Is the BBC making the right decisions?

Quite right about 6 Music, it's comfortably BBC's best popular music station.

GOOD! 6 Music is a merciful relief from the inane mush of radio1.

Why would revealing the salaries of top stars be "damaging and destructive"?

Certainly not. BBC1 and 2 programming is just dreadful and completely out of touch with the viewers. BBC news is grossly overstaffed, why two presenters, why so many sports presenters, usually not very good, but good looking. The list is endless. What is required is massive cuts in salaries, pensions, expenses and more money spent on quality programming that viewers can look forward to.

The problem with the BBC and its decision making is that it has retained a collegiate style for far too long. Like an Oxbridge university it has allowed many old Dons (Wogan, Dimbleby etc.) whilst lavishing expensive contracts to the new kids on the block (Ross, Norton etc.). Latterly the trust is making noises over minor isses of day to day operational aspects such as 6 music. Surely the roles of the trust and management have become a little clouded and disfunctional.

In these times of budget constraint maybe the BBC needs to look at its total organisational effectiveness and not just worry about the topline "stars" T&Cs as that is the simple part to sort out. I'm sure that in the depths of the BBC there are a multitude of bad practises by managers who believe they have a right to be there and run their little areas without regard to the corporation.

The bottom line is that if they don't do it to the satisfaction of the license payers, Rupert Murdoch will convince this government to act and that is one thing I would not like to see.

No.

A public body that can start an overtly racist radio station simply to pander to minorities has got it all wrong. Trying too hard to be PC to please their former masters I think, but sadly that is only the tip of the iceberg.

You only need to look at the 'cast of thousands' sent to South Africa to see how out of touch the BBC is, I can see the point of match commentators having to be at the games but do we really need news reporters or talking heads like Linneker out there? Much cheaper to talk nonsense from a studio in London surely.

As for revealing salaries they must have something to hide or it would have been done by now. Be curious to see how much Alistair (i'm never off the BBC) Campbell is getting paid........

I have just watched and listened to your interview with Sir Michael Lyons on the BBC News Channel. I would like to say that I disagree with him totally. Certainly none of the current BBC controllers of BBC Television would received the same salaries and pensions in the private sector for very long as their performance would not be deemed satisfactory. Like many of our public services jobs and their conditions are for life whether they do a good or a bad job. I believe the Prime Minister's salary to be a fair benchmark to work to. I would certainly support a reduction in the licence fee by 50% to force the BBC Trust and management to start doing their jobs properly and providing licence payers with programmes they want to watch or listen to. Finally perhaps the top person at the BBC should be elected to the post then perhaps we might get some decent programmes on both TV and Radio.

PeterTigerman wrote:
BBC1 and 2 programming is just dreadful and completely out of touch with the viewers.


I couldn't disagree more.
BBC1 and BBC2 are fantastic and the only channels that get close to their level of quality programming are Chanel 4, E4, More4 and the other BBC channels.

ITV is nothing but mindless dross, Chanel 5 is laughable, the only thing worth watching on SKY 1 is The Simpsons and almost every other channel is constant repeats. SKY sports can be painful to watch due to the constant over-hyping of every event that they televise, SKY movies repeats the same two dozen films over and over again until you know the script better than the actors and while the documentary channels are good, most of the best documentaries they show were made by the BBC.

There are obviously some programs that the BBC show that I don't like (Eastenders, Cash in the Attic and other such rubbish) but my TiVo is, more often than not, filled with BBC programs and I spend more time watching shows on the iPlayer than I do on the other networks websites.

The BBC show the widest range of programming of any network out there and other than Chanel 4 they're the only company who regularly commission British made programs.

6 music is exactly what the the BBC should be doing - providing a service thats not commercially viable.

Its content such as Eastenders, The Apprentice and Strictly Come Dancing, which, no matter what you think of them personally are exactly the kind of run-of-mill fare you find on commercial stations.

Perhaps the BBC as a public broadcaster should move away from the ratings war and concentrate on quality.

PS looking forwards to reding the most outlandish BBC conspiracy theories...

The BBC needs to rethink BBC. The type of rubbish on there can easily be found on Sky1, 2, 3, ot ITV1.

My suggestion would be to get rid of BBC3 and have a BBC Sports Channel in its place. That way, full comprehensive sports coverage can be provided whilst at the same time appeasing the whinging complainers bemoaning the fact theres too much football / tennis / cricket (delete as applicable) disrupting their programmes.

Yes Radio 6 is too good to be shut down. Now cut BBC 3 TV to save costs. We have enough children programs

More self-centred navel gazing via HYS.

I'd never heard of 6 Music until the move to close it, and I'll bet 99% of the population haven't either.

The austerity measures need to apply to the profligate BBC as well you know - so where's your plan for 40% cuts?

Start with:

You don't need Radio 1 and Radio 2
You don't need Radio 3 and Radio 4
You don't need the World Service
You don't need BBC 3 and BBC 4 TV Channels
And when on earth are we going to see the back of the tedious and expensive Jonathan Ross as promised?

Here's a crazy idea that usually gets rejected by the Mods for being too close to the bone.

The BBC still makes, or co-makes, the best Drama in the world. Rome, Band of Brothers, Life on Mars, Ashes to Ashes, Spooks...even Dr Who etc. However after we, the licence fee payers, give millions towards making these programmes they are shown once then sold off quick to satellite and DVD. If you want to see them again you have to pay twice, usually to a commercial broadcaster.

