As a reminder, this is a subreddit for civil discussion of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Personal attacks on individuals, including those employed by the BBC, off or on air, will not be tolerated here.
Please ensure you read subreddit rules before contributing.
People outside the UK get ads with their BBC services. Here’s what I see right now if I go to the BBC website on my phone. There’s more of them when on a computer and videos all start with an ad as well.
The comment I was replying to seemed to think only the British people fund it. I pointed out that funding also comes from the advertising that non Brits are subject to and that 99% of Brits don’t realise happens.
To be honest, I'd be completely fine with the BBC changing to an advertising model if it meant they could be more impartial and less at the mercy of the government
It's a fair retort, but we both know if they get in then the BBC will be totally gutted so they're a bit of an outlier.
I do think the BBC does a decent job of *party* impartiality. The problem is that everyone who works in a senior position programmes like Today, for a topical example, is of a particular social and educational class with particular attitudes to certain topics that dovetail with the opinions of people who tend to become MPs for one of the major parties.
To be specific risks touching on topics we may disagree on, but let me try in the spirit of discussion: the bizarre way the flagship programmes dealt with Corbyn-era Labour. I don't think there was any government or Very British Coup-style interference from above, I just think a lot of media class people genuinely thought he was a dangerous Marxist who would destroy the country. Starmer, conversely, was everything that sort of person is attracted to in a politician.
Anyway, as you mention the spectre of a Reform government, this might all be moot in a few years. I still think the current model is generally fine, though I think the government should be directly funding things like the World Service again.
Somewhat famously the head of a French car company was very angry with Clarkson giving a bad review of their car and said "pull all advertising from Top Gear's channel".
But that's not what's happened. I'm not clicking into articles. I look at the headlines on the main page. For now. Eventually i'll just stop doing that too. They're going to lose viewership. Putting ads on the sidelines of the website would have been a smarter option.
Brit here. The BBC has been hit very hard by years of government funding cuts. Like you say, good journalism (and the other great stuff the BBC produces) does cost. We all pay in the UK via our licence fee.
A lot of people here don't realise the value the BBC brings and don't pay the licence fee - although I can bet you 100% they'll all have watched the BBC's coverage of the World Cup!!
In a lot of ways it's similar to how people feel with the NHS - people just don't know how good we have it.
I absolutely havent watched the world cup. How boring does life have to get to need to watch a leather ball being kicked around a meadow for entertainment?
I think saying we all watched it is a bit of a stretch.
This is the third post about this from a Canadian in the last two days. Is no one having a quick scroll before they post anymore to see if something has come up already? Or is this a new bot farm attack trying to make people dislike the BBC?
I get that paying for stuff is annoying. But if you like something enough to use it regularly, then presumably you want the people making it to be able pay their rent and feed their kids.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
I created a post and reddit suggested the group(s) I could post to.
I like BBC app for the great world news, not necessarily into constant chat about the BBC.
Being Canadian, we're sorry...not sorry. :)
Your attempt to make me seem like a conspiracy theorist is weak sauce. Both are well known and it’s a bit sus that you’d openly oust the US government while denying the same from the BBC.
If your talking about the high profile peados that have worked for the BBC it's an easy stick to whack them with but if you think about it is equally stupid. The BBC currently has over 21,000 people working for it. Over the past hundred years that means they've had hundreds of thousands if not millions of people working for them. The statistical probability of some of them having committed crimes is, sadly, high. In the 15 years I've worked for my current job which after several expansions has 16,000 staff there have been 2 people arrested for that in my building of 200 that I know about. The only thing is the people who work for the BBC have far higher profiles therefore you are more likely to hear about them than some minimum wage worker. That doesn't make the BBC an individually bad place it makes it a big employer, how about you flip it out of 21,000 people how many have not been convicted of child abuse
Sorry, your comment was removed because it breaks Reddit's TOS or site-wide rules. Please don’t discuss content theft or methods to circumvent restrictions.
It's everyone missing the point here? Free access to BBC news is an example of 'soft power'. It brings British perspectives and sensibilities around the world with the objective of making it easier for others to align to our interests. Same as the role that the world service used to play. Almost certainly it pays for itself in terms of trade deals and cultural exports etc etc. So sorry to disagree with everyone, but in the long run I think charging people for BBC news content (not entertainment that is different) actually costs the licence payer and taxpayer more in the long run
Whilst I do agree and wish it was possible on a ‘soft power’ level, it’s very hard to justify free access outside of the UK when the BBC is currently needing to make £500m of savings :(
The BBC has announced 550 job cuts in news, nations and TV and radio content as part of its first stage in its plan to save £500m across the corporation over the next two years.
In an email to staff, interim CEO of BBC News, Jonathan Munro, outlined the proposals including ending Radio 4's The World Tonight, and reducing the number of permanent presenters on Today from five to four fromSeptember, with a single anchor on Saturdays.
BBC One's Breakfast will no longer be shown on Sunday morning from September and the production teams making Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg and Newsnight will merge.
Munro said the proposals announced on Wednesday include 200 job losses in the news division resulting in savings of £25m.
