BBC cost cutting
With the news that the BBC may have to make a lot of cuts as their income will be at least 16% lower in 2016 than it will be this year, what do you think should be cut, and why?
I say scrap BBC Alba. In 2001 only 1.2% of Scottish people had "some" Scottish Gaelic ability, a decline of over 7,000 from 1991. So realistically, only a minority of that 1.2% would have any fluency in that language, and probably less than 1000 people would speak it as their first language. So why have they got their own tv channel? I know the viewing figures aren't really bad, but they are hugely boosted by the broadcasting of some Scottish football games that aren't on other free channels. Can anyone justify BBC Alba?
I would like to say this is in no way an anti-scottish view, just pointing out a glaringly obvious case of BBC waste IMO
TWARDLAW:The viewing public are not stupid and the BBC should remember that.
Then how do you explain Total Wipeout?
Andrew Everard:TWARDLAW:The viewing public are not stupid and the BBC should remember that.Then how do you explain Total Wipeout?
As serious as always Andrew, very good point though.
Isn't it quite like Takeshi's Castle? I haven't ever seen it
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW:
Andrew Everard:TWARDLAW:The viewing public are not stupid and the BBC should remember that.Then how do you explain Total Wipeout?
As serious as always Andrew, very good point though.
Isn't it quite like Takeshi's Castle?
Without the Castle. Or Takeshi. Or the tanks.
No it isn't really...
the_lhc:Without the Castle. Or Takeshi. Or the tanks.No it isn't really...
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW:
Andrew Everard:TWARDLAW:The viewing public are not stupid and the BBC should remember that.Then how do you explain Total Wipeout?
As serious as always Andrew, very good point though.
Isn't it quite like Takeshi's Castle?
I wasn't ever suggesting it would be as good as TC, even with Craig Charles not being able to understand or relate to what is actually being said and happening, it's still occasionally entertaining.
I just thought, from the small clips I had seen, that TW had stolen some of the game ideas, as always the-lhc, I stand corrected. 
Andrew Everard:TWARDLAW:The viewing public are not stupid and the BBC should remember that.Then how do you explain Total Wipeout?
Maybe its a case of the BBC are stupid in this case rather than the viewing public........
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW:
the_lhc:Without the Castle. Or Takeshi. Or the tanks.No it isn't really...
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW:
Andrew Everard:TWARDLAW:The viewing public are not stupid and the BBC should remember that.Then how do you explain Total Wipeout?
As serious as always Andrew, very good point though.
Isn't it quite like Takeshi's Castle?
I wasn't ever suggesting it would be as good as TC, even with Craig Charles not being able to understand or relate to what is actually being said and happening, it's still occasionally entertaining.
I just thought, from the small clips I had seen, that TW had stolen some of the game ideas, as always the-lhc, I stand corrected.
All the boring stuff sure, but the bits that make TC great, no.
TWARDLAW:If the BBC are serious about costcutting can somebody (ideally from the BBC)please explain to me why they waste vast amount sending news reporters to venues at the other end of the country,or indeed the earth, to stand in front of a building, ie, Westminster, a police station or a sports stadium at daft times of the night to report on an item that could better be reported from the studio.Is it just that they want the viewers to believe that the report contains the latest information, or is it, as I believe, just an easy way for the journalists to up their salaries with location and overtime payments, after all most, if not all of these sites are already closed and the staff have gone home when these news items are on the TV.Before BBC start to cut channels such as BBC3 and 4 they should look at the waste on items such as I have highlighted. The viewing public are not stupid and the BBC should remember that.
Quite. I have lost count of the times where news story up here is considered "worthy" enough to get a London based reporeter sent up to cover the story. Once the main news is finished the local news has the same story covered by the local reporter standing in the same spot. Why?
Local news, for local people, Tubbs...
They could save a hell of a lot of money by not sending huge swathes of employees on what appear to be free for all junkets to major events:
- 292 employees to the 2010 World Cup
- 400 employees to Glastobury
- 185 employees need to cover Wimbledon
Some of the big 2010 events (are estimated to have) cost a packet: £1.7m on Glastonbury, £12m on the World Cup, £3m for Wimbledon. Now I know they need to cover these events, but not at the saturation level they do now. For example, why was Nicky Campbell sent to S.A. to present his breakfast show from there? So they're going to cut Digital TV channels so that we can still have these excesses. 
scene:£3m for Wimbledon
£3m for well over 100 hours of coverage across various platforms sounds like very cheap television to me, when the BBC's commissioning tarriffs for independent production companies suggest that very few types of programme cost less than £50k an hour to produce.
Might be that they have exclusive rights to Wimbledon as well and can sell some of the footage on.
laserman16:Might be that they have exclusive rights to Wimbledon as well and can sell some of the footage on.
Fair point, and Andrew's comment as well. But £12m for the World Cup, and all those people? How many do they send out for Match of the Day? Surely the World Cup would only need 2-3 times that number IN South Africa, tops. Can't believe they have 100 people at UK matches...
Well so far, no-one has tried to justify BBC Alba.
Could it be that only Scottish Gaelic speakers would, and as there's only a few of them, the likelyhood of them posting on WHF is extremely remote.
Surely BBC Alba is the essence of public service broadcasting, providing a service to a minority, however small, which may require it?
If the BBC are serious about costcutting can somebody (ideally from the BBC)please explain to me why they waste vast amount sending news reporters to venues at the other end of the country,or indeed the earth, to stand in front of a building, ie, Westminster, a police station or a sports stadium at daft times of the night to report on an item that could better be reported from the studio.Is it just that they want the viewers to believe that the report contains the latest information, or is it, as I believe, just an easy way for the journalists to up their salaries with location and overtime payments, after all most, if not all of these sites are already closed and the staff have gone home when these news items are on the TV.Before BBC start to cut channels such as BBC3 and 4 they should look at the waste on items such as I have highlighted. The viewing public are not stupid and the BBC should remember that.