Instead of repeats of the newer decent stuff the schedules are filled with 30 and 40 year old repeats of Porridge, Dads army, Open all hours etc.

To say I'm not impressed is an understatement.... nearly as unimpressed when I found the same tennis match on both BBC1 and BBC2 the other night. THAT must have saved you a few pennies.

pzero wrote:
As for revealing salaries they must have something to hide or it would have been done by now. Be curious to see how much Alistair (i'm never off the BBC) Campbell is getting paid........
>>>>>>>

Oh come on pzero, you are not insinuating that the BBC helps support and promote left wing organisations and views are you? Thats like saying the pope is a catholic......The BBC is 'unbiased'....!!! Ha, ha...some may fall for that line but not all of us

6. At 11:54am on 05 Jul 2010, PeterTigerman wrote:

Finally perhaps the top person at the BBC should be elected to the post then perhaps we might get some decent programmes on both TV and Radio.


---

Because when the public vote for who they like best top-quality is always assured?

Like other Public bodies the BBC will have to make painful economic decisions. If they wish to keep 6 Music, then perhaps BBC Radio 4 must go. Perhaps the breakfast show format needs changed and we should have less presenters/correspondents/meteorologists on the payroll. Perhaps we need to have less in the way of serial drama and reality and stop trying to be a 24hour station. Or perhaps the channels should at least rename to their specialisms - I won't put down my thoughts on a new name for BBC1, but we already have a CBBC channel, and BBC Three could become BBC Drama, BBC Four could be BBC Highbrow, and BBC Two would then be BBC Comedy or somesuch. Of course having a single station with the best from each would be preferable and cheaper, but that's the Beeb's choice to make.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

However, the corporation's director general, Mark Thompson, has warned that revealing the salaries of its top stars would be "damaging and destructive".
---
Yes very because on hearing what this bunch get paid I will probably put a brick through the TV!

My views?

The BBC is an overstuffed money-gobbling state monolith that needs to be slimmed down and called to account.

The main BBC executives are paid far too much for the mediocre job they do, but they will never leave because no-one else would pay their over-inflated salaries. Mark Thompson earns more than £650,000 a year...nice; it's more than 4 times what the PM earns.

The BBC seems to spend time and money chasing ratings rather than trying to produce quality programmes.

The BBC panders to the 'yoof' market whilst completely ignoring the people who actually pay their compulsory TV tax. You don't think the 'yoofs' buy a TV licence, do you Michael Lyons?

The BBC should become a commercial venture and have to get its revenue from advertising. Without the compulsory handouts from the taxpayer it wouldn't last 5 minutes, but it might make the execs do some work for a change.

These are just a few of 'my views' - the rest are unprintable, but I think you get my drift!

13. At 12:19pm on 05 Jul 2010, AuntieLeft wrote:

Oh come on pzero, you are not insinuating that the BBC helps support and promote left wing organisations and views are you? Thats like saying the pope is a catholic......The BBC is 'unbiased'....!!! Ha, ha...some may fall for that line but not all of us
.........................................................................
Auntie, I believe the BBC to be wholly unbiased, I have been brainwashed into thinking this by their programmes! (They promised to remove the electrodes if I said that!)

I am just sick of seeing AC's smug face every time I watch something on the BBC! He was even on Top Gear last night! The man is nearly as annoying as Jonathan Woss and Graham Norton combined!

13. At 12:19pm on 05 Jul 2010, AuntieLeft wrote:
pzero wrote:
As for revealing salaries they must have something to hide or it would have been done by now. Be curious to see how much Alistair (i'm never off the BBC) Campbell is getting paid........
>>>>>>>

Oh come on pzero, you are not insinuating that the BBC helps support and promote left wing organisations and views are you? Thats like saying the pope is a catholic......The BBC is 'unbiased'....!!! Ha, ha...some may fall for that line but not all of us




Is Alistair Campbell left wing?. Could have fooled me. I certainly don't see much 'redistribution' of HIS wealth!

A bit more focus on the "inform, educate" part of the Beebs mission statement wouldn't go amiss.

Is the BBC making the right decisions?

The BBC should publish the Balen report if wants to do things right.

A lot of people use the BBC as a whipping boy, when in fact it does a remarkably good job. Obviously an organisation the size of the BBC will make mistakes, and it can not satisfy everyone, as everybody is different and wants the BBC to certain things they agree with, and stop others they don't.
The one thing I think is certain is that if it did not exist we would be a lot poorer.
There are a lot of pressures coming from the commercial sector to curb the BBC, most notably from Murdoch's News Corporation. If they have their way they will benefit and the General public will be worse off, as the BBC for example has already agreed to cut its web content under such pressure.
At the end of the day I pay £3 per week for all the BBC TV programmes including local TV programmes, lots of radio programmes, plus all the web content. That's an absolute bargain, as it less than the cost of a pint of larger, or 10% of the cost of a ticket to see my football team. Indeed if I take my Children to a football match with travel etc it costs over £100.
I thought Terry Wogan's comment about the top BBC staff taking a 15% pay cut was a bit silly. He has benefited hugely from the BBC salary over the years, and now that he is in semi retirement he changes his tune. I am sure that we all can think of loads of people who we think are paid too much in all walks of wife, but how much of this is down to jealousy.

