(16-07-2022, 01:49 PM)RR Wrote: The BBC is having to make severe cuts due to the licence fee being frozen, a situation made worse as inflation rises.
They have already said that they are proposing in the future to close the broadcast of BBC Four and CBBC. They have already just about eliminated any spend on new content for the former.
They have also announced cutbacks on regional news, including eliminating two regions, and reducing substantially non-shared local radio content.
If the BBC has to make cuts, why don't they make them in the very nice but less essential parts of their output?
The quality of the BBC's news programming, its arts programming, its children's programming, are the major reasons used to justify the idea of a licence fee in the first place - yet it's the first thing they cut. I've mentioned EastEnders already but why not just save a fortune and cut that - or something LIKE that - instead? Why news, arts and children's first of all? The very things that we so often hear that the BBC does best, the things that the commercial channels would never touch, or could never equal the quality of? Why are those the first to go?
Yes, of course some people would miss EastEnders, but I'm sure that a buyer could be found, or maybe the BBC could continue it on their own advertising and subscription-funded channels like Dave and W, for example. Even so, if the BBC has no choice but to make these "savage" cuts, then why are the high-rating mass-audience programmes seemingly immune?