BBC News and BBC World to merge

[all new Phil]

To be in the situation we are today is entirely a reflection of how dangerously and recklessly the Culture Secretary (and govt) are handling the BBC's very existence.

In that context, these changes, for me, represent a practical (but ghastly) solution. To be frank: better to have a form of BBC News rather than none at all.

I sympathise with your position, but is it wrong to feel that surely the BBC must accept the major part of the responsibility itself? It doesn't have to cut news at all - it's still receiving billions of pounds a year from the licence fee, and it could easily afford to, and choose to, protect the spending on news and current affairs. 

If the first response to the prospect of receiving a little less money is to make significant cuts to what (I think we can agree) are the truly essential licence-fee-funded services like news, rather than looking elsewhere - maybe just one episode of EastEnders a week instead of four? - then is it really unfair to observe that maybe the major danger is in what the BBC itself is choosing to cut, and what to prioritise?

Preach. 

Seen a few comments about the government and more specifically the Culture Secretary. I’m interested to know - do posters think the license fee should be increased? That appears to be the only thing that the government can influence. With economic pressures as they are, is increasing household expenditure even further really a sensible suggestion?