BBC radio is very self-indulgent. How many presenters are there on programs.

If I wanted to hear so much gabbling I would start talking to myself.

Maybe BBC should just get back to basics of playing music, and also of ensuring their new digial services are fully operational to an extent which provides SAME or BETTER signaling up and down UK than pre-digital systems.

I wish BBC and all else would just dump digital in the bin, its just NOT fit for purpose and is WORSE overal quality then before.

Well done, Aunty Beeb! Your plan to boost ratings, increase network exposure and then come across as a benevolent corporation who Listens To The People has worked spectacularly. You didn't really think we believed you'd shut down 6 Music, did you|?

"16. At 12:23pm on 05 Jul 2010, grainsofsand wrote:
When is the BBC going to cut 1XTRA a station which Michael Lyons describes as "the digital station for young black urban audiences". How come Blacks get their own special radio station.

The answer: the BBC is anti White Racist - so how come they break the Law."

Get a grip. It would only break the law if they refused to let white people listen to it or refused to employ white people making it. 1Extra targets a specific audience in the same way that BBC Radio Cornwall targets people from Cornwall.

Doubtless you think because there's a BBC Scotland the BBC hate the English too? You'd be screaming 'political correctness gone mad' if some young black guy claimed that the white middle class bias of Radio 3 and 4 discriminated against him wouldn't you.

18. At 12:25pm on 05 Jul 2010, steve wrote:
However, the corporation's director general, Mark Thompson, has warned that revealing the salaries of its top stars would be "damaging and destructive".
---
Yes very because on hearing what this bunch get paid I will probably put a brick through the TV!

--------------------------------------------------

I suspect you already have a good idea how much they are paid, which is very similiar to the money they would get paid if they were on ITV or Sky. In fact it usually is less which is why people move across to commercial TV.

Life unfortunately is unfair, which is why footballers, who have even less talent than the people on TV get paid over £100k a week to kick a ball.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Why should it be damaging and destructive to reveal salaries, surely the licence payer has a right to know.

The BBC should have a sewrious rethink on programming, most of the populist rubbish on BBC1 is identical in content to that on ITV.

BBC 4 has some extremely good programmes but far too many repeats and is it really necessary to have so many childrens channels.

Stop trying to compete with Sky and go back to making quality programmes with good actors, good presenters that can actually speak correctly and stop remaking the classics when there are perfectly good adaptations that could be reshown.

I need BBC2 and BBC4. Radio 5 and 4 are popular with the rest of the family. I like the web presence. Who knows; although I suspect the Tories of being in bed with Sky so watch out BBC.

Congratulations to the BBC Trust for saving 6Music. As the succesful campaign to save it pointed out, it is one of the few areas of the BBC that offers unique content that could not be done by commercial radio, as they pointed out in their submissions to the BBC Trust

The BBC Trust has certainly made the right decision in not axing 6Music.

I am a footbal fan and also enjoyed Glastonbury, but if the beeb had cut 10% of the cost of covering these, The Asian Network and other cuts could have been avoided.

Why on earth are so many non essential reporters, bloggers and the likes needed at these events? Why is Nicky Campbell's 5Live Breakfast show broadcast from SA every morning? England are out, the tournament is now down to 4 teams, yet all these crews still appear to be on one big jolly.

Waiting for BBC Breakfast to begin this morning I saw a trailer for what I thought was surely some kind of satirical look at TV game shows called 100 Ways to Get Thrown Off A Gameshow... but apparently it's an actual show intended to be shown at 6.30pm on Saturday!

Is this the shape of 'quality' entertainment to come?

Last Saturday evening I was reduced to watching a DVD of "Rough Science" as there wasn't anything worth watching on TV (any channel), at least last night BBC2 had the excellent "How to make a..." series looking at Rolls Royce aero engines.

@"chiptheduck", so you're suggesting the BBC axe ALL BBC radio & concentrate soley on BBC1&2? Why don't we have TV Closedown at 9pm following the national anthem too while we're at it & go back to black & white broadcasts.
The fact that YOU had not heard of 6 music does not automatically mean that 99% of the population hadn't either. I don't like jelly, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean 99% of the population don't either.

If any radio station should be axed it is Radio3. Radio 3 has a massive budget but does not have the listeners to deserve that sum. Any vital Radio3 programming could easily be merged into Radio4 schedules and save the millions required.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@2 "Why would revealing the salaries of top stars be "damaging and destructive"?"

Because they are probably utterly obscene!!

The didgital tv channels don't enhance the variety or quality of shows available on television. I'd axe them and return better diversity to BBC 1 & 2. No complaints at all about BBC radio, though: second to none.

The BBC is the mouthpiece of the government and to add insult to that injury the public are forced and bullied under threat of prison to pay for it.

Good to see the moderators on HYS are as slow as ever. I expect this discussion will be very heavily moderated.

Clearly the BBC in its current unweildy form is unsustainable. For example, nearly all my friends (aged up to 35) no longer pay the licence fee but simply stream all the channels for free via the internet. There is no way the BBC can charge a fee to use the internet!!! Without significant change, the next generation will laugh at the idea of paying £120 a year just for three or four channels and a few niche radio stations.

Perhaps the BBC would have more money if it hadn't have sent more than 100 people to the World Cup, not to mention that ridiculous bus.

