Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

In the markets they look for trends then ride them. What is the trend for the bbc? Is it downward? Will it ever rise to the glory days of the 70's again? I wouldn't put my money or career on it.

Having said that Tommo has a knack for getting rid of things that work and are related to public service. Like he said he wants more comedy in the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. Or was it farce?

I may be a bit simple but I love the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú and the wide choice it gives me in TV, Radio and the Web. It does a great job and is head and shoulders above its competition in terms of consistent quality. Anything which risks diminishing this should be looked at very carefully. I heard someone on Radio 5Live suggesting Jonathan Ross should take a paycut in order to assist the News Dept. The budget deficit is not Jonathan's fault and no one forced anyone to offer him his contract. I would quite happily pay another £10 a year for what I get compared to the nearly £600 I pay for Sky each year the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is excellent value.

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has kept me informed in many countries over the years. It would be a shame to have this fine broadcasting diminished to any great extent.

Pat

I think cutting back the bbc is long overdue. I begrudge the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú the licence fee we HAVE to pay. Things have changed and moved on we can gather news on the internet from different souces if we wish. And, i think that ITN has far better coverage than what is available through your news service.

The sooner they scrap the licence fee the better.

Linda Westmore

I only watch the factual programmes on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú and never watch Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú3 or Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú4. The news programmes in the main are merely speaking for the government or anti-British factions. The time has come to stop the licence fee altogether and make the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú produce good programmes that they can sell to other companies. If they can't be self supporting then close the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú down.

As usual Thompson will get it wrong. All the 'Beeb' need do is (i) STOP paying so called personalities like Ross and the Irishman Wogan ridiculous sums for, in the former case crude comments and in the latter for inane chatter and for putting on a few records, chosen no doubt by others. And to everybody's amazement - payment for 'Children in Need!'
(ii) STOP getting involved in chasing the rights to show Premiership Soccer. All this does is fuel the ridiculous pay packets of the players. Let the commercial stations pay this, they then get value for money, by showing the game several times over. Think what a furore there would be if the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú showed repeats of whole, old football matches!
(iii) Does radio (4) really need to employ specialist weather men to READ the forecast. And so-called sports reporters like G. Richardson who are on duty for three hours for a total output of at most ten minutes, some of which is recorded, not to mention the 'racing tips!
(iv) There are other savings before Thompson wields his axe. But who will wield it on Thompson. He should've gone by now anyway after the 'nodding,' 'Queen' and 'phone' embarrassments etc.

The cuts themselves need not be damaging - the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has long been insulated from the cold winds blowing through the rest of Britain.

What is damaging is where the axe will fall. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's moral standing is underpinned by its public service broadcasting, without this there is little point for the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú to exist.

The current management's precipitous dash into multiplicity leaves us with channels that are more reminiscent of comics.

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú2 or Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú3? David Attenborough or Graham Norton? For me, no contest!

Three points:
1 - this is only an issue because, daft and irrational as it may be, we do actually still care about the health of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.
2 - What kind of world are we living in where we are having this kind of public debate before the staff have been given the "announcement" in person?
3 - And finally, it does seem to me that if you wind down (sorry, create efficiencies in) the news, current affairs and other "grown-up" offerings from the beeb, you threaten to undermine its point of difference and its public service obligation. And if you keep doing that, then it becomes indistinguishable from its "commercial" competitors and then eventually we won't care any more.

Whatever cuts are made, they should not be made for factual TV programs (Planet Earth, etc.) - TV has a tendency to grow increasingly superficial, the intellectual level falling sharply. If you cut those kinds of programs I think the crucial educational role that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú can play will be severely undermined. I believe one of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's roles is to educate people. In the same vein it would be completely wrong to cut essential news programs like Newsnight. While we all get the facts in the news from the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú web site or News 24, Newsnight plays a crucial role in going one step further and actually interpreting/commenting on events. If any news program had to go I would say the 10 o'clock news.

As a first step, though, I would consider shutting down one of the TV channels, perhaps Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 3.

It's crunch time isn't it? Higher licence fee or less stuff?
I'd vote less stuff to be honest - certainly less news..Surely we all recognise the below scenario for the waste of money that it is -

'...live from the scene - nothing has happened since we spoke back to the studio - thanks - Brian would you like to comment on the fact nothing has happened - yes and what's more I will speculate wildly thank you - good - now back live to the scene - nothing has happened.... '

Stopping that will go someway to the £2bn saving surely..

I can't understand why news and factual TV would get budget cuts. In this area Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is far superior to any other channel that I've watched and it should stay that way or the news won't be worth watching on any channel.
There are many other areas where the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú could cut such as game shows, soaps and sport. These are done just as badly by the other channels,why waste time and money competing?
The money saved could be spent on the higher quality drama series that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú used to be so good at in the 70's & 80's

I love the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. I start and end my work day drive listening to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. I watch Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú America news along with other programing. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú carries lots less "fluff" in comparison to the US news which believes in "dumming down" the content and maximizing the advertising. No cuts for the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. Need to expand your voice of the world. How else will the rest of the world become educated to the challenges of the world. The money takes over without so much as a contest if the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú starts to fade. I could go on, but you get where I am going the world's everyday citizens depend on the your organization.

We are not nearly in the similar position to Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú management and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Trust to make informed assessments. So, instead I would like to ask for some comparisons. These are taking into account the fact that Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is a Public Broadcasting Service.

Number of employees includes wide variety of staff - what proportion are Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News and Factual staff? Of those, how many are journalists and specialist cameramen vs staff who are easily available on open market? For comparison, how many managers and administrative staff work for Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News? How is this proportion justified? How does this level of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News staff compare with similar TV and radio establishments around the world - say in Germany and France (taking into account similarly large countries in Europe).

What other parts of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú have been considered for cuts and why have they been rejected?

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has been looking to sell its Outside Broadcasting Unit - what is the justification and where has that plan got to? What amount would be raised from this?

If Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú sells the Broadcasting House, is it looking to lease it back or to move out fully? If later, where are the programmes now recorded there going to be made?

In general, how is the total Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú staff broken down in functions? Who and what functions are considered CORE to Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú in delivering on its Charter?

When announcing trhe cuts, will DG deign to enlighten us, the licence payers, how are we, viewing and listening public, gaining from these cuts?

Presumably the endless quiz shows are cheaper to run?

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is recognised worldwide for its indepth and extensive news coverage and documentaries. News 24 for example is superb and on display in the foyers of many international companies. Are we going to receive news snippets in the future?

Planet Earth was stunning, a programme well worth keeping and no doubt has been sold around the globe.
We need a consistent level of news coming out and that requires manpower

Should we the licence payers not have a say in all this?

Whatever cuts are made, they should not be made for factual TV programs (Planet Earth, etc.) - TV has a tendency to grow increasingly superficial, the intellectual level falling sharply. If you cut those kinds of programs I think the crucial educational role that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú plays will be severely undermined. I believe one of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's roles is to educate people.

In the same vein it would be completely wrong to cut essential news programs like Newsnight. While we all get the facts in the news from the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú web site or News 24, Newsnight plays a crucial role in going one step further and actually interpreting/commenting on events. If any news program had to go I would say the 10 o'clock news. News 24 covers most of the news reported there.

If absolutely necessary I would rather consider shutting down one of the TV channels, perhaps Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 3.

Three points:
1 - this is only an issue because, daft and irrational as it may be, we do actually still care about the health of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.
2 - What kind of world are we living in where we are having this kind of public debate before the staff have been given the "announcement" in person?
3 - And finally, it does seem to me that if you wind down (sorry, create efficiencies in) the news, current affairs and other "grown-up" offerings from the beeb, you threaten to undermine its point of difference and its public service obligation. And if you keep doing that, then it becomes indistinguishable from its "commercial" competitors and then eventually we won't care any more.

If Thompson winds up cutting Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news and factual programming, he should quite simply be taken out, put against the wall, and shot. He will have been responsible for destroying one of the signal products of Western civilisation, possibly the single greatest accomplishment of which Britain can be justifiably proud, a news and education service, respected, admired — and even feared by those who should fear it — around the world, which no parallel or peer anywhere on the planet.

The sorry bastard, with the imprimature of the snivelling, Orwellian apparatchiks of this and the previous NuLabour government — who began this process by cutting the News division off at the knees with the destruction of Andrew Gilligan — will have done damage of historical proportions, and generations to come should have absolutely no mercy on his memory.

I honestly believe that when a service of such demonstrable benefit as this is so cavalierly done away with in the name of 'competitiveness' and 'entertainment', this civilisation will no longer be worth saving.

Once again it's substance being sacrificed on the altar of presentation. But this time it's not the government, it's our most revered news and programme provider. The slippery slope is nigh.

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú now seems to have so many commercial areas of operation that takes it away from being the public service broadcaster it was.
It should now be accepted for what it is, one broadcaster amongst many others.
It is time to abolish the TV licence, and make the service subscriber driven. We would then see how many people would be prepared to buy in the service rather then being forced to pay for it as happens now.

I think cutting back the bbc is long overdue. I begrudge the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú the licence fee we HAVE to pay. Things have changed and moved on we can gather news on the internet from different souces if we wish. And, i think that ITN has far better coverage than what is available through your news service.

The sooner they scrap the licence fee the better.

Linda Westmore

No no NO!!!! Why is it always the best sectors that get the cuts? News and docu's are what the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú does best - lets see them cut the likes of phone-in's, location/auction/moving-house type programmes instead. How many bargains can one hunt? The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú wildlife documentaries are unrivalled and bring global attention not only to their subject matter but also the impeccably high standard of quality British television. To make the cuts in these areas is surely to starve the lifeblood of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú? Is is still a public service, or now just an entertainment company?

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú now seems to have so many commercial areas of operation that takes it away from being the public service broadcaster it was.
It should now be accepted for what it is, one broadcaster amongst many others.
It is time to abolish the TV licence, and make the service subscriber driven. We would then see how many people would be prepared to buy in the service rather then being forced to pay for it as happens now.

Whatever cuts are made, they should not be made for factual TV programs (Planet Earth, etc.) - TV has a tendency to grow increasingly superficial, the intellectual level falling sharply. If you cut those kinds of programs I think the crucial educational role that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú plays will be severely undermined. I believe one of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's roles is to educate people.

In the same vein it would be completely wrong to cut essential news programs like Newsnight. While we all get the facts in the news from the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú web site or News 24, Newsnight plays a crucial role in going one step further and actually interpreting/commenting on events. If any news program had to go I would say the 10 o'clock news. News 24 covers most of the news reported there.

If absolutely necessary I would rather consider shutting down one of the TV channels, perhaps Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 3.

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú now seems to have so many commercial areas of operation that takes it away from being the public service broadcaster it was.
It should now be accepted for what it is, one broadcaster amongst many others.
It is time to abolish the TV licence, and make the service subscriber driven. We would then see how many people would be prepared to buy in the service rather then being forced to pay for it as happens now.

Firstly, it is necessary to remember that this government listens to Murdoch first, ahead of the wishes of its own people. I wonder what his views on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú are?

Secondly, the current affiars and documentaries are one of the major forms of output that differentiate the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú from commercial broadcasters. Therefore, why not cut back on reality tv programmes or similar light entertainment broadcasts. Do we need more house / cooking / clothing / lifestyle / reality programming?

Thirdly - what purpose exactly does Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú3 serve?

Can the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú cut back on new and un-neccessary re-branding - ie the between programme links, like the hippos, footballs in a circle etc?

If you are paying Chris Moyles more than the minimum wage, I would like to know why.

There are plenty of other things, but, I am sure you can see my line of thought......

Simon Williams

Whatever cuts are made, they should not be made for factual TV programs (Planet Earth, etc.) - TV has a tendency to grow increasingly superficial, the intellectual level falling sharply. If you cut those kinds of programs I think the crucial educational role that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú plays will be severely undermined. I believe one of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's roles is to educate people.

In the same vein it would be completely wrong to cut essential news programs like Newsnight. While we all get the facts in the news from the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú web site or News 24, Newsnight plays a crucial role in going one step further and actually interpreting/commenting on events. If any news program had to go I would say the 10 o'clock news. News 24 covers most of the news reported there.

If absolutely necessary I would rather consider shutting down one of the TV channels, perhaps Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 3.

