You're here: Home - TV Newsroom - BBC News Presenters Set to Strike!

BBC News Presenters Set to Strike!

This topic contains 45 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by Forum Member Forum Member 11 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 46 total)
  • Jonn0boy
    jonn0boy
    Member

    Staff at BBC News have voted in favour of striking over changes to their rotas, with a 95% majority.

    The BBC intends to cut back shifts from 12 or 14 hours to 8 or 10 hours, but will not be cutting the total contracted hours, meaning staff will have to work more shifts.

    Bectu would need to give the corporation seven days’ notice before a 12 hour walkout could take place.

    A meeting is expected to go ahead next Monday to agree a strike date.

    #32744 Reply
    James Johnson
    James
    Member

    Its no the presenters that are striking but production staff…

    #32745 Reply
    Forum Member
    Forum Member
    Member

    Pity they can’t all go on strike indefinitely, together with the rest of gravy train BBC employees – then the enforced subsidy they live on ( aka Gov TV licence) can be the stuff of history.

    I watch a TV news recently where there was a debate over the benefits the Iraqis had enjoyed post Saddam and the interviewer said “they can now watch TV of choice without Government interference” well Mr Blair can I now have that option? I refer, if you don’t understand, that I can be put in clink for not buy on of your your TV licences – this our “democratic” UK in 2006 – please wake-up everyone?

    I pay voluntary for Sky and enjoy it – but Sky has never dragged anyone to court for not subscribing to their service – QED

    Mickey

    #32746 Reply
    Lone
    Lone
    Member

    mickey wrote:Pity they can’t all go on strike indefinitely, together with the rest of gravy train BBC employees – then the enforced subsidy they live on ( aka Gov TV licence) can be the stuff of history.

    I watch a TV news recently where there was a debate over the benefits the Iraqis had enjoyed post Saddam and the interviewer said “they can now watch TV of choice without Government interference” well Mr Blair can I now have that option? I refer, if you don’t understand, that I can be put in clink for not buy on of your your TV licences – this our “democratic” UK in 2006 – please wake-up everyone?

    I pay voluntary for Sky and enjoy it – but Sky has never dragged anyone to court for not subscribing to their service – QED

    Mickey

    Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I respect yours. But personally the BBC is the only channel which consistently produces a broad range of programs of a fair to high degree of quality. It certainly produces much better stuff then Sky or ITV could ever dream of producing.

    I realise it has it’s critics, and it has weak areas too, and a lot of it’s prime time programming can be poor (Fame Academy anyone?). But because of the ‘unique way the BBC is funded’ (as Mr Clarkson would put it) the BBC is under pressure to produce programming which covers most (if not all) areas and topics, and to a respectable standard. And this is a pressure which others like Sky simply aren’t under, and this for me is clearly evident in most of their rubbish programming, which is dominated by ad-breaks every 5-minutes.

    [Lone]

    #32747 Reply
    Forum Member
    Forum Member
    Member

    I totally agree with you Lone. I’m not against Public Service Broadcasting and would probably pay for a BBC voluntary subscription package. However at the moment, by force of law, I cannot watch any TV of choice without purchasing a Government Permit! Surely this is against my human rights as I’m deprived of the main source of information? It’s like the Government saying that I can only buy books & magazines if I take out annual subscription for The Times

    I hope you see my point?

    Mickey

    #32748 Reply
    Lone
    Lone
    Member

    mickey wrote:I totally agree with you Lone. I’m not against Public Service Broadcasting and would probably pay for a BBC voluntary subscription package. However at the moment, by force of law, I cannot watch any TV of choice without purchasing a Government Permit! Surely this is against my human rights as I’m deprived of the main source of information? It’s like the Government saying that I can only buy books & magazines if I take out annual subscription for The Times

    I hope you see my point?

    Mickey

    I do see you’re point Mickey. Trouble is, if the license fee were taken away, that would mean the BBC would become just another commercial broadcaster, and it’s focus would shift towards attracting as high numbers and high profits, which would no doubt impact on quality of programming.

    I know it sucks, but it’s what we have to put up with if we want (IMHO) some of the best quality of television in the world.

    #32749 Reply
    Forum Member
    Forum Member
    Member

    Thanks for your understanding. I think the acceptable solution requires a complete overhaul of PSB funding – I would suggest a mixture of:

    1. A proportion from central Government taxation. Before everyone starts mentioning Independence for the BBC please consider that the Government gives some ?800K for the BBC World service (this is part of the Foreign & Commonwealth office budget). Also a similar amount of ?750 is provided from taxation to subsidies the over 75?s free TVL.

    2. Voluntary subscription for the people wishing to view specialised “advert free” channels

    3. Sponsorship of some programmes – and again people complaining about interruption of programmes should note that the BBC TV World service already carries both programme sponsorship and advert breaks.. I watched it when working abroad and it didn?t detract from the programme?s continuity.

    4. Give PSB greater freedom to engage in commercail activies. Already the BBC is in advance planning of their Internet services to carry advertisment. At present this is for external consumption only not for UK coverage ( how they can do this I don’t know but I guess it will some sort of .com blocking? But if the model is succesful the next step will be for the Government to permit the UK websites to carry adverts as well. Also teh BBC’s arm which sells books, DVD’s etc is a big money spinner.

    So you can see there are alternatives to the compulsory TVL Tax.

    Mickey

    #32750 Reply
    Lone
    Lone
    Member

    mickey wrote:Thanks for your understanding. I think the acceptable solution requires a complete overhaul of PSB funding – I would suggest a mixture of:

    1. A proportion from central Government taxation. Before everyone starts mentioning Independence for the BBC please consider that the Government gives some ?800K for the BBC World service (this is part of the Foreign & Commonwealth office budget). Also a similar amount of ?750 is provided from taxation to subsidies the over 75?s free TVL.