Also, why do they sent people to a location to give a six line report on something you can't even see from it, when someone in the studio could do it? When they did a story on Sout West Trains getting £100M from the government, the reporter was standing by the Freightliner yard at Millbrook in Southampton? WHY?? A complete waste of money.

The BBC is unique in that it is publicly funded without having any real responsibility to the people funding it. Until like any other company it has to make a profit from providing it's service and not from being propped up by anyone who owns a TV people won't be happy.

The BBC take licence payers money and use it to produce programs some good and some (well most in my opinion) appalling - many of these shows are then sold around the world to other tv companies. So when do I get my dividend for these sales? I'd love to see the BBC make the licence fee "optional" for a year and see if they exist at the end of 12 months given the wasteful way they spend our money.

I'd love to have the security of running a company without the worries of cash flow because people will knock on doors threatening fines for not funding me....

And before people point out that due to the funding I can use this website - well so can people from other countries...

The BBC, as a body funded by a regressive tax, should be subject to the same 25% cut in funding as the rest of the public sector. This would really focus minds on priorities.

The trouble with the BBC is that it is little more than an extortion racket. It doesn't matter if the BBC makes the right desicions or not, not everyone will agree with what the BBC does, yet eveyone is forced to pay for it. Most television is rubbish, that goes for all channels. However I don't mind that ITV is rubbish, they have to earn an income from advertising. What I don't take kindly to is having my hard earned money stolen from me, so that mostly rubbish interspersed with some good programs can be broadcast into my living room. Scrap the TV license, and take the money out of general taxation, that way at least the viewer would have some say over the BBC, through our elected representatives.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

One thing the BBC really does need to do.

Stop with the low-brow entertainment..., I yearn for the day that the BBC returns to fantastic quality entertainment such as,

Red Dwarf
Blackadder
The Young Ones
Only Fools And Horses
Bottom
Jeeves & Wouster
Dr Who (not the new trendy watered down version)

BBC should stick to what it does best,

Intelligent comedy
Fantastic Nature programms
Inventive sci-fi (tho this has always been somewhat lacking)

Get rid of the terrible soaps, gameshows, "im hotter than your moms pet rabbit" type programms,.

Bring back good cookery programms like the ones with Keith Flloyd (rip).

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"The BBC should become a commercial venture and have to get its revenue from advertising"

NOOOOOO!!! Try spending 2 months living in the US and just get your "news" from the TV there and you'll understand why the BBC should NEVER be a commercially funded orgainisation. News editorial decisions in a commercial environment are driven by a combination of a need to attract advertisers and an imperative not to offend them. "Inform?", "Educate?" - forget it. The BBC must remain independent of commercial pressures. It also keeps C4,ITV, etc honest.

Until you have experienced the misery of trying to get worthwhile information from a exclusively commercial TV medium you will not appreciate the BBC and the way it is funded.

Peter_Sym wrote:
13. At 12:19pm on 05 Jul 2010, AuntieLeft wrote:
pzero wrote:
As for revealing salaries they must have something to hide or it would have been done by now. Be curious to see how much Alistair (i'm never off the BBC) Campbell is getting paid........
>>>>>>>

Oh come on pzero, you are not insinuating that the BBC helps support and promote left wing organisations and views are you? Thats like saying the pope is a catholic......The BBC is 'unbiased'....!!! Ha, ha...some may fall for that line but not all of us


Is Alistair Campbell left wing?. Could have fooled me. I certainly don't see much 'redistribution' of HIS wealth!


Alister Campbell has been described as Labour's "unelected, but ... hardly underscrutinised" spin doctor. Doing La La Labour spinning funded by you and me via BBC. Makes me sick, this is NOT democracy or 'balanced reporting' ie BBC News showed what they called public sector protests last night. They were Socialist Worker Party activists, Trots, communists who want the downfall of the capitalist system NOT public sector workers. It would be like the BNP protesting about immigration and then being called 'concerned members of the public' by the BBC. The BBC MUST know they were Trots and it shows (in my opinion) they DO have an agenda and its not good for the country. We know the motto boys (and girls), infiltrate and agitate..... that’s what they are doing, MI5 please ...

'Is the BBC making the right decisions'?

Happy to see that 6 music may continue with its music, interviews/ documentary aspects of legend bands? However, 6 is in danger of being 'used' now by BBC Trust as a red-herring and distraction to quietly cut other BBC radio?

Any cuts to Radio 4 will be in breach of many aspects the BBC remit?

BTW do struggle to decide was Radio 2 is about?

As for BBC 3? Apart from Family Guy, American Dad, Russell Howard's Good News and the new Mongrels - is BBC 3 being deliberately run down, as it was started to showcase 'experimental'?

Perhaps BBC 4 should get more publicity - Wallander, sadly now finished, and very unexpected documentaries/off the the wall films.

As for EastEnders, Holby and Casualty - our family love them - we all need to suspend belief - it's good for the brain.

As for comedy/satire: Mock the Week, Have I got News for You, Would I lie to you? Live at the Apollo etc., etc., is crucial especially if the comedy is irreverent to politics, religion and any organised attempts to control what you think and how you think? Satire is the best defence for inspiration for improvement of how humanity functions and interacts?

Read my comment before posting - got a bit carried away? Sorry about that, but don't want to take anything back. Would prefer others to fill in the blanks of what we get from BBC and expect to hear from those who despise the BBC too, yet only able to complain about £12.00 per month?