I can't help thinking that this is the Labour Government's payback for Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú coverage of Blair's propaganda leading up to the invasion of Iraq.
Public service broadcasting is exactly what the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is here for, and why should Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News and factual TV bear the brunt of the cuts. The reason is keep the masses ignorant and docile on diet of reality TV shows and light entertainment fluff. The type that used to be used as a 'leader' into the more factual shows that actually informed and educated. Sadly this type of show has now become the staple diet of the British viewer with more and more people having to search out factual programmes from abroad via the internet. I only hope that the very few and exquisitely produced Adam Curtis documentaries manage to escape the cull. Programmes such as The Mayfair Set and The Power of Nightmares are exactly what the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should be about along with being the very few places where one can find impartial and non-tabloid news.

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú does not only serve the UK, it is a global entity, recognized for it ability to stand up to politically slanted reporting from the US and other "agenda laden" news sources.

Will an organization composed of mere mortals make mistakes - yes, but the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, from past actions not only "navel gazes", but takes corrective action to set things right.

Would I like to get this for free - sure, but I would also be willing to put some cash up front to ensure that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's continued survival is assured. Rather than continue to rely on the government for income, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs to somehow come up with a way to collect on the economic rent for fast and accurate news and opinion, as well as studied insight.

The CBC in Canada has gone through the "death by a thousand cuts", and is really only a shell of itself from 25 years ago, really relying on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news feeds to provide its breaking news. This is not just a shame; it is a threat to truth, beauty, and justice.

Kary
Calgary, Canada

Who cares? Bin the licence fee and let the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú go commercial. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is a leech living off the tax payer.

I am sorry to hear about the possible cutting down of the staff and the programmes as an economy measure.
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has been an important source of good news and analysis for me for over 40 years.
i hope these fears of cutting of staff are unfounded and you will continue to provide news that is reliable.
Murthy

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú now seems to have so many commercial areas of operation that takes it away from being the public service broadcaster it was.
It should now be accepted for what it is, one broadcaster amongst many others.
It is time to abolish the TV licence, and make the service subscriber driven. We would then see how many people would be prepared to buy in the service rather then being forced to pay for it as happens now.

I arrived to the United Kingdom by chance in 1997 and then travelled around a bit to come back in 2000.
I come from a country (Italy) with the state and private television channels packed with advertisement,cheap soap operas and quiz shows. Because of that you know what happened, the owner of the populistic private channels became Prime Minister!
I respect the Monarchy, I love the attitude towards the business, the tolerance of the British people that have always made me feel welcome. However, it's the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú that makes this country different from all the others. It's respected all other the world. Thank to digital TV I don't even think to watch the Italian channels when I go back, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú World is the channel for my news.
Unfortunately, British people are so accustomed to it, that they can't appreciate that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is worth for Britain far more than the few pounds a year more they might ask for the licence fee.When you won't have it any more, you'll miss it.

I arrived to the United Kingdom by chance in 1997 and then travelled around a bit to come back in 2000.
I come from a country (Italy) with the state and private television channels packed with advertisement,cheap soap operas and quiz shows. Because of that you know what happened, the owner of the populistic private channels became Prime Minister!
I respect the Monarchy, I love the attitude towards the business, the tolerance of the British people that have always made me feel welcome. However, it's the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú that makes this country different from all the others. It's respected all other the world. Thank to digital TV I don't even think to watch the Italian channels when I go back, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú World is the channel for my news.
Unfortunately, British people are so accustomed to it, that they can't appreciate that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is worth for Britain far more than the few pounds a year more they might ask for the licence fee.When you won't have it any more, you'll miss it.

I do not think so because, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has the best staff in the broadcasting sector in the world and they will be able manage with few staff members.

The key point lies around the definition of "public service broadcasting". The definition currently rests with the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Trust and the Director General. However, if we the public are given a say, there would be many items we would like the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú to consider

Within the UK:
1. Is the cost of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Three and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Four justified? Can these not be combined into one?

2. What about the website? Do we need to publish so many web pages every day? How many people (within the UK) access webpages in foreign languages?

3. Can the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú not reduce the spend on news? Do we have too many reporters and analysts who (in essence) report and analyse the same thing? We often have a newsreader interviewing an analyst!

4. Don't stray from the key mission. It is not Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's job to report speculations and counter-speculations of lurid nature -- e.g. the reporters reporting "live" from Portugal for months about hearsay and claims made by the local media about the McCann family, and then going over to the McCann village to allow the family spokesman (an ex-Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú man) to present their side of the "case".

Outside the UK:
1. In this age of world-wide uninterrupted communication, who really uses Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú world service? A few decades ago, when there were far fewer independent broadcasters, it made sense to have a strong, independent Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú World. I'm not convinced of its need anymore. Please cut back on this one dramatically. After all, the service makes negligible advertising revenue.

2. Procure ad revenue on the "international" part of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú website. Also, for the overseas people (non-license payers), create a "paid" account to watch videos etc on the website.

There are many good reasons for foreigners to live in the UK – and the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is one of them: it’s a privilege and delight to live in Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú-country. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news coverage and documentaries are unrivalled, admired and envied all over the world and a benchmark for the rest of the world media. Mistakes now and then, though regretful, don’t alter that fact.

However, I can’t quite see why the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs to pay a talk show host £6 million – are general talk shows, in abundance on all stations, really Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú core focus? I sincerely hope that coming cuts won’t affect the fantastic news and culture programs and documentaries, especially on Radio 3 and Radio 4, the World Service and on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú2 and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú4. And where would be without, just to name a few, Newsnight and the Today programme, the World at One, 5PM, the Westminster Hour, Front Row, In Our Time? Roaming around in the wilderness of ignorance, I would say...

Most of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú’s news and documentaries really have no parallels on any other stations – and surely the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should excel at doing so well what others can’t or won’t do... because that is what Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú does so brilliantly!

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú does not only serve the UK, it is a global entity, recognized for it ability to stand up to politically slanted reporting from the US and other "agenda laden" news sources.

Will an organization composed of mere mortals make mistakes - yes, but the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, from past actions not only "navel gazes", but takes corrective action to set things right.

Would I like to get this for free - sure, but I would also be willing to put some cash up front to ensure that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's continued survival is assured. Rather than continue to rely on the government for income, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs to somehow come up with a way to collect on the economic rent for fast and accurate news and opinion, as well as studied insight.

The CBC in Canada has gone through the "death by a thousand cuts", and is really only a shell of itself from 25 years ago, really relying on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news feeds to provide its breaking news. This is not just a shame; it is a threat to truth, beauty, and justice.

Kary
Calgary, Canada

As a viewer of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú America and a loyal Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú nightly News watcher I hate to see what has happened here in the US happen there. We have no real news programs or broadcasts any more except on PBS (Public Broadcasting) and as their funding shrinks and our politics keeps moving ever toward the right even that is getting problematic. I really am concerned as I keep getting newsletters from Greg Palast about the state of his budget and he is the best investigative reporter on both sides of the ocean. I love good drama and again I have to turn to Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú America (or PBS which has Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú shows) for so much of it. Sadly I see far more comedy then drama from you right now. Although I do find Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú comedy far superior to any of the swill they offer here on our network TV that is supposed to be adult comedy. Make sure no one touches Doctor WHO I have been a fan since day one many many years ago and I trust he the Tardis and his current lady friend will be around long after I am gone.

I think it is disaster. May be Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should create a club for people around the world which in return for a little extra service and appreciation would contribute a given amount on a yearly basis, assuming that all members of the club did.

Members could get a batch to wear.

Best,

Knud Munk, Belgium

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú does not only serve the UK, it is a global entity, recognized for it ability to stand up to politically slanted reporting from the US and other "agenda laden" news sources.

Will an organization composed of mere mortals make mistakes - yes, but the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, from past actions not only "navel gazes", but takes corrective action to set things right.

Would I like to get this for free - sure, but I would also be willing to put some cash up front to ensure that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's continued survival is assured. Rather than continue to rely on the government for income, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs to somehow come up with a way to collect on the economic rent for fast and accurate news and opinion, as well as studied insight.

The CBC in Canada has gone through the "death by a thousand cuts", and is really only a shell of itself from 25 years ago, really relying on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news feeds to provide its breaking news. This is not just a shame; it is a threat to truth, beauty, and justice.

Kary
Calgary, Canada

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should focus on its public service role. Ditch Eastenders, Heroes, Neighbours and Strictly Come Dancing and keep Newnight, Question Time and the wildlife films instead.

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú now seems to have so many commercial areas of operation that takes it away from being the public service broadcaster it was.
It should now be accepted for what it is, one broadcaster amongst many others.
It is time to abolish the TV licence, and make the service subscriber driven. We would then see how many people would be prepared to buy in the service rather then being forced to pay for it as happens now.

Budget shortfall? The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not losing money, is not in danger of any sort of financial crisis - in the sense that it may go bust - and is in its best shape financially than at any time.

This is a catastrophe of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's own making, perpetuated by a misplaced sense of priorities about its role and unaccountable requirements to make 'efficiency savings' for their own sake.

The handling of this affair has left me profoundly troubled at where the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is heading and whether the ethos of public service will be lost in the melee caused by a disingenuously induced sense of panic as a front for unnecessary change.

I arrived to the United Kingdom by chance in 1997 and then travelled around a bit to come back in 2000.
I come from a country (Italy) with the state and private television channels packed with advertisement,cheap soap operas and quiz shows. Because of that you know what happened, the owner of the populistic private channels became Prime Minister!
I respect the Monarchy, I love the attitude towards the business, the tolerance of the British people that have always made me feel welcome. However, it's the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú that makes this country different from all the others. It's respected all other the world. Thank to digital TV I don't even think to watch the Italian channels when I go back, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú World is the channel for my news.
Unfortunately, British people are so accustomed to it, that they can't appreciate that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is worth for Britain far more than the few pounds a year more they might ask for the licence fee.When you won't have it any more, you'll miss it.

I really worry about the continued cuts to this vital service. We have changed so much as a society over the last two or three decades and there is no central "rock" to which we can turn to try and hold onto and reclaim some of our traditional national values.
With the proliferation of commercial channels it is impossible for the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú to compete on a playing field that is no longer level. Sky's dominance of sport is but one example of this new era.
But the role of the nations favourite "Aunty" is even more critical to us as a society than ever before. In the last 20 years we have been increasingly swamped by corporate America and now we are being engulfed by our EU members - all of which is changing our traditional way of life.
This is where the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has to provide the bedrock of our traditional values and if we want to protect all that is British - and the reason so many people want to come here - then we have to pay for that essential service to keep it independent and support a free and independent society.
We should not be making cost cuts but repositioning what we have, and in so doing bringing new light and thinking to where we are as a nation in this new millennium.

There are many good reasons for foreigners to live in the UK – and the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is one of them: it’s a privilege and delight to live in Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú-country. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news coverage and documentaries are unrivalled, admired and envied all over the world and a benchmark for the rest of the world media. Mistakes now and then, though regretful, don’t alter that fact.

However, I can’t quite see why the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs to pay a talk show host £6 million – are general talk shows, in abundance on all stations, really Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú core focus? I sincerely hope that coming cuts won’t affect the fantastic news and culture programs and documentaries, especially on Radio 3 and Radio 4, the World Service and on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú2 and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú4. And where would be without, just to name a few, Newsnight and the Today programme, the World at One, 5PM, the Westminster Hour, Front Row, In Our Time, Outlook? Roaming around in the wilderness of ignorance, I would say...

Most of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú’s news and documentaries really have no parallels on any other stations – and surely the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should excel at doing so well what others can’t or won’t do... because that’s what the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú does so brilliantly!

By making cuts to news and documentaries the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú may as well give up its role as public service broadcaster and become like all the cheaper satellite stations who make money from reality TV and cheap foreign imports.
Factual programmes are what distingush the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú from other channels and the Corporation is in danger of losing its identity if these plans come to fruition.

On the whole I think the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú gives good value for money especially factual and news programmes. I would be sorry to see cuts in these good items, cannot cuts be made in some of the rubbish that is broadcast i.e. programmes that as far as I am concerned are distateful, contain strong language and have sexual implications. Of course there are some watchers who like this type of rubbish, but it would be a great shame if these type of programmes were to survive any cuts and decent programmes suffer.

I arrived to the United Kingdom by chance in 1997 and then travelled around a bit to come back in 2000.
I come from a country (Italy) with the state and private television channels packed with advertisement,cheap soap operas and quiz shows. Because of that you know what happened, the owner of the populistic private channels became Prime Minister!
I respect the Monarchy, I love the attitude towards the business, the tolerance of the British people that have always made me feel welcome. However, it's the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú that makes this country different from all the others. It's respected all other the world. Thank to digital TV I don't even think to watch the Italian channels when I go back, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú World is the channel for my news.
Unfortunately, British people are so accustomed to it, that they can't appreciate that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is worth for Britain far more than the few pounds a year more they might ask for the licence fee.When you won't have it any more, you'll miss it.

