofessional conduct on MG's part.
So if he was able to "destroy" Doctor Who, simply because he disliked it, who's to say he won't try to shut down BBC World, just because he thinks it's unnecessary (or whatever his opinion of BBC World is)??????????????
Recollections I've read in books/magazines of other people involved in Doctor Who during that period, all recall MG as being (for innumerable different reasons) an extremely arrogant man.
When so many different people say it, there must be some truth in it (?).
When he was Channel Controller of BBC1 in the mid-1980s, the man named in your thread title (whose name I refuse to utter), did some nasty things to the programme Doctor Who (which I'm a big fan of) for reasons that were all too personal to him (i.e. because he hated the show (and science fiction in general)). The poor nature of his reasoning for his Doctor Who decisions seem extremely unprofessional to me.
Example story: Colin Baker (the 6th Doctor) and his wife split (on very bad terms) whilst Colin was in still in Doctor Who. Colin's estranged wife was a close friend of MG. So, basically, MG didn't want Colin Baker working at the BBC, because he'd "taken sides" with Colin's wife over their seperation. So, something that should've been PERSONAL between Colin and his wife (and CERTAINLY had NOTHING to do with Doctor Who/the BBC) lead to to a decision about a TV programme (the lead actor, Colin, being sacked). How barmy is that? Extremely unprofessional conduct on MG's part.
So if he was able to "destroy" Doctor Who, simply because he disliked it, who's to say he won't try to shut down BBC World, just because he thinks it's unnecessary (or whatever his opinion of BBC World is)??????????????
Recollections I've read in books/magazines of other people involved in Doctor Who during that period, all recall MG as being (for innumerable different reasons) an extremely arrogant man.
When so many different people say it, there must be some truth in it (?).
Last edited by Jack Carkdale on 26 July 2004 9:57am - 3 times in total
MD
Ariel newspaper also highlights BBC World's financial losses. The story also mentions how the channel is trying to crack America, how they've been talking to different parties, and how landing a 24/7 distribution in the US will help the financial strains.
According to Anne B, finance director, they hope to establish a 24 hr presense in 2005 so lets see.
According to Anne B, finance director, they hope to establish a 24 hr presense in 2005 so lets see.
HA
harshy
Founding member
I haven't read the article, but I very much doubt the BBC will close BBC World, it's role is very significant and remains the channel which is very trusted around the world.
But no doubt BBC World does need some money, now how Mr Grade goes about it will be interesting to see, but perhaps BBC World TV should also be funded like BBC World radio is at present.
But no doubt BBC World does need some money, now how Mr Grade goes about it will be interesting to see, but perhaps BBC World TV should also be funded like BBC World radio is at present.
MA
Well that's a question for the Government rather than the Governors Maybe you should lobby your MP
Marcus
Founding member
harshy posted:
I haven't read the article, but I very much doubt the BBC will close BBC World, it's role is very significant and remains the channel which is very trusted around the world.
But no doubt BBC World does need some money, now how Mr Grade goes about it will be interesting to see, but perhaps BBC World TV should also be funded like BBC World radio is at present.
But no doubt BBC World does need some money, now how Mr Grade goes about it will be interesting to see, but perhaps BBC World TV should also be funded like BBC World radio is at present.
Well that's a question for the Government rather than the Governors Maybe you should lobby your MP
:-(
I'd never have guessed
As good a reason as any.
Who wouldn't , if they were in charge of a TV station, get rid of a programe they didn't like?
A former member
Functional Aesthetic posted:
When he was Channel Controller of BBC1 in the mid-1980s, the man named in your thread title (whose name I refuse to utter), did some nasty things to the programme Doctor Who (which I'm a big fan of)
I'd never have guessed
Quote:
for reasons that were all too personal to him (i.e. because he hated the show (and science fiction in general)).
As good a reason as any.
Who wouldn't , if they were in charge of a TV station, get rid of a programe they didn't like?