The BBC delivers good value. However, it is time that the costs were cut and people in the Corporation made to work harder.

For example:

+ Retirement at 65 rising to 67

+ For all staff earning over GBP50k - 100k/pa a cut of 5% and from 100k to 200k/pa a 15% cut and anyone earning over 200k and immedaite cut to GBP 170k/pa - if they done like it leave!

+ Cut all local weather forecasters - do it centrally

+ End the maxing out of HR benefits

+ Increase outsourcing

Time the BBC stuck up for themselves. When Sky/Murdoch and the Tory's come knocking it will need as much public support as possible, and axing popular services to appease the haters will get them nowhere.

No the BBC is not making the right decisions. Whole evenings of documentries, and the like such as on Sundays boring. Why cant you put a decent film on on a sunday for a change. Fed up paying TV license for boring rubbish on tv & why 3 commentators for one tennis match. How much did you pay these people? More money than I will ever see i expect. I want a refund

The BBC follows its own agenda - toe the government line, don't mention civilian casualties in wars, promote the Roman Catholic faith, supress the Hollie Greig story, don't worry about events outside London. Until it becomes a national broadcaster, it shouldn't rely on national funding.

34. At 12:51pm on 05 Jul 2010, Megan wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

35. At 12:51pm on 05 Jul 2010, migginsthecat wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

36. At 12:52pm on 05 Jul 2010, Les Acres wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

37. At 12:55pm on 05 Jul 2010, Norbert wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

38. At 12:56pm on 05 Jul 2010, Dave wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

39. At 12:57pm on 05 Jul 2010, yorkshire News wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

40. At 12:58pm on 05 Jul 2010, you wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

41. At 12:58pm on 05 Jul 2010, shendor wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

42. At 12:58pm on 05 Jul 2010, Norbert wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

43. At 1:01pm on 05 Jul 2010, R Breaks wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

44. At 1:04pm on 05 Jul 2010, TJ1949 wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

45. At 1:04pm on 05 Jul 2010, doug wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

46. At 1:05pm on 05 Jul 2010, grainsofsand wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

47. At 1:05pm on 05 Jul 2010, Mark wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

48. At 1:07pm on 05 Jul 2010, James T Kirk wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

49. At 1:07pm on 05 Jul 2010, edna teevee wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

50. At 1:08pm on 05 Jul 2010, AuntieLeft wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

51. At 1:10pm on 05 Jul 2010, corum-populo-2010 wrote:
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.



--------------------------------------------------------

Could a moderator please explain? I don't expect you will publish this.

The BBC has long been a part of the establishment, hence the licence fee.

Today's stars appeal mainly to the lowest common denominator, ie Brand and Ross, but their outbursts dont mean a thing now as long as these stars get an audience, because ratings are what's it is all about and not quality. Parkinson was the best, but even he got out while the going was good, he could see which way things were going.

I believe the BBC should lose the licence fee, and be in the market place like everybody else, and then the likes of Dimbley should lose their security, not that that would mean much on their salaries.

If Britain must continue to be market lead, without subsidy or investment, then let the BBC join in the market place, and let their executives, stars, and media pundits know what it feels like to feel and be insecure.

Move into the real world BBC, and while your at it, ditch the politically correct Question Time.

I would vote to keep 6 Music as a lot of digital programmes have already disappeared. I thought digital radio was the future. I do have concerns about the number of presenters and the locations they end up in. Last week, the main 6 o'clock news carried a report from Wootton Basset. The regional programme, which followed, also had a report from Wootton Basset but there was a different reporter. As they both work for the BBC, why not use the same one? I expect there was a different one for the radio report as well, or am I being cynical? In respect of individuals, I doubt whether paying huge amounts of money for a particular presenter means that they are that much better than the one they replace. I expect that there are quite a number of people who could and would read the news for a lot less money than is paid to those who currently do.

3. At 11:29am on 05 Jul 2010, PeterTigerman wrote:
Certainly not. BBC1 and 2 programming is just dreadful and completely out of touch with the viewers.

This is a joke, right? The BBC continues to be the only broadcaster of quality programming in these islands. ITV is almost unwatchable; Channel 4 serves up hour after hour of Big Brother or Come Dine With Me, or some other brain-shrivelling mush. As for the myriad other channels now available, without the BBC to produce the programmes that they show constantly in repeats they would be nowhere.

On the whole I think the BBC is doing an excellent job. I do think it should take a lead in cutting overblown salaries - something that the whole of our society should be doing - and I do think that they should be more robust in defending their "brand".

Glad 6 music is staying, am looking forward to listening to the younger Peel on Friday evenings.

Off topic I agree with #25. Digital is awful. It is possible to watch an anologue signal without an ariel (you may need to squint), with digital however a rogue cloud can cause a silent blue screen to appear on your television set.

42. At 12:58pm on 05 Jul 2010, Norbert wrote:
Perhaps the BBC would have more money if it hadn't have sent more than 100 people to the World Cup, not to mention that ridiculous bus.

Also, why do they sent people to a location to give a six line report on something you can't even see from it, when someone in the studio could do it? When they did a story on Sout West Trains getting £100M from the government, the reporter was standing by the Freightliner yard at Millbrook in Southampton? WHY?? A complete waste of money

Well, TV is a visual medium and if they'd just done a studio report they would have been told it could just as easily have been done on radio.