I think it's about time this is happening, i'm currently a Sky Customer, which i'm more then happy to pay, as it's channels i want to watch, i am however unhappy with the charge for the TV License, as i do not watch any of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú channels, yet again it's a tax for the workers. I watched Hereo's on SCI-FI which i paid for, yeah Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú are now showing it, a year later, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú cannot match Sky 1, which if you have the baic package is less than the TV license over the year, but it's something we don't have to pay for

If cuts must take place, so be it. There is no room for cuts in news, current affairs and documentaries, however. Any cuts should focus on programmes adeqately covered by commercial tv, such as soaps, reality and lifestyle. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú licence fee is only justifiable when it caters for the high-quality news and current affairs programmes like Newsnight, which may not have huge amounts of viewers, but has neutrality with depth. All of us have at least one minority taste (opera,politics etc) and the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should reside in quality, not populism.

If Thompson winds up cutting Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news and factual programming, he should quite simply be taken out, put against the wall, and shot. He will have been responsible for destroying one of the signal products of Western civilisation, possibly the single greatest accomplishment of which Britain can be justifiably proud, a news and education service, respected, admired — and even feared by those who should fear it — around the world, which no parallel or peer anywhere on the planet.

The sorry bastard, with the imprimature of the snivelling, Orwellian apparatchiks of this and the previous NuLabour government — who began this process by cutting the News division off at the knees with the destruction of Andrew Gilligan — will have done damage of historical proportions, and generations to come should have absolutely no mercy on his memory.

I honestly believe that when a service of such demonstrable benefit as this is so cavalierly done away with in the name of 'competitiveness' and 'entertainment', this civilisation will no longer be worth saving.

Where will media get its roll model from if the the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is decimated? Documentaries are often the only chance Joe Public has of getting the unbased truth and general knowledge...

As Mark Thompson proposes the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú cuts, I hope he is careful of what he is about to do. I think it's not about whether or not the organization is too big, it's the central purpose-entertainment. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú provides great entertainment to the public around the world.

I just hope that Thompson knows not to conflict with the central purpose.

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú now seems to have so many commercial areas of operation that takes it away from being the public service broadcaster it was.
It should now be accepted for what it is, one broadcaster amongst many others.
It is time to abolish the TV licence, and make the service subscriber driven. We would then see how many people would be prepared to buy in the service rather then being forced to pay for it as happens now.

Whatever cuts are made, they should not be made for factual TV programs (Planet Earth, etc.) - TV has a tendency to grow increasingly superficial, the intellectual level falling sharply. If you cut those kinds of programs I think the crucial educational role that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú plays will be severely undermined. I believe one of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's roles is to educate people.

In the same vein it would be completely wrong to cut essential news programs like Newsnight. While we all get the facts in the news from the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú web site or News 24, Newsnight plays a crucial role in going one step further and actually interpreting/commenting on events. If any news program had to go I would say the 10 o'clock news. News 24 covers most of the news reported there.

If absolutely necessary I would rather consider shutting down one of the TV channels, perhaps Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 3.

Cuts are required? Well maybe. But cuts should be made to the trivial on the Box. Quality programmes are the basis for the world wide reputation of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú and they must be defended. Massive fees to program presenters, newsreaders or whoever should be cut, but keep the quality journalists and programme makers out there on the job. Let the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú serve the county's needs for quality and give the American imports etc to the other lot. Oh! and tell Mt Thompson to show direction and take a cut!

As Mark Thompson proposes the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú cuts, I hope he is careful of what he is about to do. I think it's not about whether or not the organization is too big, it's the central purpose-entertainment. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú provides great entertainment to the public around the world.

I just hope that Thompson knows not to conflict with the central purpose.

I only watch the factual programmes on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú and never watch Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú3 or Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú4. The news programmes in the main are merely speaking for the government or anti-British factions. The time has come to stop the licence fee altogether and make the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú produce good programmes that they can sell to other companies. If they can't be self supporting then close the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú down.

If the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú went down tomorrow, I dont think anyone would notice.

On the whole I think the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú gives good value for money especially factual and news programmes. I would be sorry to see cuts in these good items, cannot cuts be made in some of the rubbish that is broadcast i.e. programmes that as far as I am concerned are distateful, contain strong language and have sexual implications. Of course there are some watchers who like this type of rubbish, but it would be a great shame if these type of programmes were to survive any cuts and decent programmes suffer.

No no NO!!!! Why is it always the best sectors that get the cuts? News and docu's are what the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú does best - lets see them cut the likes of phone-in's, location/auction/moving-house type programmes instead. How many bargains can one hunt? The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú wildlife documentaries are unrivalled and bring global attention not only to their subject matter but also the impeccably high standard of quality British television. To make the cuts in these areas is surely to starve the lifeblood of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú? Is is still a public service, or now just an entertainment company?

The cuts maybe necessary but you need to thin out the ranks of executives who ordered the phone system that has caused many of the problems regarding phone scandals.

Do not buy any fancy artwork for the offices or corridors until the budgets are balanced.

Also stop paying stupid money to keep acts, if they price themselves out of the market find new talent. Does Jonathon Ross need £18 million over three years? I am sure that you could find a lot of talent for that sum. Be experimental. I have an idea for a TV series that would be much cheaper and educational and fun at the same time.

Also cut down on the silly training scams. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú must waste a fortune on teaching staff how to use a paper clip or something similar.

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Plaese do not do this. do not move away from excellence.

Very sorry to hear the cuts of staff in the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú (may be it is not true) I think the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is world most reliable source of latest news media, by the time passes away it should be more powerful media, I don't know why Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú management not thingking in a more commercial way, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should be totally commercialise, as in the USA, there are many channels and all are commercialised and making good many, which only not financially good for the channels as well as there working staff, even in UK there are many channels which are performing weel due to commercial ad.were shown on them.please try to pursued the UK goverment and as well Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Top management they should not relia on the TV fees and take bold steps for only not for the servial of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú,
B.regards
Hafeez A khan

If cuts must take place, so be it. There is no room for cuts in news, current affairs and documentaries, however. Any cuts should focus on programmes adeqately covered by commercial tv, such as soaps, reality and lifestyle. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú licence fee is only justifiable when it caters for the high-quality news and current affairs programmes like Newsnight, which may not have huge amounts of viewers, but has neutrality with depth. All of us have at least one minority taste (opera,politics etc) and the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should reside in quality, not populism.

In international comparison the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news programs are in a class of their own. After several years in the UK, listening to Radio 4 and watching Newsnight every day, I struggle to think of any news programs worth watching or listening to in my native country of Germany. I would very much regret it if the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú were to risk its reputation as a high quality broadcaster by ill-advised cost-cutting exercises.

We are not nearly in the similar position to Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú management and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Trust to make informed assessments. So, instead I would like to ask for some comparisons. These are taking into account the fact that Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is a Public Broadcasting Service.

Number of employees includes wide variety of staff - what proportion are Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News and Factual staff? Of those, how many are journalists and specialist cameramen vs staff who are easily available on open market? For comparison, how many managers and administrative staff work for Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News? How is this proportion justified? How does this level of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News staff compare with similar TV and radio establishments around the world - say in Germany and France (taking into account similarly large countries in Europe).

What other parts of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú have been considered for cuts and why have they been rejected?

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has been looking to sell its Outside Broadcasting Unit - what is the justification and where has that plan got to? What amount would be raised from this?

If Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú sells the Broadcasting House, is it looking to lease it back or to move out fully? If later, where are the programmes now recorded there going to be made?

In general, how is the total Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú staff broken down in functions? Who and what functions are considered CORE to Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú in delivering on its Charter?

When announcing the cuts, will DG deign to enlighten us, the licence payers, how are we, viewing and listening public, gaining from these cuts?

If you cut the programmes encouraging people to buy and sell property, it should work out fairly well.

you are making a big mistake moving to salford as people living thair are only to happy to get out

Having worked for Royal Mail for many years i have seen my fair share of industrial action. Without fail the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has reported verbatim the managerial position in a favourable positive light every time, with only limited in depth coverage of the issues involved, seldom taking points of view equally from both parties, both Union and management. Now i suppose you want public support for the coming campaign to save your own jobs! Its in the post!

As I mainly watch your news and factual programmes, a cut in these services could not be worse for me. If the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú cannot continue to put out the good programmes then what are we paying the licence for?

If you cut the programmes encouraging people to buy and sell property, it should work out fairly well. After all, that's what estate agents are for.

Raise the license fee if necessary, The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is part of the fabric of the country and must be maintained.

It is tragic that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, our public service broadcaster, which has always been dependable and balanced in its' approach to television and radio services appears to be on the verge of a decimation process. The Government, in my view, is grossly underfunding the corporation and with little forward planning possible as a result leaves public media in a state of limbo. And when we hear of the possible closure of the Television Centre in West London the mind boggles.

Already, we hear of staff cuts and the loss of many good aspects of interest and entertainment, such as sport where the rights are under continual threat from preditors in the commercial domain who provide nothing like the same level of presentation (including inconvenient advertising breaks!).

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is an organ of state that we should be rightly proud of and be willing to fund optimally. At 30p a day it is a bargain and even 40p would be value second to none. And before anyone asks, I am not a Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú employee or, indeed, linked to it in any way (besides being a consumer of services provided). I simply wish to protect a valuable public broadcaster and do not wish it to be squandered away.

Thank you very much.

Steve Tarbet

Apologies for writing again about the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú but it is a subject i feel strongly about and if viewers' ideas get fed back then all the better.

First and foremost we need a strong public broadcaster (that we happen to call the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú) so as to set high standards in terms of accuracy of content, education, entertainment, originality, creativity, innovation and so on. Anyone who has travelled to America or Europe and seen the inane and often harmful rubbish knows what I mean. And the same can be said for broadcasting here in the UK to a certain degree. And, anyway, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has proved itself in the past of being a provider of interesting and decent telvision and radio.

To answer Newsnight's question above. Well, yes, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is too big in terms of making and buying programmes that could be made and bought by commercial broadcasters. In this the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is guilty of empire-building, and this goes back to Lord Birt, and is an abuse of what it is publically financed to do. Instead of wasting money on what can be done just as well by commercial broadcasters the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs to invest more in new writers, artists, programmes-ideas, take more risks etc.. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is meant to be a creative organization. True creativity always involves risk. People don't mind failures - not even massive failures - as long as there are great successes on the way - gems that commercial broadcasters don't have the opportunity to make (because they can't afford to take the creative risks the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú can - and that we expect them to do).

What on earth is the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú doing spending so much money on Digital and the internet in general. At the end of the day for all the smart-ass technology we have we still want to see Del Boy make a idiot of himself, The Ofiice, all these great programmes that are about people, humour, humanity if you like - not swish technology. There is, of course, a place for technology in broadcasting but this is something that the commercial broadcasters should be more focused on - not so much the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú - the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should be focused on the quality of the programme content - not so much the quality of the media that the programme content reaches us - the viewers. Would you rather watch Only Fools or Horses or some other Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú gem on a slightly crackly screen or listening to - I don't know - a robotic 'expert', for example, in the future talk about what constitues humour (or how the little people use to do a thing called humour in former days) on the state-of-the art, space-like screen - that kind of thing. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should be more about being vinyl and creative, than state-of-the-art and polished (let the commercial broadcasters do state-of-the-art and polished).

And lastly, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú must focus on long-term respect and loyalty rather than on short-term ratings. I mean if we want to watch sensational programmes then we can do so on commercial television. Sometimes we feel like gorging ourselves but we don't respect the commerical broadcasters in a long-term-respect sort of way for offering us those sort of programmes. We watch the programmes - they enjoy short-term ratings - we all know the deal. But the deal with the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is that we don't expect safe programmes (safe in terms of slightly banal tv that does enough to get our attention but no more - just as a hamburger with fries and coke fills us up and helps us get through the wait for the train home, for example (and then we soon feel hungry again) or sensational programmes but we expect programmes that will make us think, be inspired, genuinely laugh-out-loud and so on - even if there are programmes, many programmes that are as interesting as watching paint dry (as long as these sort of programmes are not banal in any sort of negative way).

So if there is anyone listening, please focus more on being a creative organization rather than a commercial institution!

By making cuts to news and documentaries the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú may as well give up its role as public service broadcaster and become like all the cheaper satellite stations who make money from reality TV and cheap foreign imports.
The quality of its factual programmes is what distingushes the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú from other channels and the Corporation is in danger of losing its identity if these plans come to fruition.

