Changes at the World Service and BBC News

[teamsaint]

Didn't know where else to post this, sorry if it should be elsewhere.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/outrage-over-commercialisation-plans-for-bbc-world-service-9039198.html

As regards news content, perhaps the public would "engage" more if real stories about real lives, in Britain but especially abroad, made the news headlines more often.

Not really sure that more stories about fashion are going to help. Fewer bankers' poodles, sorry I mean politicians, telling us how it HAS to be would be good though.

apologies to real poodles.

[jean]

It's deeply depressing if it's women who are are asking for more fashion and less politics, as is claimed here.

[amateur51]

This is deeply depressing 'Barbarians At The Gates' stuff - completely antithetical to the PSB ethos. We don't need more fashion - if I want that, my weekend newspaper is full of it. The clue is in the words 'news' and 'world'. Let's hope MP Farrelly et al cause sufficient stink to cause this 'bright idea' to be binned.

[french frank]

I didn't know it included a TV service??? I think the BBC should just threaten to drop the World Service altogether if it has to pay for it. It was paid for by the FCO because the government/nation benefited from the soft power value - not the licence fee payer. I suppose this way it will bring in more money. More prostitution.

[ardcarp]

I like the expression 'soft power'...not quite propaganda, but just putting things the way 'The West' sees them. I've been a passive listener to the World Service as it becomes the default on Radio 4's FM and Longwave slot in the wee small hours. I'm aware that there is not just one World Service programme, but many being transmitted like a kaleidoscope...different bits being beamed to different parts of the world at the same time.

Having just had a fortnight's experience of BBC World TV (in Norway) it is already quite a slick...one could say commercial-style....operation, with jingles and fancy presentation. One can imagine that adverts are just a tweak away. I gather this (the English speaking version) also varies from country to country. The Scandinavian version...if that's what it was....seemed to major on African countries and their conflicts. Oh, and the weather in the UK's West Country which made me wonder if our home had been washed away. It seemed a strange cocktail.

I certainly don't see why BBC licence-payers should be funding a huge international operation. If our government wants to continue to wield its 'soft power' around the world, then surely the FCO has to keep on funding it.* The not-quite-so-soft power of advertising by multi-national companies might in itself have unpredictable political implications...not least in connection with women's roles in [shall we say] less enlightened corners.

Is Al Jazeera likely to start doing commercials anytime soon?

* Having said that, is there any difference between 'licence-payer' and 'tax-payer' ?

[Frances_iom]

BBC is already commercial - eg this message - page free to view in USA (presumably with USA adverts + possibly also avoiding those awkward privacy laws that the EU puts in the way of many US companies (tho there are enough farcebook idiots out there)

We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com.

[french frank]

* Having said that, is there any difference between 'licence-payer' and 'tax-payer' ?

Yes, because the flat rate licence fee is quite a lot to people on very low incomes, so low possibly that they may be exempt from paying income tax altogether.