The problem is the BBC does so much it will always upset people no matter what it does.
This kind of democracy costs money by delaying plans, holding up budgets and forcing the operation of a service past its intended end date.
The trust need to think about licence payer value and less about principles. 6 Music is good - but its audience is small because it is a cut above the mindless drivel of radio 1. However, the unfortunate truth is, many more people want radio 1 than 6.

Radio 1 is far more irritating than all the other commercial stations put together or can i be more accurate we are paying to listen to music get those "disc Jockeys" with over inflated opinions of themselves off the air and let the music speak for itself

Presenters on BBC channels effectively have a publicly subsidized capital gain on their personal brand - which can give them access to significant future earnings and security - a personal publicity that companies would pay handsomely for to promote their brands. Payers of the TV license have no vote in how their license fee is spent which means ultimately so called celebrities are working the system to steal vast amounts of money and untaxed free publicity from the public. Presenters should therefore receive minimum wage for core hours and be permitted to top up income from use of their brand outside of BBC related activity. This would see a higher turnover of talent and a chance for new faces to be discovered - saving the hard up public pocket a significant amount, keep back room BBC staff with jobs and fair pensions and still give room for real talent to succeed.

30. At 12:47pm on 05 Jul 2010, Lynn from Sussex wrote:
"Why should it be damaging and destructive to reveal salaries, surely the licence payer has a right to know...."


The problem is I think, that the majority of presenters are not employees, they don't have salaries

They are freelance and their fees are negotiated individually either with the person themselves or usually through an agent

I don't know but I imagine their contracts contain a confidentiality clause

If these fees were all made public then the presenters would be aware of what each other earns and this could lead to a sort of 'bidding up', of the type 'I'm worth more than him, pay me the same or else'

This 'bidding up' could cost the Licence-payer more in the long run

All that was pure speculation but it could be what was meant by 'damaging and destructive'

Congratulations to the BBC for considering and taking on board the depth of public feeling surrounding the closure of 6 Music. A great day for artists, musicians and most of all, the listeners of a truly unique station.

I agree the 'inform' and 'education' part of the mandate should be a priority. There is too much lowest common denominator content (there are plenty of other commercial stations who provide rubbish aplenty).

I am astonished that the whole 606 element of the BBC website exists at all. All that money going to provide dozens of sports chat forums (editors, moderators salaries for a start - this is duplicating what other sites do and has little to do with BBC priority as I understand them. Complete waste of money.

pzero wrote:
A public body that can start an overtly racist radio station simply to pander to minorities has got it all wrong.


What are you talking about ?

Do you know what racist actually means and if so how could you possibly apply it to any of the BBC radio stations ?

I personally do not watch or listen to the BBC at all and I object to having the BBC forcibly (backed by law and a huge fine for non compliance) pick my pocket each year for more and more money for something I don't watch or listen to.I Would welcome the licence fee being slashed, a massive cut in over inflated salaries for the 'stars' and a few of the radio stations. The the corporation should go as a pay per view chanel, it would be interesting to see who buys?

Re Terry Wogan who suggests that staff,presenters etc.take a wage cut.Now,I wonder why he did not suggest that 5 yrs.ago.As far as I see it the BBC is no longer putting programmes on air or vision that the public want.Last week,Wimbledon on both channels at the same time taking up 12 hours air time.Presenters and commentators past their sell by date.I thought that when Clare Balding started presenting Rugby League that took the biscuit.There is too much of the old boys/women brigade.I will put up with the adverts.Scrap the T.V.Licence.

I think that the BBC provides quality programming in a wide range of media, for the price of the licence fee. Generally, the BBC is well-run, though has been rather in thrall to the government and its various, ludicrous, lines of the day (e.g. "the British have always been a peaceful and tolerant people"). The disclosure of "top talent" salaries has been damaging for the BBC and I believe they have overpaid for these people.

The sort of people who complain about the BBC on HYS are, in my opinion, people whose opinions come straght from whichever easy-to-read newspaper has the biggest photo on the front of it. The sort of people who oppose laws that protect their own safety and give them rights not to be stomped over.

Stick to Sky News chaps! They'll even tell you what to think, saving your brains for the difficult task of working out the odds on a 4 horse accumulator and whether that leaves you enough to get baby food on the way home if your sure thing doesn't come off.

I like how Sir Terry Wogan calls for a pay cut now that he's no longer in a full time role and the fact that he's the only person who get's paid for Children in Need.

Glass houses and stones spring to mind there Sir Terry!

It's time the left wing extremists and racists at the BBC were removed from all positions of power and influence.

The whole rotten organisation needs root and branch treatment. The license fee should be scrapped as it's a Communist-style taxation that forces people to pay for state media that they may not want or care for. Paying for left wing extremists who use their position as state funded media to advance their racist anti-Israel campaign and their global warming agenda amongst other things, sticks in the throat of many people.

I am extremely pleased to hear the news about 6 Music, it has fastly become my favourite radio station. I always knew the station was involved with good up and coming music from the gigs I went to that were backed by the station.
The news of it's closure only encouraged me to listen to it more regularly and now I can't imagine getting throught a weekend without it.

5. At 11:51am on 05 Jul 2010, pzero wrote:
No.

A public body that can start an overtly racist radio station simply to pander to minorities has got it all wrong. Trying too hard to be PC to please their former masters I think, but sadly that is only the tip of the iceberg.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure I get this. Can you elaborate on what you mean?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Never have listened to 6music or the Asian Channel or had much thought about the budget for the internet content.