The amazing salary arrangements made with Jonathon Ross must set a yardstick for all future payments for everyone employed by the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú from the meanest to the mightiest. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube !!!!! Therefore cuts must be made in other areas as any fule kno. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú must be sold off as soon as poss.

I have been listening to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú for years. First via vacuum-tube powered shortwave radio and then, later via computer Internet connection.

The reason I have always returned to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is because of the depth and objectivity of the news broadcasts. With the U.S. Press failing to report so many important events or reporting them with such editorial bias that it makes it impossible to discern fact from propoganda, I have turned to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú as a voice of reasoned fact-finding and reporting.

The loss of such candid reporting in the face of ever-increasing rhetoric and slanted yellow journalism will make the world a far poorer place.

Please, do not allow this to happen. It would be a terrible error.

Thank you.

Margaret Lewis
Louisville, Kentucky, U.S.A.

When a senior executive of a large company starts to economise by major job cuts, it's a sure sign that they don't know what they're doing.
Start with the highest paid and work your way downwards until you have reached the budget level you need.
Then get back to work making a profit.

Better cuts would be to the panel shows, and reality shows. Also to high waged entertainers. Shows like buzzcocks are not worthy of the bbc

I am worried that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is considering cutting its budget for factual and current affairs programmes, but there would appear to be a lot of waste around in news programmes, take potentially expensive coverage of the Madeline case with journalist flown out to Portugal to sit there, repeat themselves and watch a closed door on the police station live. There don't appear to be many significant documentaries made these day's the best recently was Michael Wood on the history of India, but other recent alleged factual output has been abysmal. The Tudors is totally crap, pure conjecture dressed up with lots of titillation in the hope that people who like that kind of thing will stay home from the pub.

The fact remains the the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú documentary output was far superior in the 1970 and 1980s than its been ever since. Perhaps the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú could save money by repeating series like Chronicle and the World About Us, its 20 years since they were seen so they could be just as good as new programmes. The original Great Railway Journey's of The world were also excellent unlike the later series and especially the last one. Charlie Brooker recently did an experiment with teenagers to see how long it took them to get bored, a pretty dull factual programme lasted the longer than the crap aimed at teenagers these days.

I often find myself watching repeats of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú factual programmes on UKTV History in preference to the rubbish which now fills the terrestrial channels. If there are going to be cuts in factual programmes perhaps the first target should be the virtual adverts for the property market every weekday morning.

Very sorry to hear the cuts of staff in the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú (may be it is not true) I think the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is world most reliable source of latest news media, by the time passes away it should be more powerful media, I don't know why Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú management not thingking in a more commercial way, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should be totally commercialise, as in the USA, there are many channels and all are commercialised and making good many, which only not financially good for the channels as well as there working staff, even in UK there are many channels which are performing weel due to commercial ad.were shown on them.please try to pursued the UK goverment and as well Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Top management they should not relia on the TV fees and take bold steps for only not for the servial of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú,
B.regards
Hafeez A khan

There are many good reasons for foreigners to live in the UK – and the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is one of them: it’s a privilege and delight to live in Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú-country. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news coverage and documentaries are unrivalled, admired and envied all over the world and a benchmark for the rest of the world media. Mistakes now and then, though regretful, don’t alter that fact.

However, I can’t quite see why the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs to pay a talk show host £6 million – are general talk shows, in abundance on all stations, really Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú core focus? I sincerely hope that coming cuts won’t affect the fantastic news and culture programs and documentaries, especially on Radio 3 and Radio 4, the World Service and on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú2 and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú4. And where would be without, just to name a few, Newsnight and the Today programme, the World at One, 5PM, the Westminster Hour, Front Row, In Our Time, Outlook? Roaming around in the wilderness of ignorance, I would say...

Most of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú’s news and documentaries really have no parallels on any other stations – and surely the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should excel at doing so well what others can’t or won’t do... because that’s what the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú does so brilliantly!

Cut the 24 hour live News channel by a third or by half: concentrate on quality rather than quantity. This approach might account for a lot of dross, though I understand daytime TV is cheap to make.

When a senior executive of a large company starts to economise by major job cuts, it's a sure sign that they don't know what they're doing.
Start with the highest paid and work your way downwards until you have reached the budget level you need.
Then get back to work making a profit.

Dear Sir,

I think the Government can find alternative to save the Employees
and their Families. Without jobs, crimes & violents will increase.

People shouldn´t over-react, but
to have hope & positive attitudes
towards their challenges.

The Board of Directors should discus
the matter with the Authority for
a good result! Wishing you all good
luck!

Vicentina

Why is the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú management so intent on shooting itself in the foot? It is the corporation's news and factual output that makes it truly distinctive in both national and global terms.
If cuts need to be made then how about starting with ridding our airwaves of truly dreadful Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Three? For all the alleged innovation in the channel's remit what we actually get is countless repeats of what are substandard programmes. How many more times must we endure re-runs of 'Two Pints of Lager........'?
So in my mind the choice is simple. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs to decide whether it wishes to remain a world leader in quality broadcasting or does it wish to be just another network pumping out material that is already provided by commercial broadcasters?

Dear Sir,

I think the Government can find alternative to save the Employees
and their Families. Without jobs, crimes & violents will increase.

People shouldn´t over-react, but
to have hope & positive attitudes
towards their challenges.

The Board of Directors should discus
the matter with the Authority for
a good result! Wishing you all good
luck!

Vicentina

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú serves the world. I live in chicago but wherever I travel I take my shortwave radio with me and rely on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú world news for short and accurate reporting. I watch Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news in chicago too. I know I will get an unbiased and accurate account of world affairs. it would be a great loss for me personally as I listen to it at night too.

sarware tiwana

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú serves the world. I live in chicago but wherever I travel I take my shortwave radio with me and rely on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú world news for short and accurate reporting. I watch Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news in chicago too. I know I will get an unbiased and accurate account of world affairs. it would be a great loss for me personally as I listen to it at night too.

sarware tiwana

If you cut the programmes encouraging people to buy and sell property, it should work out fairly well. After all, that's what estate agents are for.

Dear Sir,

I think the Government can find alternative to save the Employees
and their Families. Without jobs, crimes & violents will increase.

People shouldn´t over-react, but
to have hope & positive attitudes
towards their challenges.

The Board of Directors should discus
the matter with the Authority for
a good result! Wishing you all good
luck!

Vicentina

If you want the comments then please get your website working! May be Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs more technical staff and bandwidth.

It is unfair to ask the public to judge whether the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should lose 2,800 people. How do we know what these people do and what value they contribute.

The question is if the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú can manage without them then what were they hired for in the first place.

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is bound to end up one day with subscription channels for non-core programming so why not get going on that now. This should have been done ten years ago rather than hand the market to Sky

the bbc is living in the past, let them compete with sky, cable, ect, they have had years of handouts and think thay can carry on and just say give us more.I say get rid of it all together and stop the licence fee.
you have to ask yourself would it change your life if it went off the air I doubt it very much,repeats repeats and lets be fair if it had to trade in the open market it would die.

I await with dread the definitive plans for cuts to Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú services. If anything has to be cut, it should not be those services, such as news, current affairs, documentaries and programmes that provide the opportunity to increase listeners' knowledge on a wide range of subjects. In the era of the meaningless soundbite, apart from the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú in-depth coverage of news, politics and information programmes, there is little in commercial services to provide an alternative. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has a unique and vital role to play in challenging and informative public service broad-casting in the UK and wider afield.

By all means, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should continue its public service broadcasting. I watch the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú World News in order to learn what is going on around the world. It has been the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú that has let America know what has been happening in Iraq, since the American network news shows only the administration's spin.
Best regards,
Ruby Johnson, United States

No wonder this once great country is going down the pan. We seem to be obsessed with making money and meeting targets instead of providing public services we can be proud of, just look at the postal service, the railways, the banks and building societies and libraries etc. they've all fallen into the trap and now the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is considering making cuts to staff who work making news and factural programmes - the one area that over the years has stood the network head and shoulders above other sensationalist grabbing channels. I suppose we are going to be served up more crappy reality shows and all end up behaving and speaking like the characters in Eastenders!

If you cut the programmes encouraging people to buy and sell property, it should work out fairly well. After all, that's what estate agents are for.

Yes.

It is tragic that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, our public service broadcaster, which has always been dependable and balanced in its' approach to television and radio services appears to be on the verge of a decimation process. The Government, in my view, is grossly underfunding the corporation and with little forward planning possible as a result leaves public media in a state of limbo. And when we hear of the possible closure of the Television Centre in West London the mind boggles.

Already, we hear of staff cuts and the loss of many good aspects of interest and entertainment, such as sport where the rights are under continual threat from preditors in the commercial domain who provide nothing like the same level of presentation (including inconvenient advertising breaks!).

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is an organ of state that we should be rightly proud of and be willing to fund optimally. At 30p a day it is a bargain and even 40p would be value second to none. And before anyone asks, I am not a Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú employee or, indeed, linked to it in any way (besides being a consumer of services provided). I simply wish to protect a valuable public broadcaster and do not wish it to be squandered away.

Thank you very much.

Steve Tarbet

I can't understand why news and factual TV would get budget cuts. In this area Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is far superior to any other channel that I've watched and it should stay that way or the news won't be worth watching on any channel.
There are many other areas where the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú could cut such as game shows, soaps and sport. These are done just as badly by the other channels,why waste time and money competing?
The money saved could be spent on the higher quality drama series that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú used to be so good at in the 70's & 80's

Very sorry to hear the cuts of staff in the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú (may be it is not true) I think the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is world most reliable source of latest news media, by the time passes away it should be more powerful media, I don't know why Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú management not thingking in a more commercial way, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should be totally commercialise, as in the USA, there are many channels and all are commercialised and making good many, which only not financially good for the channels as well as there working staff, even in UK there are many channels which are performing weel due to commercial ad.were shown on them.please try to pursued the UK goverment and as well Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Top management they should not relia on the TV fees and take bold steps for only not for the servial of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú,
B.regards
Hafeez A khan

No no NO!!!! Why is it always the best sectors that get the cuts? News and docu's are what the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú does best - lets see them cut the likes of phone-in's, location/auction/moving-house type programmes instead. How many bargains can one hunt? The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú wildlife documentaries are unrivalled and bring global attention not only to their subject matter but also the impeccably high standard of quality British television. To make the cuts in these areas is surely to starve the lifeblood of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú? Is is still a public service, or now just an entertainment company?

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is one of the greatest British institutions there is. It's not perfect but much of it - Radio 4, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú2, most of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News - beats most other countries' offerings by miles.

The sad fact is that the government - both Blair's and Brown's - is just too much in awe of Murdoch and his agenda. It is shocking that a foreigner with no loyalty to Britain other than his narrow commercial interests - has acquired so much influence over British policy.

Yes of course the licence fee becomes harder to justify in the digital age, but there is still an absolutely rocksolid case to be made for defending and subsidising British culture and its tradition of impartial news coverage.

Thank God most of the British people recognise that and continue to support the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.

The cuts maybe necessary but you need to thin out the ranks of executives who ordered the phone system that has caused many of the problems regarding phone scandals.

Do not buy any fancy artwork for the offices or corridors until the budgets are balanced.

Also stop paying stupid money to keep acts, if they price themselves out of the market find new talent. Does Jonathon Ross need £18 million over three years? I am sure that you could find a lot of talent for that sum. Be experimental. I have an idea for a TV series that would be much cheaper and educational and fun at the same time.

Also cut down on the silly training scams. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú must waste a fortune on teaching staff how to use a paper clip or something similar.

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú now seems to have so many commercial areas of operation that takes it away from being the public service broadcaster it was.
It should now be accepted for what it is, one broadcaster amongst many others.
It is time to abolish the TV licence, and make the service subscriber driven. We would then see how many people would be prepared to buy in the service rather then being forced to pay for it as happens now.

i feel as if they just throw money away on a few stars and silly progaming changes for examble come dancing i love program but to have it on on saturday and prime time sunday is daft.i also beleave that they pay a talk show host 6million just to insult people and act daft lets get back to the standerds we used to have or stop having licence money and surport them selves judith

This is tragic, if it does indeed take place. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is the one news organization that consistently provides truthful information and meaningful insights. Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú also proffers many wonderful programs that provide information about a wide range of events and issues through book discussions, programs on economics, religion and drama. We need the truth and we get it from you. Would it help if radio stations receiving the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú paid increased fees and regular listeners contribute the way people in the US contribute to National Public Radio. Please work to keep the wonderful World Service you have now, a source of wisdom, truth, insight, and entertainment for the world.