    2. Voluntary subscription for the people wishing to view specialised “advert free” channels

    3. Sponsorship of some programmes – and again people complaining about interruption of programmes should note that the BBC TV World service already carries both programme sponsorship and advert breaks.. I watched it when working abroad and it didn?t detract from the programme?s continuity.

    4. Give PSB greater freedom to engage in commercail activies. Already the BBC is in advance planning of their Internet services to carry advertisment. At present this is for external consumption only not for UK coverage ( how they can do this I don’t know but I guess it will some sort of .com blocking? But if the model is succesful the next step will be for the Government to permit the UK websites to carry adverts as well. Also teh BBC’s arm which sells books, DVD’s etc is a big money spinner.

    So you can see there are alternatives to the compulsory TVL Tax.

    Mickey

    Mickey, the situation for BBC World is very different. It is possible for the BBC’s UK arm to be funded through the license fee, but it’s almost impossible for the BBC’s various worldwide services to survive on public funding, hence the need for BBC outlet’s outisde the UK to air commercials. And international arm of the BBC has come in for a lot of criticism over the years about commercial ties and bias.

    You do have some good ideas there, but I don’t think you realise how quickly commercialism, especially in today’s age, can erode away at a broadcasting organisation such as the BBC. Even today, with the BBC publically funded and heavily regulated, it’s been bowing to popular pressure, as programs such as Fame Academy and most of the Saturday Night schedule prove. If it went commercial there is only one way it would head, and that’s downhill. Perhaps it might be able to retain it’s ways for the short term, perhaps even in the medium term, but in the long term there is little doubt that it will have to succumb to the pressures of gaining higher audience ratings and attracting as much revenue as possible, this is inevitable because this is the way of the capitalist free market. Simple as.

    We either keep the BBC we have today, and lost it in exchange for another ITV.

    #32751 Reply
    Forum Member
    Forum Member
    Member

    The whole broadcasting scene is undergoing an evolutionary change. No one could have predicted the rapid take-off of satellite and broadband TV. The BBC is fully aware that these additional forms of communications are eroding its traditional customer base. Already viewing percentages for other channels has overtaken the BBC so no longer can they claim to be the most popular service of choice. The split according to BARB: http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekr…uesttimeout=500

    Is:

    All BBC = 30.36%
    All Terrestrial Commercial = 33.2%
    All others = 36.2%

    Also the BBC?s share is declining annually by about 1.5%

    The BBC know the writing is on the wall and are making plans for their survival if and when the TVL is abolished. Soon the Government will announce the new BBC charter and there are indications that this will only be for 5 years with a below inflation annual increase.

    #32752 Reply
    Lone
    Lone
    Member

    mickey wrote:The whole broadcasting scene is undergoing an evolutionary change. No one could have predicted the rapid take-off of satellite and broadband TV. The BBC is fully aware that these additional forms of communications are eroding its traditional customer base. Already viewing percentages for other channels has overtaken the BBC so no longer can they claim to be the most popular service of choice. The split according to BARB: http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekr…uesttimeout=500

    Is:

    All BBC = 30.36%
    All Terrestrial Commercial = 33.2%
    All others = 36.2%

    Also the BBC?s share is declining annually by about 1.5%

    The BBC know the writing is on the wall and are making plans for their survival if and when the TVL is abolished. Soon the Government will announce the new BBC charter and there are indications that this will only be for 5 years with a below inflation annual increase.

    Mickey, as I understand it, those figures are comparing the BBC against pretty much everything non-BBC, a sort of BBC vs everyone else. That’s not a very comparison IMO, no single channel can compete with rivals that number in their hundreds (if you have Sky Digital Family package like I do). The fact that it can actually generate viewing figures by itself which compares to all it’s other terrestial rivals is actually quite impressive.

    You’re right that the face of broadcasting is changing, but I don’t think it’s anything that has taken everyone by surprise. And maybe I’m in a minority thinking this, but personally I think that the future of television isn’t actually looking that good, perhaps it’s true to say that quality has declined over the years and it is being replaced more by quantity. Perhaps this is an inevitability, though I do hope the BBC retains it’s ability to produce quality programming for some time to come.

    #32753 Reply
    Forum Member
    Forum Member
    Member

    I remember the days when the BBC had 100% audience – but then they were the only ones Broadcasting ? no ITV, Ch 4 nothing else.

    Also I recall seeing a BBC evening news prog, over 10 years ago, when they showed a clip of the first-day inauguration of a Sky News bulletin. The BBC presenters were sneering at it and dismissing it as a flash in the pan. How wrong there were! Sky News regularly wins National & International awards for the quality of it?s news reporting & presenters. In many instances, particularly during wars, Sky News has been the first choice of our Armed services.

    How much has changed since those early days. I very rarely now watch any BBC programmes. BSkyB has all I need, from a selection of News channels to Pop music, Classical music/Arts, Documentaries ( Discovery, National Geographic, Science, Wings etc) that I wouldn?t miss the BBC.

    So I come back to where I started on alternative ways of funding the BBC. Which, if adopted, would cater for your needs of advert free channels and still be able to provide serious in-depth documentaries & reports on World affairs.

    Leave the: soaps, make-overs, game shows, pop culture, etc to the commercial boys.

    Mickey

    #32754 Reply
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 46 total)
Reply To: BBC News Presenters Set to Strike!
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">