However I have become extremely disappointed in the BBC programmes and can only reiterate what others have said regarding too many talking heads, (airheads mainly) and grossly overrated 'stars' like wossy and norton.

I don't see the need for 24 hour news either. Who's wonderful idea was that? Mostly it is repeated ad nauseum drivel, driven by conjecture, innuendo and rumour. And If this blasted company cannot even get an English spell checker sorted out when it is the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation there is no hope left.

Not everything in the company is bad, but it has serious flaws that it seems reluctant to address. for example why encourage comments to Question Time when the darned programme does not go our live and if you don't get on the blog before about 7am the thing is closed down anyway.

Look BBC after QT most of us drift off to bed and the first thing on our minds is not dashing off to the computer to add our thoughts.

Is the BBC making the right decisions? Not now, not in the past and not ever I suspect. Too stymied by PC nonsense and over-expensive nonentities.

The BBC Trust and the BBC management might be regarded as:

BBC Trust - version of the House of Lords? A fail-safe if you will, but increasingly secretive/unaccountable/unapproachable and uncontactable by the public? Complaint process deliberately difficult and protracted?

BBC as a Corporation - the management - an executive version of the House of Commons? Too many chiefs - not enough interaction with the public and new members/employees quickly whipped into the shape of the 'old boys' club? Complaint/feedback process too complicated, generic and deliberately sending you around in circles?

It would give the BBC Trust, and BBC as a Corporation, more credence and respect from everyone if their respective sites were actually more open to feedback and improved their complaints process?

I am very very annoyed that Radio 6 is being allowed to stay on the air - someone told me it was no more than a pirate station anyway. However, it's a very noisy radio station and so very unlike the Home Service which I think the young people of today should be encouraged to listen to. (I do hope you forgive my use of a preposition when ending a sentence)
Gen. Doogie Smythe (retired)

I totally disagree with the decision taken by the BBC trust to continue with the closure of the BBC Asian Network. The Asian Network provides fantastic entertainment for the millions of Asians in the UK. If the BBC wants to cut costs, then why doesn't it start by cutting the salaries of the "overpaid, so called stars" it employs using the Licence fee....

What other programming does the BBC offer for the Asian population on its schedules, be it on television or radio at present? - NOTHING that's what! If the Asian Network closes, then it will be false promises from the BBC to provide more for the Asian population....Will it be a heavily edited Bollywood movie at 2am on a Monday morning, once a year?

The Asian Network is needed.....It should not be closed!

Fantastic news. BBC6 Music has replaced Radio 1 as the leading new and vintage music radio station on the BBC and in the country in my opinion. Also whilst I'm here I will say I have no interest what the BBC pays it's stars or employees what business is it of mine. I think some people believe paying a tiny license fee makes them a share holder in a company that gives and has given us far more than we give them and frankly even with it's financial and legislated limitations still out performs virtually every other media network in the world. Where's the gratitude people? ITV isn't as limited in the same ways and look at the garbage they spew out on a daily basis across multiple channels.
The BBC has provided decades of brilliant programming on Television and Radio and now the internet and when a new format has come along it has always managed to remain at the head of the pack. 6Music is the latest example of this and I say congratulations BBC for achieving this and congratulations for seeing sense and keeping 6Music alive.

56. At 1:14pm on 05 Jul 2010, Jimmy Jazz wrote:
Could a moderator please explain? I don't expect you will publish this.
--------------------------------
Well they did let it through but as to getting an explanation - you must be joking - law unto themselves and no reasons forthcoming, EVER. That needs to change.

What is 6 Music? Until the BBC proposed to close it, I'd never heard of it. Apparently, it's another pop music station. Why do we need another pop music station when we have Radio 1? The money saved by closing it could be better spent producing more high quality TV programmes like the David Attenborough series.

"The BBC needs to rethink BBC. The type of rubbish on there can easily be found on Sky1, 2, 3, ot ITV1.

My suggestion would be to get rid of BBC3 and have a BBC Sports Channel in its place. That way, full comprehensive sports coverage can be provided whilst at the same time appeasing the whinging complainers bemoaning the fact theres too much football / tennis / cricket (delete as applicable) disrupting their programmes."

really ? so why not BBC 4 ? BBC 3 is actually a good channel - I see no real use for BBC 4 though. BBC 3 helps feature comedy shows such as family Guy, and Two Pints, and more. The BBC really need to look else where for these savings, such as staffing, and salaries to its exec's.

The "right decision" is for the BBC to shift to a subscription-only service, funded also by advertising; see how many people actually want the BBC and are willing to pay for it; and then allocate whatever revenue it receives as it wants to.

That's how businesses are run. You aren't forced to pay for what you don't want, on threat of prosecution, when there are free alternatives out there you could be enjoying, and when the content of the provider isn't anything exceptional or special anyway.

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO SEE THE END OF THE LICENCE FEE PLEASE? WITH HUNDREDS OF CHANNELS AVAILABLE, IT IS A DISGRACE THAT PEOPLE ARE STILL BEING FORCED TO PAY FOR THE BBC BEFORE THEY CAN WATCH ANY OF THEM.

I don't normally engage in these sortrs of forums, but when I heard Radio 6 was for the chop I was gutted - it is head and shoulders the best music station on the radio for anyone that isn't part of the 'teen idol', X-Factor, brigade.

