BBC Radio Forum

BBC Management & BBC Trust => BBC Management & BBC Trust => Topic started by: Tiger on July 17, 2014, 07:55:04 PM

Title: BBC News faces 415 job cuts. While the turkeys remain in post.
Post by: Tiger on July 17, 2014, 07:55:04 PM

Please link to this thread.;topicseen#msg7208

The licence fee settlement of 2010 is to blame.

But surely there is a better way 4 years later of saving money?

To cut something over 400 journalist posts and some of those vitally important to investagative journalism is a real worry. eg no more reporters on Panorama, have no idea why Newsnight gets more? That seems unbalanced?

In fact the whole sorry statement from James Harding is unbalanced.

He seems to use digital technology as another reason for cutting journalists. That is just so depressing, well researched  and identified News is what is important, however that is delivered is secondary.

Good luck to the NUJ and Bectu next week, I hope that as many journalists as possible support the strike. And I hope the public support them and that the public grasp the fact that they will be the losers in a society that has damaged journalistic capability on their behalf.

The savings that have to be made MUST come from the bloated management layers and executive layers. No doubt about that.

Title: Re: BBC News faces 415 job cuts. While the turkeys remain in post.
Post by: Tiger on July 18, 2014, 10:53:40 PM
James Harding interviewed on Feedback R4 this afternoon repeated 8pm Sunday.

Roger Bolton puts some of the important issues to Harding and he does that well.

I understand all the points made by Harding about the importance of news and the importance of comment on that news. James Harding needs to know that this actually happens anyway. He is like the Pippa Middleton of News

." News is something that actually may happen, possibly an event. That event will be something called "reported" by something called "newsrooms" if that happens abroad it may be called "world news" . We must not forget "local news" this may be something that could be described as not world or national news. Sometimes it is important to talk about the "news" and presenters are people who can talk about news. News is now written on tablets(possibly it might work with a stone and chisel, but remember that not all guests/ audience are into vintage) Journalists are people who used to make news, they may be an expensive option in the overall party plan"

Not impressed!

AND just to say, of course, the above quote is my interpretation! 
Title: Re: BBC News faces 415 job cuts. While the turkeys remain in post.
Post by: darcysarto on July 20, 2014, 09:52:08 AM
Interesting take from an 'insider' taken from this piece in the New Statesman (

It's a total fucking outrage that a frontline, flagship show like Panorama is taking the brunt of the cuts, when the BBC is packed to the gills with worthless leeches.

Cut the slimy rip-off copy and paste websites, like BBC Trending – a worthless site that "reports" what's trending on Twitter – it's nothing but a crap BBC Buzzfeed anyway. Cut BBC echo chamber, that reports what other papers are writing, like a taxpayer-funded Huffington Post; or cut BBC Magazine - the bit of the BBC website full of middle-aged men writing middle-of-the-road features that an airline in-flight brochure would be ashamed of. Cut BBC Capital, a poor man's arse-kissing City AM clone so embarrassingly fawning to business you can't even read it in the UK.

Cut the commissioners who splash the budget expressly earmarked for documentaries on series like the Great British Bake Off. A fine show, no doubt, but should it be in the docs budget? If it's a choice between cake and Panorama, the cake should get cut first.

That's just the day-to-day alternate programme-making and new-media cuts you could make. You could cut the 200 press officers and no one would notice - simultaneously demonstrating their total incompetence and irrelevance in one go. You could cut one of the four external PR agencies, but at least they might actually get some press coverage for their own sacking.

You could cut the legion of incompetent middle managers in worthless departments no one even knows exists like BBC buildings or BBC vision. This back office is where the cash is really burned in orgiastic bonfires, at endless meetings about meetings and in hundreds of decks of meaningless jargon-ridden PowerPoint slides.

If you look closely at what the BBC spends its money on the problem is clear. Depending on how you classify BBC Worldwide, the overall income is around £4.5bn, of which more than a billion – 25 per cent – goes on training, marketing, property, finance and policy, none of which is directly about making programmes.

Of the remaining three-quarters, I estimate that something like 40 per cent goes on administration, which means that less than half of the BBC’s money is spent on actual broadcasting or new media, and it might be considerably less. This is a farce. Keeping the plump and useless back-office crawlers while sacking the best reporters and producers seems like the best possible way to get the licence fee slashed in record time. Being a professional cynic, maybe that's why it's being done.
Title: Re: BBC News faces 415 job cuts. While the turkeys remain in post.
Post by: Rita on July 20, 2014, 04:10:52 PM
The strike arranged for Wednesday of this week has been called off for the time being.  Having further talks.
Title: Re: BBC News faces 415 job cuts. While the turkeys remain in post.
Post by: Tiger on July 20, 2014, 06:35:15 PM
The article in the New Statesman, must ring very true for many at the frontline. It is very wrong that the cuts are coming from that frontline.

I understand the carrots that have been given to call off the strike.

But who? is going to tackle the problem of the turkeys?