Dear Sir or Madam
1.What is hearting really is: "up to 2,800 jobs cuts".From an huminitarian part of view is there any other olternatives then this? As this will cause grate harm to those who worked hard for the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú along with their families.It is a very big number! It's effect is horendus.
2.But "£2bn budget shortfall caused by a smaller than hoped-for licence fee settlement." also is a very big amount which needed to be thought about. Is there any way that "licence fee settlement" can be decreesed or, may be conpensated by some forms of private sponsership to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú programmes or might having some forms of investment plan that could generate's income, alowed by low. Also may be a campain of publick involvment, donations, consetrs, loteries,other kind of social events.SAVE Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú JOBS
I pray some thing can happen.
3..Cuts to "Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News and factual TV - which makes programmes such as Planet Earth"
.."Sell Television Centre, its landmark west London studio complex."
May be it can be justifyed but I belive it will be a big loss of somehing remarkable.
My kindest regards
Hussain

I shall be extremely annoyed if news and factusl programs are cut as I never watch rubbish "entertainments" or soaps - although a good e.g. detective story is enjoyable. Who is driving the cuts? It couldn't be a right wing group - or could it???
As to paying millions of pounds to individuals when thousands of better qualified people could do it for a fraction - well - where are the priorities??????

"Who cares? Bin the licence fee and let the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú go commercial. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is a leech living off the tax payer." -Finn.

Well, lot's of people care actually, as evidenced by the comments here! It's heartening to see that the people who want the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú as a public service broadcaster to just die off and become a commercial entity - it's a "leech", etc - are in a tiny minority on this board. I only hope the same is true nationwide, but I doubt that, or at least to the same extent. Why not have a national debate, and then a referendum on the future of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú? That would quiet their voices, finally, and the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, assuming it got its mandate, could push into the future with a clear conscience (and free of these funding troubles, one would hope).

I do think it is an important enough issue to have a debate and referendum - and I'm guessing that those who would like to see the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú continue as a public service broadcaster and those who would abolish the licence fee agree on that, at least. But for some reason, in Britain we don't have much of a taste for referenda. Perhaps it's a legacy of the aristocratic value system, and a sort of snobbery.

Myself, I'm a Brit living in the US and I listen to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú all the time - though I'm limited to how much I can watch of TV over here (mainly blocky, grainy, and jumpy low-bandwidth Newsnight, but I still do it). I HATE the idea of ANY funding cuts hitting the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. I even don't mind helping to fund journalists living it up a bit in foreign climes and having a super time on our dime, as long as they are producing great stuff. I DO dislike the way the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has gone downmarket in recent years, though. Those of us who just listen to radio 3 and radio 4 and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 2 are probably not really aware of what sort of entity the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has really become, and when you look at the larger picture, with all the drivel that's also produced, a public service funding model does make a bit less sense. On the other hand, if that's what people want, perhaps the public service broadcaster has a duty to provide it, and can maybe up the quality level a bit, and challenge the purely commercial entities? That's exactly the sort of question (along with lots of others) that should be discussed nationally, and then decided, nationally.

Anyway, even with the limited access to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú I get here in the States, I'd be willing to pay something towards the licence fee. Perhaps I should just send the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú a cheque as a gift anyway, to show my support. Probably the licence fee system is anachronistic, but never mind, I wouldn't like to see the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú move to a subscriber model, as some people suggest. That won't happen anyway, the most likely eventuality is that it will become increasingly commercial (though still relatively high-quality) and get a progressively smaller and smaller chunk of public money as the years roll on. At some point it might get split up, with the public service part moving over to getting direct funding from the governement rather than a licence fee, as in Canada. By that time - 50 years down the road? - it will be more like the CBC is today, though larger and it will probably retain its foreign presence much more (foreign correspondents, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú world service, etc). As much as I would LOVE to see the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú stay the way it is, over the long term, sadly, it isn't very likely....

If you cut the programmes encouraging people to buy and sell property, it should work out fairly well. Estate Agents seem to cover that area adequately.

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is everything that makes Britain great !Succumbing to market forces is in effect the dumbing down of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú and following on , the entire cultural standards of our way of life !

The question that needs to be asked is why has there been a £2billion shortfall in the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's budget ?
What is 'bean-counter' Brown up to ?
How long before we all start speaking with American twangs and begin to elect total idiots into government ..?

By making cuts to news and documentaries the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú may as well give up its role as public service broadcaster and become like all the cheaper satellite stations who make money from reality TV and cheap foreign imports.
The quality of its factual programmes is what distingushes the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú from other channels and the Corporation is in danger of losing its identity if these plans come to fruition.

By making cuts to news and documentaries the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú may as well give up its role as public service broadcaster and become like all the cheaper satellite stations who make money from reality TV and cheap foreign imports.
The quality of its factual programmes is what distingushes the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú from other channels and the Corporation is in danger of losing its identity if these plans come to fruition.

Reading some of the posted comments makes me think. Having moved to Canada a few years back it strikes me that those who live in the UK have become far too accustomed to quality broadcasting, both in terms of radio and TV, that they instantly think that for the organisation to be better is for it to shed some weight... The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is a world renowned organisation which puts out excellent products. Both in terms of drama, documentaries and radio broadcasting. the amount of people I know who tune in daily to Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú channels because the 100 other channels available here just don't compare. So whats the answer? There's a budget short fall so where's the cash coming from? Or is the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú destined to get rid of what its so good at. I personally believe that more cash should be generated from overseas markets. Sponsorship of programs similar to ITV should be the norm. Sell of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú headquarters... Move to Brighton? Apply for lottery cash? Tax the other networks? Create pay per view channels under the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú umbrella? What shouldn't be done is selling of the family silver! I honestly miss British TV and I don't mean the crappy North American trash that dominates there and here.

It strikes me that Factual and News are at the heart of what the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú does well and is renowned for. Why cut jobs here and not in light entertainment? Maybe lose an episode of Eastenders a week, drop the ridiculous Holby-spin-offs?

I think Mark Thompson is kicking out the wrong people..

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, in my opinion, stands for Brilliant quality programmes especially when we consider programmes like 'Planet Earth', 'Human Instinct', etc., etc. No company, anywhere in the world can match the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. The news is also the best example of great quality broadcasting.

Living in China now for over five years I know how much these programmes are loved, enjoyed, and respected here, and in other countries.

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is 'Great British Broadcasting'. It should not be a case of cuts but The British Government should see the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú as its international flagship.

Here in China I see an even growing investment in China Central Television because a great nation needs great broadcasting.

Let the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú carry commercials but let’s not cut what is best.

The world loves The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. The world needs the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. Ask any TV company from anywhere in the world - If you have worked for the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú your experience is highly valued. Why can't my fellow Brits value it?

Britain has lost so much - please see sense in England and keep 'The Best of British'.

There is undoubtedly a strong push from the monied Right to destroy the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, both for financial and ideological reasons. This must be resisted. Too many people (and it can be seen in many of the contributions to this "blog") think of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú only as its TV component. The world is still grateful for the world service radio and the country is grateful for Radio 4 and its unbiased news content. Most countries have a system of licencing radio and TV reception, the proceeds being treated as general taxation. At least in the UK the proceeds from the licence fee support the best broadcasting service in the world.
Do not destroy this service- Britain's reputation overseas depends to a large extent on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is public social education service. A vital role of a mass media to remind us all the basic norms of civilisation, via the skills of its talented skilled staff, expertly trained. It points up the negative signals of a potentially sick society, drugs,crime, human trafficing, rogue traders. Yet leads the world in brilliant variety of comedy the finacial waste is the fat top cats celebs on obscene salaries while the technical braces of the shows are to be fired. Utter stupidity Gov should save the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú and let Northern Rock go to the wall.

Abolish the TV licence and start advertising everyone else is doing it and managing fine, in this day and age you would think we would have moved on from this. It’s about time you stay ahead with what people want and then you wouldn’t get left behind. Change your policies and live with what happens as long as management have learned something from it then the rest will become history. Expect the criticism too as this has been long on the table. I don’t mind that they have job cuts, its sad don’t get me wrong and in today’s society that debts are spiralling out of control it may be too late to save. I still predict a market financial crash and this situation will not help things either. Good Luck is all I can say let’s hope they get it right.

There is a serious parallel that occurs to me in relation to proposed cuts and their rumoured place in Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú organisation. This is with the NHS!

Just like the NHS, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has become driven by numbers - whether the programme ratings or costs. No wonder when it is lead by accountants and management consultants. Now, why would they be the leaders of the worlds most admired broadcasting company? Only if the money and popularity are its main objectives. And, I venture that they are not.

Back to NHS parallel. We now see the impact of the excessive shifts in management in our hospitals and the impact of outsourcing -- basic hygiene gone! Any organisation that can not deal with 'hygiene' issues has serious MANAGEMENT problems. And, money ispebding is a hygiene issue - but I do not see managers falling on their sword!

Cutting Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News and factual programs is like taking out main product of a successful organisation and slimming it down - and a product that gives it worldwide reputation at that - so that one can put money in programs that are 'run of the mill' and made by all sorts of external small companies. This means trading your signature stuff for off the shelf retail stuff found anywhere.

But then ,what can one expect from short term thinking devoid of real long term strategy that is not beholden to mean politicos in Downing Street, no matter what colour they come from.

I thought that Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is part of the British image abroad - so perhaps Foreign Office could put more money in it. Given that Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú also has local people like Salam Pax in Baghdad or doctors with cameras that provide valuable news and intelligence inaccessible to official sources or other networks, some other official agencies could be also prevailed to contribute.

Finally, could you enlighten us how much have you paid for the expensive advice telling you to make big cuts and their identification? In the aid of transparaency, we should be told.

I shall be extremely annoyed if news and factusl programs are cut as I never watch rubbish "entertainments" or soaps - although a good e.g. detective story is enjoyable. Who is driving the cuts? It couldn't be a right wing group - or could it???
As to paying millions of pounds to individuals when thousands of better qualified people could do it for a fraction - well - where are the priorities??????

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is public social education service. A vital role of a mass media to remind us all the basic norms of civilisation, via the skills of its talented skilled staff, expertly trained. It points up the negative signals of a potentially sick society, drugs,crime, human trafficing, rogue traders. Yet leads the world in brilliant variety of comedy the finacial waste is the fat top cats celebs on obscene salaries while the technical braces of the shows are to be fired. Utter stupidity Gov should save the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú and let Northern Rock go to the wall.

It is a terrible shame that the government did not let the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú have an increase in the license fee that would have allowed the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú to continue to provide us with the many and diverse programs that make every penny of the fee worthwhile. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú provides a much better service than Sky at less than half of the Sky's full package annual fee.

I am a member of one of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's Regional audience Councils but I am commenting with my views which do not necessarily represent those of the RAC.
When there was only the Home Service and the Light Programme and only one or two TV channels, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú had to be all things to all people.Now that there are hundreds of alternative channels,internet etc, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú must return to its core,Reithian principles.We have to be The Times,The Guardian etc not the Sunday Sport.
Also,there is far too much emphasis on interactivity. Nobody is interested in what John Smith thinks except for John Smith and his mother.
Finally,the sums paid to B- grade "celebreties" who cannot even speak the Queen's English is obscene.

For my money, before the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú cut news and factual programming it could cut all soaps, and all drama featuring corpses and/or internal organs, and cruelty to children, which I don't believe should be watched for entertainment. Sadly, these things won't happen.

If there are savings that can reasonably be made within news and factual programming, fair enough, there probably is some duplication of reporting etc. that could be avoided, but swingeing cuts across the board would damage the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's deserved reputation for public service broadcasting. I'd pay a dedicated news subscription to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú rather than have a debased service. People pay Murdoch through the nose for channels of complete nonsense, then complain about the cost of the licence fee. Completely crackers. Set up an iTunes style means of charging people to download programmes from the Archive, there are loads of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú adaptations and series I can't get that I'd happily pay for. Research students and universities would no doubt pay for archive material, of which there must be masses, and which is probably fascinating. If the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú diminishes in quality its future will become more and more tenuous, it should raise revenue by marketing the best of its past, and hold itself to its public service ethos.

Bring it on! As a senior press officer for a front line Agency, it pains me to talk to yet another Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú hack when you've already spoken 8 previously,all from different programmes, but probably all working on the same news floor - and not talking to each other. What a waste of money!