To hear that I am not alone in thinking this, and seeing the wealth of support by the music industry itself,is great. To hear that the BBC Trust has decided Radio 6 is here to stay helps one keep their faith in the BBC and suggests that the BBC Trust is exactly that...something we can trust!

Blimey moderators, is this one of your birthdays and so you thought you'd play a trick? Lay virtuals on the table and hand over the mallet!!

If it wasn't that they all paid their license and are, therefore, entitled to a view, I'd remove any comments that don't say:

"Dear BBC,

You are, quite possibly, the most effective and stunning organisation, in fact, if a certain Danish lager ran a public service broadcasting empire, it would be the BBC.

Yours in deep regard,

etc etc."

Anyway, what were you thinking?

On the whole the BBC does a good job, but why do they need two presenters on Breakfast? Also, considering the huge salary Mark Thompson gets, surely he could afford a good shave? That stubble he sports is very scruffy looking!

Was the "Proposed" 6Music cut always a stalking horse? The damage to this website - which is being proposed solely because very hostile busness interests have demanded it - is still supposed to be going ahead - unless we can stop it. A music-based radio station is relatively easy to establish or shut down - and there are thousands of them all over the world. This website is unique and most have taken thousands of hours to develop. Trashing it because a few busness people are greedy and angry is pathetically stupid - another example of the BBC Trust not standing up for our interests against a dogmatic government and sleazy big business. It is still up to us to tell the BBC Trust what we want from OUR BBC.

There are 116 managers within the BBC who are paid more than the Prime Minister. I am sure that they feel that their job is far more important than actually running the country but the bottom line is - it isn't.

All of them require immediate sacking and also the junk the highly over paid, over rated "stars" who properly belong on a commercial channel - there are thousands of talented candidates who are perfectly capable of doing their jobs far better at a mere fraction of the price.

The BBC will only be making the "right decisions" once it has done this, scrapped all the cheap quizes, soap operas and reality TV and spends every single penny saved on quality TV - IE, Drama, Comedies and Documentaries that actually have very high production values.

"The BBC follows its own agenda - toe the government line, don't mention civilian casualties in wars, promote the Roman Catholic faith, supress the Hollie Greig story, don't worry about events outside London. Until it becomes a national broadcaster, it shouldn't rely on national funding"

1. toe = tow
2. Promoting the Catholic faith? Even if they did, why not along with all the others or none at all for that matter? Do YOU have something against the catholic faith? If so, that's your problem, not that of the BBC.
3. Dont worry about events outside London? Utter twaddle.
4. "Until it becomes a national broadcaster" - which nation, as it covers the one I live in adequately? Do you live in Tonga?

PS. Agree with post #42 on 5th July - 'Norbert'.

In addition, although this year clashed with World Cup and Wimbledon - it would make sense to help save so many marriages to take sport broadcasting and those over-paid waffling ex-sportsmen onto BBC 3 as BBC 3 is available for the above until 7pm anyway?

We dread to think what will happen when the Olympics start? Will BBC 3 and BBC 4 be available before 7pm and broadcast all the sport from these two BBC channels? Or, will the promoters and Olympic Quangos complain? hmmmm?

I think the BBC remit is to provide the kinds of entertainment which are less likely to appear on commercial TV - that's why I happily pay a licence fee. Not forgetting that for one fee I get not only TV but also radio and web. I find it hard to understand how commercial providers can feel that BBC subsidy is unfair when it was in existence long before their companies and they entered the market knowing that. Part of the problem is the 'dumbing down' of BBC into commercial TV territory whcih is impacting their share of the market (eg Doctor Who), debates like this which focus on whether the BBC is VFM are misguided and we are in danger of losing the unique role of the BBC.

Not a very busy day on HYS and yet the moderators are slacking, wonder why that is, too many home truths coming out perhaps.

Maybe we could save the BBC some money by not having censorship on HYS?

Okay so the jobless figures in Bombay would go up by a few but got to save a few quid.....

6 must stay - Where the programmes are about the music and the listeners, not about the presenters. The other stations are more about watching the referee and not the players.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

62. At 1:21pm on 05 Jul 2010, James T Kirk wrote:
42. At 12:58pm on 05 Jul 2010, Norbert wrote:
Perhaps the BBC would have more money if it hadn't have sent more than 100 people to the World Cup, not to mention that ridiculous bus.

Also, why do they sent people to a location to give a six line report on something you can't even see from it, when someone in the studio could do it? When they did a story on Sout West Trains getting £100M from the government, the reporter was standing by the Freightliner yard at Millbrook in Southampton? WHY?? A complete waste of money

Well, TV is a visual medium and if they'd just done a studio report they would have been told it could just as easily have been done on radio.


---

Why stop there - they could have given someone with a match ticket a fiver and he could have e-mailed a review of the match to all license fee payers at little or no cost.

Though i'm sure the (not entirely impartial) print media would still be railing about how the profligate beeb had wasted £5 of licence payers money - whilst still banging on about the poor quality and bias contained in the e-mail....

PS. Our son just reminded me - we work shifts, why should we care? Good point?

Anyway, I'm still annoyed. Just because our family working hours aren't typical, others may be?

better to keep bbc radio 6 and scrap bbc radio 1 rap station..
That's all they have played for years now......It's C/rap...!