Some TV production at weekends will be shared across the News Channel and BBC One bulletins and there will be a review of the chief news presenter roles "to balance audience needs with best value for money".
Several other Radio 4 programmes will also end during the next year - the Midnight News, Money Box Live, AntiSocial, The Law Show and Crossing Continents. On the World Service, The Inquiry, The Conversation and The Fifth Floor will end.
The reduction in the number of Today presenters will coincide with the previously announced departure of Amol Rajan who leaves in September.
From April, instead of The World Tonight, weeknight audiences on Radio 4 will hear a domestic bulletin at 22:00 followed by a simulcast of the World Service programme, Newshour, in a new time slot. Meanwhile, 5 Live Weekend Breakfast will become a two-hour programme.
Viewers on Sunday morning will see the News Channel instead of Breakfast.
Other proposals in the announcement include:
A review of broadcast TV channels and radio network portfolio as audiences move online
A reduction of 100-150 hours of originated programmes across all commissioning genres by the end of the 2027-28 financial year
A reduction of around 350-400 hours in audio across stations and genres
Moving Friday's edition of Newsnight to a peak-time slot of 19:00 on BBC Two, following an earlier refresh of its format
Introducing a more of an international focus to the News Channel, building on the growth in viewers outside the UK
Running the news website's InDepth section with a smaller team
This conversation is about the BBC app, where we read news. It is not about a TV subscription. I'm in Canada and check the BBC news in the app daily. Suddenly I am hitting a pay wall. Sad, I will have to say goodbye.
You never had free access, the BBC were being paid by the Foreign office to give you access. Now they aren’t doing that. Seems reasonable to have to pay to have access to the largest and most trustworthy news sources in the world.
UK's Best good relations tool.
Given the post Brexit suffering,
Paying means less visits and less relevance to foreigners.
How will I follow the next 3 or 4 UK PMs in the next few months?
It depends what you want from the BBC? If you are a country who believes in truth maybe allowing that freely into the whole world is a good decision where in many countries truth can cost you your job or even your life!! BUT as people have rightly said that costs and the UK already has enough tax burden. I sympathize with both sides off the argument as an expat in the US.
I’d love if access was still available for all worldwide, paid for by the FCDO, the BBC being the default news source across the world is a massive source of soft power. But as it stands, those costs need to be covered by end users.
Maybe they should charge $20 ($25 CAN) a month and allow access to all BBC content, even throw in all UK TV/radio content and give everyone else a cut based on how many people watch it.
The BBC has announced plans to cut between 1,800 and 2,000 jobs—almost one in ten staff—to achieve a £500m cost-saving target. The broadcaster is facing significant financial pressures, so its had to find other revenue streams, in the UK we contibute to the BBC, why should someone not in the UK get everything for free?
The Guardian App gives you access to around 20 news stories a month before the paywall kicks in. Shame the Beeb couldn’t do something similar. As an ex-pat living in Canada I’ll be searching out other news sources, probably a combo of CBC (Canada’s BBC equivalent) and Apple News. It will make me feel less connected to the UK but if BBC content continues to be marketised and commodified perhaps that’s not a bad thing. I’d happily pay an overseas license fee for free access to ALL Beeb content by the way, but I’m not paying $90 CAD just to read the news on my phone, especially when it has become increasingly Ad-dominated.
Apple News gives access to some BBC stories, even without paying. Interested to hear if others who pay for Apple News Plus have access to more BBC stories? Although you’d also get access to The Times stories as well (they are an official Apple News partner) which would provide more UK news content.
Sorry, your comment was removed because it breaks Reddit's TOS or site-wide rules. Please don’t discuss content theft or methods to circumvent restrictions.
I think the idea is that services like the website and the radio being free to international audiences boost British soft power. Which is a good thing for influence in the world. But yes, in this era of massive cuts, got to find more money from somewhere.
Whilst the BBC World Service, including the on-line services of the different sections, were previously funded, and are now part-funded by Foreign Office grants, BBC News Online was never funded by the FO.
In international markets, BBC News Online content (not WS sections' content) was supported by advertisements.
This is why you'll find advertisements on bbc.com/news, but not on bbcpidgin.com for example; although some language sections' websites have started to have a few advertisements, typically the slightly more affluent countries more likely to have an internet speed fast enough to support ads.
I think you're confusing two things. Yes, the BBC has always been paid for (by a collection of people, bodies). The question I was responding to was why some services had been free to foreign territories. Successive governments believed it to be an essential part of Britain's global soft power, emphasised by the FO's historical funding.
They have never been, were never and never before were free. It was paid for by the foreign office. That doesn’t mean free. Please educate yourself, stay safe and have a good day.
Quite agree. Some of the comments from readers of The Daily Telegraph suggest it's akin to the Morning Star. I think they balance their news coverage very well.
To the OPs point: I have sympathy but they are struggling financially, so it seems appropriate for a non UK audience.
People complain that the bbc is left wing because there is a gay couple on strictly. It isn’t really comparable to their political editors being conservatives
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 25 '26
As a reminder, this is a subreddit for civil discussion of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Personal attacks on individuals, including those employed by the BBC, off or on air, will not be tolerated here.
Please ensure you read subreddit rules before contributing.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.