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú provides a service that is second to none. It probably cannot be equalled by any other broadcaster on the planet.

The Corporation has tread a very difficult path over the years with great success by fulfilling the requirements of its charter at the same time as competing with increasing competition. News, current affairs, documentaries and drama, all of outstanding quality, unmatched and unparalleled. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú sets the standard for others.

Now, in the interests of cost cutting, this is to be seriously compromised with the inevitable consequences.

I would personally be happy to pay an increase in the fee rather than see a watering down of services and loss of excellent programming.

Of course cuts will damage the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, whatever ‘spin’ the management, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Trust or politicians choose to put on it.

Not only will the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú be damaged but the resultant impact on the nation will make us that much poorer in terms of information, education and entertainment – which is what the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú excels at.

Whatever cuts are made, they should not be made for factual TV programs (Planet Earth, etc.) - TV has a tendency to grow increasingly superficial, the intellectual level falling sharply. If you cut those kinds of programs I think the crucial educational role that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú plays will be severely undermined. I believe one of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's roles is to educate people.

In the same vein it would be completely wrong to cut essential news programs like Newsnight. While we all get the facts in the news from the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú web site or News 24, Newsnight plays a crucial role in going one step further and actually interpreting/commenting on events. If any news program had to go I would say the 10 o'clock news. News 24 covers most of the news reported there.

If absolutely necessary I would rather consider shutting down one of the TV channels, perhaps Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 3.

The prime duty and responsibility of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, being as it is , financed by the licence fee, is to provide a first class news service and a full programme containing factual and intellectual material that the other television companies do not.
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should not be subjected to trial by the size of it's viewing figures as are the commercial TV companies who rely on their advertising for their existance.

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should not be lowering it's sights but standing firm in the full time production af quality television which is, and has been, unobtainable from the comercial companies for many years now.

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is recognised as one of the finest broadcasters in the world. Dumming down, is the easy option, which appears to be the case at the moment and which is being described as "consolidation"

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is a jewel and should be maintained to provide high quality

As the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is effectively an arm of the state, paid for through a form of taxation, it needs to use its resources carefully and effectively. These changes are bound to have an impact on staff and other things, but welcome to the real world!

I have to say, though, that whilst this story is clearly of great interest and concern to Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú employees, you need to draw the line between what is of interest to you, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, and what is general newsworthiness. Would you be devoting the same attention to the same proportional changes at ITV or Sky? I wonder.

Cut all chatshows, soaps, sitcoms, comedy, sport, gambling, celebrity and gameshows - let the other broadcasters do those. Cut the movies - I watch movies at the cinema and on DVD. Allow other broadcasters to present tabloid-style news. Instead, concentrate on national and international news gathering and quality reporting (TV, radio and online), current affairs programmes, documentaries, art (broadly interpreted) programmes, and quality children's programming. If that leaves only one Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú television channel, it will certainly be worth watching. Also, strengthen and expand Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú radio, and massively boost Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú online.

Such cuts, if they occur, are greatly to be regretted. At its best, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has produced documentaries and factual progammes of enduring value.

I see evidence of 'dumbing down' in a great many formulaic programmes currently.

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú does not only serve the UK, it is a global entity, recognized for it ability to stand up to politically slanted reporting from the US and other "agenda laden" news sources.

Will an organization composed of mere mortals make mistakes - yes, but the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, from past actions not only "navel gazes", but takes corrective action to set things right.

Would I like to get this for free - sure, but I would also be willing to put some cash up front to ensure that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's continued survival is assured. Rather than continue to rely on the government for income, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs to somehow come up with a way to collect on the economic rent for fast and accurate news and opinion, as well as studied insight.

The CBC in Canada has gone through the "death by a thousand cuts", and is really only a shell of itself from 25 years ago, really relying on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news feeds to provide its breaking news. This is not just a shame; it is a threat to truth, beauty, and justice.

Kary
Calgary, Canada

Very sorry to hear the cuts of staff in the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú (may be it is not true) I think the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is world most reliable source of latest news media, by the time passes away it should be more powerful media, I don't know why Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú management not thingking in a more commercial way, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should be totally commercialise, as in the USA, there are many channels and all are commercialised and making good many, which only not financially good for the channels as well as there working staff, even in UK there are many channels which are performing weel due to commercial ad.were shown on them.please try to pursued the UK goverment and as well Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Top management they should not relia on the TV fees and take bold steps for only not for the servial of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú,
B.regards
Hafeez A khan

October 17, 2007

Hey, no Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú cuts please. Here in NYC we rely on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú for our news, good docs, classic drama, and Brit humor.

I would gladly pay Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú for using its services.

What CAN you be thinking- cutting service -indeed not.

Pauline & Palmer Glass

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú doesn't have to chase advertisers, so why not just do what it once had a good reputation for, and do it exclusively?

Cut out all the celebrity nonsense, cut out all of the tacky subversive 'commedy'. Stick to factual TV, news, drama etc.

Inform, educate, and set some decent standards for entertainment rather than following the pack. Stop living by FOCUS groups.

Or you'll not be long for this world.

As the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is effectively an arm of the state, paid for through a form of taxation, it needs to use its resources carefully and effectively. These changes are bound to have an impact on staff and other things, but welcome to the real world!

I have to say, though, that whilst this story is clearly of great interest and concern to Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú employees, you need to draw the line between what is of interest to you, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, and what is general newsworthiness. Would you be devoting the same attention to the same proportional changes at ITV or Sky? I wonder.

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú was, at one time, the gold standard for broadcast news, investigative reporting and public service; it has degenerated to an also-ran purveyer of sensation, sparsely dotted with material which is usable by the general pulic. Further degradation in quality argues for closing the doors.

I'm a 23 year old proffesional living in London. I listen to radio 1 everyday, but I also watch newsnight on a daily basis. I resent the statement that people under 35 arent interested in politics or current affairs. Important current event programs such as newsnight and the today programme should always hold priority over mindless un-funny entertainment programmes. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has a duty to keep politics and current events at the forefront of our awareness. If we dont our social problems will worsen, as a whole generation will become further disconnected from the running of the country. In my opinion, how the country is run is more important than shows such as 'Titty Titty Bang Bang'!

Having travelled around the world for the past 20 odd years, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is without doubt the best broadcaster in the world.Further, it is the benchmark for most broadcasters as it produces some of the highest standard and ground breaking radio and TV anywhere. Why lower the standard?
The UK has lost it's lead in shipbuilding, motor car production, textiles, aircraft, etc, etc, are we planning to add our television and radio production to this list?
It seems that the Bean Counters are caling the shots yet again, going after the bottom line, and giving little regard to the actual core business of producing good programing. I just wonder how much of this is the government getting it's own back after the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's position on the 'Dodgy Dossier' and the David Kelly Affair, where reporting the truth cause major changes within the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. So much for freedom of the press.

At its best the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú simply is the best broadcaster in the world. Last week's Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú-2 90 minute documenary on the 50th anniversary of the Windscale disaster was superb: a thoroughly researched, carefully crafted, compelling piece of television, which explained 'the science bit' without dumbing down or patronising its audience. On the other hand...'The Tudors' is a piece of costume-drama-junk with elements of soft porn', which belongs on ITV1.
That's not to say that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should do only programmes which educate/inform; there is a role to simply please and entertain. And don't forget all the radio: paid from the same 'TV' licence, with a range depth and quality unmatched anywhere in the world - and free from ad's!

There are many good reasons for foreigners to live in the UK – and the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is one of them: it’s a privilege and delight to live in Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú-country. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news coverage and documentaries are unrivalled, admired and envied all over the world and a benchmark for the rest of the world media. Mistakes now and then, though regretful, don’t alter that fact.

However, I can’t quite see why the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs to pay a talk show host £6 million – are general talk shows, in abundance on all stations, really Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú core focus? I sincerely hope that coming cuts won’t affect the fantastic news and culture programs and documentaries, especially on Radio 3 and Radio 4, the World Service and on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú2 and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú4. And where would be without, just to name a few, Newsnight and the Today programme, the World at One, 5PM, the Westminster Hour, Front Row, In Our Time, Outlook? Roaming around in the wilderness of ignorance, I would say...

Most of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú’s news and documentaries really have no parallels on any other stations – and surely the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should excel at doing so well what others can’t or won’t do: Public Service Broadcasting... because that’s what the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú does so brilliantly!

when we go digital why should we pay a license fee and have to pay for digi boxes for every tv we own. It's about time the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú started to fund it self and scrap the license fee.
colin
Romford Essex

Jeff Randall just nailed why Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú3 is pointless: tittybangbang.

PS - I'm 22, so any claim this show's for me (as opposed to older people like Jeff) is total utter BS. I value high quality comedy over this noncebash!

To load this question by suggesting that the equivalents of Planet Earth are priorities for the chop illustrates very neatly the reason reorganisation.
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has been severely damaged over the years by a surplus of journalists, a number of whom have sought to advance their own interests by gratuitous comments and opinions in news and associated programs. You have only to read blogs such as The Editors and Nick Robinson to see how this has undermined the integrity of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú .
A slimmed down department, staffed by experienced journalists who can distinguish between news and fluff and are prepared to keep their own opinions to themselves would be less expensive and provide a service satisfactory to viewers.
Of course the pantomime that is now The News with its stage settings, display boards, drum rolls, flashing lights and multi- newsreaders should go along with the advertising department that infuriates between programs.

I am a member of one of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's Regional audience Councils but I am commenting with my views which do not necessarily represent those of the RAC.
When there was only the Home Service and the Light Programme and only one or two TV channels, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú had to be all things to all people.Now that there are hundreds of alternative channels,internet etc, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú must return to its core,Reithian principles.We have to be The Times,The Guardian etc not the Sunday Sport.
Also,there is far too much emphasis on interactivity. Nobody is interested in what John Smith thinks except for John Smith and his mother.
Finally,the sums paid to B- grade "celebreties" who cannot even speak the Queen's English is obscene.

To cut back on factual and important news programmes like Newsnight/Today is to fundamentally misunderstand why we watch/listen to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. We tune in to the other channels for our reality shows, big money quiz shows and soaps, etc. It is the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú we look to for factual programming - this decision is just madness. Sure cuts can be made but this is a hatchet job. Raise the licence fee and get rid Beeb 3 which seems to show Two Pints of Lager on an endless loop and adds little value.

I watch the unfolding story about the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú with both horror and a distinct feeling that this has been coming for many years.
When will the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú bosses learn that people want quality entertainment and that includes camera work, script and a viewpoint. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has produced some truly fantastic programmes, most recently the various Michael Palin series around the world. This is utterly staggering photography and film making craft,and is a a credit to the team nvolved. Also Top Gear, Newsnight, Panorama and many natural history programmes.
So why we have to watch drivel and terrible camera work in many programmes now? wobbly cameras, badly set up and terrible content does not keep viewers with large flat screen TV's that are being bought now finally.
Many good technicians and camera crews have been forced away from the braodcast industry as it is now run by people who havent got a clue. Where did the notion go of a Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú training being the best in the world, not any longer, sadly.
Make good quality and the viewers will return, simple as that

I guess you really want to know what we think about the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú(World Service). I am not interested in TV only Radio. Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Radio programs are OK, but there's a lot of competition. Someone suggested that Hilversum (Radio Netherlands} was the top English language broadcaster(Was that DLO in the old days or 5XX?) They may be right. I enjoy Voice of Russia (relayed to Canada) especially Voicebox (musical programs from indigenous peoples etc) and "Kaleidoscope", Deutsche Welle (English Language) beats the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú World Service every time and so does Radio Australia with many excellent programms.-colin

I think Mark Thompson intends to cut back the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú into something that can not compete with his next employer.

I very much hope the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is left as it is, not only for the sake of the people in Britain but for the rest of us spread around the world. We rely on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú for unbiased news accounts. American news is dominated by Fox which means Rupert Murdoch, who also dominates most news services in the rest of the so-called free world. Our own public broadcasting is dominated by the government of the day, (broadcast from our point of view or face funding cuts), thats the way I see it anyway. So the rest of the world needs an uncurtailed Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.

Like another reader on the net - I too feel sorry that money rules as it does today - I am now 71 and grew up in England with the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú - indeed where would we have been without the Corporation - in the War and to give us all those wonderful Comedy programmes and Musical evenings.

I now live in New Zealand and still go the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú web-site for news of the day, not only in the UK, the weather, sports, etc. etc. For many people living overseas the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is still a great and sometimes the only link, we have with our Mother country. As the War time poster depicted - WE NEED YOU!!

