The bbc, again.

Teddy Eagle said:
An answer in itself. The news is only a small part of the BBCs output and we have to pay for their programming in it's entirety and yet they're palming the public off with fifty year old repeats as usual. If their £6 bn budget isn't enough to make new programmes they need to review their spending plans.
Click to expand...
Simply untrue. It’s around 50%! Don’t take my word for it. This is what Google says:-

“While exact percentages vary by platform and year, BBC News content is a significant portion of the overall output, with reports showing it around half of TV output and a strong focus (over 80%) on "hard news" topics online, though the BBC also provides extensive entertainment and other programming across its vast global services. It's a huge operation, producing ~120 hours of radio/TV news daily plus digital coverage, covering everything from breaking stories to in-depth analysis.
Key Figures & Insights:
  • TV (2019): News and current affairs made up almost half of the BBC's total TV output, with dedicated channels like BBC News and BBC Parliament accounting for most of that.
  • BBC One (2019): About two-fifths (40%) of BBC One's schedule was dedicated to news and current affairs.
  • Digital (2024): The BBC News app featured hard news topics in over 80% of its items, showing a strong news focus online.
  • Global Reach: BBC News across TV, radio, and online serves a massive audience, with the World Service reaching hundreds of millions weekly.
 
I loath the BBC and hope it is abolished.
 
Badger11 said:
There are lots of things in life I dislike, however as long as I don't have to pay for the BBC it can do what it likes and last a thousand years for all I care.

I don't care about the Guardian either but it doesn't bother me.
Click to expand...
I loath the Guardian too, hope it goes bust.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
If you insist on being pedantic and strictly accurate then that’s possibly true, but when Trump is involved it hardly matters does it? Nothing he says is true! Which is another sweeping and inaccurate statement which nevertheless makes the point.

I cannot see how an action based on its showing in the USA could possibly establish defamation. If it did then thousands of people around the world could sue Trump for the same thing. Would he pay?
Click to expand...
Oh dear, the irony of your first sentence 😂
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Simply untrue. It’s around 50%! Don’t take my word for it. This is what Google says:-

“While exact percentages vary by platform and year, BBC News content is a significant portion of the overall output, with reports showing it around half of TV output and a strong focus (over 80%) on "hard news" topics online, though the BBC also provides extensive entertainment and other programming across its vast global services. It's a huge operation, producing ~120 hours of radio/TV news daily plus digital coverage, covering everything from breaking stories to in-depth analysis.
Key Figures & Insights:
  • TV (2019): News and current affairs made up almost half of the BBC's total TV output, with dedicated channels like BBC News and BBC Parliament accounting for most of that.
  • BBC One (2019): About two-fifths (40%) of BBC One's schedule was dedicated to news and current affairs.
  • Digital (2024): The BBC News app featured hard news topics in over 80% of its items, showing a strong news focus online.
  • Global Reach: BBC News across TV, radio, and online serves a massive audience, with the World Service reaching hundreds of millions weekly.
Click to expand...
The total includes radio news, the news channel being simultaneously broadcast on BBC 2 and
  • TV (2019): News and current affairs made up almost half of the BBC's total TV output, with dedicated channels like BBC News and BBC Parliament accounting for most of that.
The News channel repeats the same stories all day.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
The total includes radio news, the news channel being simultaneously broadcast on BBC 2 and
  • TV (2019): News and current affairs made up almost half of the BBC's total TV output, with dedicated channels like BBC News and BBC Parliament accounting for most of that.
The News channel repeats the same stories all day.
Click to expand...
Every news outlet tends to follow stories and make updates.

You claimed that the BBC news output was an insignificant part of their work. It isn’t. It’s a major part. The BBC are the biggest news outlet in the world, both by stature and staff.

Whilst people like you don’t appreciate it, the rest of the world does. Which is why it’s so important to our country.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Every news outlet tends to follow stories and make updates.

You claimed that the BBC news output was an insignificant part of their work. It isn’t. It’s a major part. The BBC are the biggest news outlet in the world, both by stature and staff.

Whilst people like you don’t appreciate it, the rest of the world does. Which is why it’s so important to our country.
Click to expand...
Then let the rest of the world pay for it. Along with those who are convinced of it's wonderful qualities.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Then let the rest of the world pay for it. Along with those who are convinced of its wonderful qualities.
Click to expand...
That viewpoint is why having elected representatives is so important.

The BBC’s standing in the rest of the world matters to us, much more than it does to them. Us being regarded as honest and trustworthy is the biggest asset we still have. You might dismiss it but it benefits you just as much as it does everyone else. So you, like everyone else, must pay for it. You seem to think it’s just another broadcaster, competing with all the others and producing content that you don’t like, so why should you pay. That’s fundamentally wrong. It’s much more than that.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
That viewpoint is why having elected representatives is so important.

The BBC’s standing in the rest of the world matters to us, much more than it does to them. Us being regarded as honest and trustworthy is the biggest asset we still have. You might dismiss it but it benefits you just as much as it does everyone else. So you, like everyone else, must pay for it. You seem to think it’s just another broadcaster, competing with all the others and producing content that you don’t like, so why should you pay. That’s fundamentally wrong. It’s much more than that.
Click to expand...
How does that benefit me, you or anyone else? My objection is to having to pay for it to watch anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top