I can't understand why news and factual TV would get budget cuts. In this area Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is far superior to any other channel that I've watched and it should stay that way or the news won't be worth watching on any channel.
There are many other areas where the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú could cut such as game shows, soaps and sport. These are done just as badly by the other channels,why waste time and money competing?
The money saved could be spent on the higher quality drama series that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú used to be so good at in the 70's & 80's

The stupidiest thing you guys can do...even here in Belgium you are rated as the best of all European channels...Let's call it a case of harming yourself ?????

Has anyone else noticed that posts by certain individuals who wholehartedly support the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú are appearing more than once..or twice....or three times.
EG. 32 33 42 49
36 46 89 155
95 96.......122 123

Hardly balanced and unbiased but there again if the cap fits.
These poor people who mostly receive their Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú programs for free whilst those in the UK have to pay a criminal TAX seem to think that Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news is some sort of blessing.
It is NOT. It is thick with Oxbridge types who put out their own view of how the world should be according to their Enid Blyton school of doctrine, Little England, village green, sound of willow.
I do not trust what they broadcast but I am more concerned at what they choose to not ask or not research.
I watch other News providers in order to learn what is a fuller picture and the difference in FACTUAL reporting can be huge therefore you question why the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú left that part out or did not ask that question etc etc, so the fanciful idea that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news is blessed is bunkum.

If its best let it happen but you must know that if you compromise quality its the worst thing to do

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú CUT_BACK..NOT BEFORE TIME
At last,how long can we sustain"THE BEST TV IN THE WORLD" a bottomless pit that pays out too much.The incredible saleries of some top presenters and producers in insanity.
In SCOTLAND the news is unwatchable.We have two newsreaders sharing every other word and then we go to our outside broadcast team(on every story) who standing outside a now darkened court in Peterhead or somewhere,tells us exactly what we just heard from the studio.The expence of this nonsense results in fewer actual newsstories being carried.On top of that they always reapeat a major story we all just heard in Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú UK.NO PLC COMPaNY could afford this

I was dismayed to hear about the proposed cutbacks at the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, especially in relation to reliable and in depth news programmes such as 'Today' and 'Newsnight'.

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has always been known for its impartiality and professionalism, its broadcasting of documentary and more intellectually stimulating programmes, as well as much needed radio coverage in those parts of the world where unbiased news and information is hard to come by.

I don't see the need for the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú to spend money on the usual run of game shows and reality programmes which the more commercial channels seem to think 'the public' want to see. They could save money on these apparently lowest denominator programmes and spend their budget on quality material.

I also don't think individual presenters need to be paid millions of pounds.
Likewise, why spend millions of pounds to be able to broadcast sporting events such as football. It only encourages already highly paid people to expect even more.

I would quite happily pay a larger licence fee for the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú to maintain quality broadcasting; surely the function of a public service company.
So far, I have not felt the need to subscribe to services such as 'Sky' and would prefer to put a little extra towards the licence fee.

Don't let the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú go the way of government departments in endlessly contracting out services and forming 'government companies'.
That way the ethos of the organisation is lost and quality suffers - cheapest isn't often best.

Should, as suspected, the now approved cuts impact the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's ability to continue to produce such greats as "Planet Earth" and also effect the way the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú continues to leave the rest of the world standing on its news and current affairs coverage then one can only imagine that somewhere in the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú there is something very wrong. These are the absolute core products of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, their centre of excellence. Why on earth, if the rest of the world can see this, cant Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Senior Management see it too? These are areas where the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should be investing, not cutting back.

My comment is in similar vein to Sam in No 169. I too noticed the same comment being repeated word for word several times. I'm not concerned too much about bias one way or the other i.e. whether the repeaters are pro or anti to the cause - rather I wish to avoid reading the same comment over and over again.

The blog is said to be moderated; shouldn't the moderator(s) delete identical comments being repeated by the same contributor.

I have noticed this problem(?) in a number of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú blogs and I find it irritating. I am aware that there can be problems in getting a comment onto the blog so repetition by the sender may be the only way to get it posted but can't this be tidied up by the moderator(s)?

Has anyone else noticed that posts by certain individuals who wholehartedly support the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú are appearing more than once..or twice....or three times.
EG. 32 33 42 49
36 46 89 155
95 96.......122 123

Hardly balanced and unbiased but there again if the cap fits.
These poor people who mostly receive their Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú programs for free whilst those in the UK have to pay a criminal TAX seem to think that Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news is some sort of blessing.
It is NOT. It is thick with Oxbridge types who put out their own view of how the world should be according to their Enid Blyton school of doctrine, Little England, village green, sound of willow.
I do not trust what they broadcast but I am more concerned at what they choose to not ask or not research.
I watch other News providers in order to learn what is a fuller picture and the difference in FACTUAL reporting can be huge therefore you question why the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú left that part out or did not ask that question etc etc, so the fanciful idea that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news is blessed is bunkum.

"Who cares? Bin the licence fee and let the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú go commercial. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is a leech living off the tax payer." -Finn.

Well, lot's of people care actually, as evidenced by the comments here! It's heartening to see that the people who want the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú as a public service broadcaster to just die off and become a commercial entity - it's a "leech", etc - are in a tiny minority on this board. I only hope the same is true nationwide, but I doubt that, or at least to the same extent. Why not have a national debate, and then a referendum on the future of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú? That would quiet their voices, finally, and the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, assuming it got its mandate, could push into the future with a clear conscience (and free of these funding troubles, one would hope).

I do think it is an important enough issue to have a debate and referendum - and I'm guessing that those who would like to see the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú continue as a public service broadcaster and those who would abolish the licence fee agree on that, at least. But for some reason, in Britain we don't have much of a taste for referenda. Perhaps it's a legacy of the aristocratic value system, and a sort of snobbery.

Myself, I'm a Brit living in the US and I listen to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú all the time - though I'm limited to how much I can watch of TV over here (mainly blocky, grainy, and jumpy low-bandwidth Newsnight, but I still do it). I HATE the idea of ANY funding cuts hitting the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. I even don't mind helping to fund journalists living it up a bit in foreign climes and having a super time on our dime, as long as they are producing great stuff. I DO dislike the way the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has gone downmarket in recent years, though. Those of us who just listen to radio 3 and radio 4 and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 2 are probably not really aware of what sort of entity the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has really become, and when you look at the larger picture, with all the drivel that's also produced, a public service funding model does make a bit less sense. On the other hand, if that's what people want, perhaps the public service broadcaster has a duty to provide it, and can maybe up the quality level a bit, and challenge the purely commercial entities! That's exactly the sort of question (along with lots of others) that should be discussed nationally, and then decided, nationally.

Anyway, even with the limited access to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú I get here in the States, I'd be willing to pay something towards the licence fee. Perhaps I should just send the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú a cheque as a gift anyway, to show my support. Probably the licence fee system is anachronistic, but never mind, I wouldn't like to see the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú move to a subscriber model, as some people suggest. That won't happen anyway, the most likely eventuality is that it will become increasingly commercial (though still relatively high-quality) and get a progressively smaller and smaller chunk of public money as the years roll on. At some point it might get split up, with the public service part moving over to getting direct funding from the governement rather than a licence fee, as in Canada. By that time - 50 years down the road? - it will be more like the CBC is today, though larger and it will probably retain its foreign presence much more (foreign correspondents, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú world service, etc). As much as I would LOVE to see the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú stay the way it is, over the long term, sadly, it isn't very likely....

Aaron Lambert, New York

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú does not only serve the UK, it is a global entity, recognized for it ability to stand up to politically slanted reporting from the US and other "agenda laden" news sources.

Will an organization composed of mere mortals make mistakes - yes, but the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, from past actions not only "navel gazes", but takes corrective action to set things right.

Would I like to get this for free - sure, but I would also be willing to put some cash up front to ensure that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's continued survival is assured. Rather than continue to rely on the government for income, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs to somehow come up with a way to collect on the economic rent for fast and accurate news and opinion, as well as studied insight.

The CBC in Canada has gone through the "death by a thousand cuts", and is really only a shell of itself from 25 years ago, really relying on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news feeds to provide its breaking news. This is not just a shame; it is a threat to truth, beauty, and justice.

Kary
Calgary, Canada

No 175
The problem I see on the repetition of certain bloggers is that I have posted a previous comment and the moderators apparently deemed too critical therefore fully justifying the biased lean of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú towards its own assertions of its right to broadcast only what it deems as interesting.
Therefore, its subtle brainwashing will continue.
Why it can not be subscriber based is beyond my understanding. What lies behind this thinking is their own welfare and pensionable future.

The Reithian priorities of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú are supposedly to educate, to inform and to entertain - and the order of those words is crucial. Unfortunately, it seems to me that, gradually over the last decade or more, these priorities have become mixed up as the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú attempts to compete as if it were a full-blown commercial organisation. It is not a commercial organisation and I for one do NOT wish it to become such. I am happy to pay the license fee and would gladly pay more if I thought it was going towards quality of output and not into the pockets of glamorous presenters. In my view, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Radio stations do a superb job with limited resources but TV takes the lion's share of the money and the MORE it gets, the WORSE it gets. Unfortunately, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú management and programme producers have become so risk-averse that they would rather spend millions on a "Jonathan Ross" when there are plenty of young, bright but penniless would-be presenters out there who are bursting with ideas and would work for a fraction of the money, do a damn good job and perhaps restore the kind of spontaneity and intelligence that makes TV exciting to watch. There is too much money spent on branding, on trailers, on slick presentation, on premier-league football, on phone-in voting shows and on soaps that move further into the realms of wierd fiction with every episode. Even the Ten O'clock "News" is a waste of space, an object-lesson in dumbed-down dullness, read from timed-to-the-second prepared scripts by presenters who may as well be puppets. In his tenure, Mark Thompson has presided over a further dumbing down of the Corporation's output and the way these cuts are to be implemented - by eating into the relatively modest budgets of News and Factual programming - the very areas which need a reviving shot in the arm - is testament to that. He should be sacked, along with the so-called "Trustees" who supported him.

BTW: Sam - your ridiculous contribution 169 is an object lesson in prejudice - the very thing you claim to hate. Your cap fits only too well, perhaps tightly enough to restrict the blood flow to a nearby important organ.

I'm glad the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is finally having cuts, it's not before time, if they had been a private business they would have been closed down long ago. (An example of the crass waste of Licence payers fee/tax). There was 1/4 of an inch of melting snow in Northern Ireland ( nothing on mainland Britain ) they flew the weather team out to stand in a field while the weather girl stood in front of the camera, in the sleet and rain, shouting at the camera "it's freezing" this was repeated all morning. How much did this stupid exercise cost the tax/licence payer? I would think that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should, if they want to stay in Business ( joke )at our expense, collect the fee/tax from everyone who has a TV, but do not pay the fee. What does the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú do about that, "well nothing really " they just make us, silly honest fee/tax payers stump up a bit more, this saves them a lot of bother and expense, ( large doubles all round old chap) they placate the gullable public by telling them "Big Bad Wolf Stories" of Dectector Vans ferreting out the evadars, and then carry on breeding more and more jobs, Foreign jollies, huge pension packages for all and sundry.
Just tell me why we need a monster like this ? I say if they will not collect the fee/tax from everybody, then they should go commercial and be self funding. ( how long would they last then I wonder )

yes its jonathan rosh or newsnight is it ?more repeats?good.How can you be overbudget on a fixed income,you might overspend but overbudget come on who is running this freebie outfit

Well said, Paul Jensen (157); I recall Terry Christian talking about how he saw TV being taken over by the ‘Young Turks’; these people were devoted to putting all kinds of puerile drivel on TV. Stuart Murphy’s comment that Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú3’s output was ‘not aimed at (people like) Jeff Randall’, was revealing; indeed, much of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú3 material and its ilk is not aimed at anyone, it is purely a vehicle for the gratification of the producer, etc., of the said ‘material’.

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has become too much like its commercial rivals, in paying far too much to its ‘Celebrity Presenters’, and putting on, for example, too much Football, to fill in the gaps, as they’ve spent all their budget on the (expletive deleted) ‘game’.
The Beeb needs to return to its core values, and give the its viewers and listeners the Public Service Broadcasting they deserve.

..and I don’t mean a dumbed-down one, either!

I personally think that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú could save considerable amounts of money by cutting its news teams etc by half! 75% of so-called news programmes consist of nothing more than speculation and comment; lets just have proper news, not journalists giving their own (seemingly often biased) views. We also get the ridiculous situation of news presenters swanning off to all parts of the world which are already quite adequately covered by on-the-spot reporters (a classic recent example was Fiona Bruce flying off to Portugal to present one item) - no wonder the Beeb is in a financial mess!
Stephen Higgs

It is a disgrace that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has to cut its services and staff. It appears to me to be yet another example of attempts to weaken the high quality service of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú and to move it towards commercialisation and thus more dependent on the political views of sponsors and their backers in the media and business corporations. We need an independent voice which provides balanced judgements and documentaries which challenge official views. The path to US-type television should be blocked firmly. This move by the senior management and the Government should be opposed vigorously.

I'm appalled news and current affairs are being cut.

Is this another part of the government-inspired destruction of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú independence, as in Hutton?

Personally, I feel hard news and investigation is never more needed than now.

I'd start with a good look at "our" NHS. What's really happening on those wards, which are literally killing off patients throughout the country? How much of the budget goes on managers and consultants? Are wards now largely run by cost-cutting unqualified assistants not nurses? Has a secretive and incompetent monster been created. Are incomprehensible and meaningless politically correct targets disguising the disaster which is really going on under our noses? You know, that sort of thing ...

Cut are needed but in the right places - I like Johnathan Ross but not £5m worth - Dump people that try to demand these fees & find NEW talent..
On programs there is room for the ODD home buying / improvement & cooking progs. but once one seems to do ok we get inundated with them - garbage, can't beleive people want them,
When you do polls to see what folk watch ask them if they would prefer something better! and did they watch it only because 'it was on'. Overall I think program choice is poor for the costs, far too much sport and low buget 'reallity' type progs.

Mark Thompson and Michael Lyons have wilfully missed the point about repeats. In this much trumpeted digital age the only repeats we want to see are those beautifully made comedies of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's once golden age. Currently Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 3 and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 4 is loaded with repeats of this week's programmes
Viewers will all soon have digi boxes, or the like, whereby, at the click of a button they can record any of today's programmes. This would free up a lot of space on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 3 and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 4 making at least one of these channels completely superfluous and save the Corporation millions - if that is what the so-called Trust wishes to do. I believe their motives are more sinister. Don't you?

The authourities in the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should source for alternative means of sponsoring the various programmes that have been of benefit to millions of viewers and listenners all over the world.
The indepth analysis and news coverage are unparalled.
One just hope that the cut will not affect the reputation the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has strugled to build over the years,as it is only source of unfetterd news the world over.
Thanks.
Abayomi Kolawole.

UKTV gold does the repeats!

Well! Now we know the implications of the 'cuts' and the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's deputy director has been put up to answer the opinions expressed by we, the viewers and listeners.

However, it is typical of this type of comment that we, the listeners and viewers, will be given the opportunity to comment and then a big wig from the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú will tell us how misguided we are.

Frankly despite the explanation given on tonight's "PM" programme I still see no reason why Jonathan Ross should be being paid £15 millions when we are faced with such cuts in other areas of programming.

Make no mistake, from my experience and despite any shortcomings, we are the envy of the world with the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.

Someone has already commented that those responsible for making the current round of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú cuts may well be looking toward their next job.

This is not to say that there are no economies to be made. It is manner in which they are being made that is so questionable.

john

BEST VALUE, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
How often do we hear that nonsense from the great and the good.
Who decides what's best value for us the humble fee/tax payers. ( do we get a choice ?) before they saturate us with programs like, Want that House. Repair that house. Paint that house. Buy that house. How to D.I.Y. your house without Cutting, you or your partners head off. Auction that house, Buy a house for buttons, if you know how. Your dream house abroad, How to buy your house abroad, The Nightmare you can avoid buying abroad. Living abroad with the rest of the patio wine drinkers. Cooking programmes from hell, fronted by young women emoting to the camera, making coo-ing noises about a blooming sausage, cooked in some obsure and ghastly expensive herb, that can only be found on the edge of Lake Tanzania, and picked by the light of the full Moon on October the 3rd only in a leap year.
Oh yes there could be lot's of savings. Remember that, in the real world, not the pretend world Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú lives in:- If the product you buy is substandard, or not what it's been described and sold as, then you are entitled to a refund of your money.
Sadly it's the cleaners and the bin emptiers that will suffer in this Opera that has been staged for the once more Gullible public. I bet there won't be any Fat Cat's getting their marching orders. Or, am I wrong, and this is the hidden agenda, Golden Goobyes,and massive pension packages to the great and the good, well hidden among the "BAD NEWS" of a few hundred night shift cleaners getting the heave, sorry downsized ( Management speak for discharging )

Please could we ask Mark Thompson to explain why he is still in gainful employment when his organisation has run up a £2 billion deficit and subscribes to Jonathan Ross with a programmes that panders to a taste lower than smut at excessive cost.
Kind Regards
Andrew Dobson
Leeds

180. Geoffrey Fielder
So sorry Geoffrey but what I 'hate' is having to pay under duress for a service that I very rarely use.
Failure to pay this TAX means a criminal charge, possible fine then having your TV confiscated, which happens weekly within British Courts.
To my 'restricted' thinking, demanding money whether you want the service offered is a form of fraud and I suggest you as a middle class white home counties male should look into the various court reports within local newspapers and recognise this.
I posted an earlier blog which the moderators clearly did not think suitable.
In this edited version......I suggested that sending Mr Naughtie off on another TAX/fee funded jaunt to China to give his in depth perceptions on something that the TWO resident Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú reporters obviously could not cover seemed a little excessive. But then again the same reporter has just recently returned from the US where he performed a sterling service by speaking to some Democrat hopefulls on their strategically important views on Iraq. Apparently his form of reportage is superior to the TWO resident Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú reporters who just might have covered the same story, so again I question why is it necessary for this kind of expenditure?
Mr Thompson interviewed on the ITV phone in fraud suggested that taking money from the public by this method was clearly wrong, but at least those members of the public had a choice on whether they took part or not....BUT... and this is a little matter that you Geoffrey have clearly not yet understood....we have no choice!

comment 192 Mr Reilly is right

I want my money back the bbc is rubbish

Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú CUTS

Too many people here responding that we are the envy of the world with the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.
THAT is entirely wrong
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is the envy of the world in that it is a multy billion enterprise with no mandate to save or create wealth,its entire income is raised by the TAX and the full weight of UK law it is absolutely
AMAZING

comment no 90 by Mr Brown is a cracker.Maybe that why Englands in such a mess not just Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

Cut the 24 hour news by a half or a third???
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 24 hour news in 10 hours,well thats clever.Seems like a lot of this about at present its like buying a diesel JAG or buying decaff. coffee,or non-alcoholic beer......it doesnt work
PS on the same vein..Tesco dont do all day breakfasts after 11.30 am

I do fear that the very qualities that make the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú unique will be attacked, possibly destroyed, by overly-zealous cuts in the very areas that currently make it special.

Sam is lucky, my last 2 contributions have failed to appear without explanation.........and I wrote them in English just to pander to Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú bigotry.

The overhaul is long overdue. While I am happy to pay for the licence if we are paying then I would like to see a more streamed lined orgainsation.
If these reported excessively high salaries are in fact being paid to 'news reporters'then these should be severerly cut considering the work they do!
Why oh why do we have to put up with the TV reporters being 'on site' with a 10 - 20 second shot of a location. We do not need this background shot. It may be great for the reporter and film crew to visit these places but a complete waste of our money.

The majority of the contributors like No 102 appear to believe that Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news provides a unique service. If thats the case when did it last broadcast daily information from the rest of Europe? My TAX revenue is used to support what the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú editors deem as relevant to their political stance and thats Iraq.... where if a chicken passes wind then it will be reported ......continually. Of course its important, but there are other parts to the world where the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú provides ZERO information. Does nothing important happen in these countries? When did anyone reading this last see how others live? what problems they face? how much do they contribute in TAX for a public service broadcaster?
The only Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú broadcasted information from Europe is 95% derogatory. I do not know what your average Greek or Dutch or French person feels about their lives or their future. Yet contributors here have swallowed the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú stance on reporting only what they think these contributors need to know.
I would be very interested in why all those Brits who have taken some brave decisions to pack up and leave this so called Great Britain. The few interviews I have seen broadcast by the 'unbiased' Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú have all said the weather was their reason. I do not believe that in every interview taken, but not broadcast, no one mentioned anything other than the weather. That appears to me as very strange. I wonder if the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú decided to censor certain disagreeable facts, and if they did we will never know as they are beyond reproach according to No. 102.

What we require from the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is high quality informative and entertaining programmes, not the sort of lowest common denominator pap that Jeremy Paxman was quoting at Michael Lyons the other night. Nor do we want endless repeats of recently broadcast programmes as Lyons suggested we might get. Freeview is already awash with repeats, much of it borrowed or bought from Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú archives, which is bringing its overall value into serious question.

Mark Thompson ought to be seeking to enhance quality programme making by taking a strategic look at Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú services with a view to withdrawing from some of them and not simply spreading the money more thinly across the existing empire. Early candidates for rationalisation would be to merge Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú3 and 4 and cut back on regional radio.

He also ought to be looking critically at costs. How often do we see different Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú news programmes covering the same story with independently operated teams or a celebrity presenter sent overseas to cover a big news story which the local team is quite capable of covering to a perfectly adequate standard. All this done in the name of preserving brand identity. In truth it is a scandalous waste of money.

The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú does some things to a very high standard, but sadly that is not consistent throughout its output. At present I do not feel that the licence payer is getting optimum value for money and that has to change.

Surely getting rid Jonathon Ross will put some money back in the kitty??

What on earth does he do to justify a million pound salary??

Isn't what is a happening around the world, and good quality programming are more important - than his stupid, self-satisfied, ridiculous waste of money, called a chat show?

why doesnt the director general have a pay cut yes i know hes incharge of the bbc but surely he can see that spending too much money on staff and crap programs i feel sorry for the lackys who probably dont get paid enough for what they do but a manager.. who allows programs like this.... strictly come dancing and other reality filth shouldnt get payed n e thing dont sell television centre its a landmark building of the bbc and if its gone the spirit of the bbc will have gone 2 also pay more for more tvs not individual payments students are hard done by. i liked greg dyke at least he had class this newer guys a pillock

Well I'm 24 years old and I've only ever watched something Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú3 once in my life. I have never watched anything on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú4.

And no, I don't watch Johnathon Ross either. He only has a big name because he's been given a big salary and talked up by the broadcaster that pays him. That doesn't make him worthwhile nor value for money.
I dare say there are plenty of other professionals in the real world that the public would like to see (and would switch over to watch) who'd do a much better job and for a lot less.

for god's sake let bbc do the job it is good at. it owes that to the world. the govt only does its duty leave rest to bbc. please dont forget that it is as important an institution as the crown and parliament.

I do hope that you will be able to continue your high quality of news coverage.
Increasingly here in the USA, yours is about the only news source to be trusted.

It's entirely with programmes like Planet Earth that make the licence worth paying for. I wish the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú would get rid of this obsession that they are in some sort of competition with everyone else. As a licence funded channel, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should be the opposite to commercial channels and show quality programmes that commercial channels will not show.
If programmes like Planet Earth and doc/dramas are to be cut, then the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú may as well go commercial and do whatever makes more money through adverts rather then showing value for money and minority audience programmes. I don't think people realise what having all commercial channels would be like, but the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should start to act more and not just answer from one office and with one voice in Glasgow.

I should think the world need more British-to-the-core people like Jonathan Charles (and Baker in the good old days) to do the job and cut out the rifraf hybrids so that to raise the standard of English and keep our faiths-in English culture-alive(we are here the colonised and would-be-colonised nations of the British Empire). We also need to do something to stop the American way of corrupting the English language. At present the best way is to broadcast the king's English. Your Government needs to invest strongly in this by subsidise some of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's noble cause!TheÂ鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has been our voice of freedom and priviledges since day 0ne and should continue to be so!It's the voice of hope and power and reasons and need to be constantly nurtured to represent the British interest and beacon to the world.

I listen to Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú every day for at least an hour. It has been my main source information on world events for the last 15 years since I moved back to singapore.

In this day and age, there is a need for content. Content is king especially after the dot com bubble burst.

As a global player with so many talent and resource, I am wondering why Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú cannot beat the commercial station at their game and still stay relevant as a factual news generator.

One of the strategy is to acquire overseas broadcasting stations giving it a local + a Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú twist to the content, using the local content and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú content to be reused in different forms.

This platform is not quite the place to discuss to much in detail.

imagine if there was no Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, what would happen to popular radio stations such as Radio 1 or Radio 2? Who would make quality British made programmes... SKY? I dont think so some how!