we find in the Sunday Times that the BBC says it’s running out of money – apparently:
Despite job cuts at the BBC, ministers have felt the corporation has not tightened its belt enough. They were particularly angered by revelations last year about the salaries paid to presenters such as Jonathan Ross, who signed an £18m three-year contract.
Meanwhile, according to the Sunday Express, ‘Hard up’ BBC blows £33m on expenses, including the following spending details:
- £18m was spent by the BBC on hotel bills
- £15m went on air flights around the world
- About £1m on World Cup travel & hotel expenses
- £15m on cab fares
- £5m on management consultants
As if that wasn’t bad enough, the Mail on Sunday tells us Now BBC plans an ‘I love the C-word’ documentary:
a £200,000 TV documentary devoted to the most offensive word in the English language. The programme – tentatively titled I love The C-Word – is billed as examining why the word has become more mainstream in recent years.
Hmmm, perhaps its because there are so many C-words at the BBC, ripping off the tellytax-paying public to spoonfeed us with their politically-correct left-of-centre world view.
Finally, Charles Moore in Saturday’s Daily Telegraph points out that If the BBC is so good, we will give it money, noting that:
If (God forbid) you spoke to 100 journalists on the BBC, you would find that more than 85 were anti-American, pro-green and opposed to the war in Iraq. They would be happy making a programme about lying tobacco companies and unhappy making one about too many immigrants.
and:
Look at the BBC history website’s entry on the Provisional IRA. It fails to mention the fact that they killed actual people, whereas that on the loyalist UVF (rightly) gives the number of victims and uses words like “vicious”. The BBC never surprises.
and:
The BBC’s relation to our culture resembles the old British Rail’s relation to our means of transport – it is an over-centralised, expensive, unresponsive, obsolescent, occasionally magnificent but mostly squalid enterprise whose faults the managers do not see because they travel first-class.
Read the whole thing. Mr. Moore’s suggestion of a popularly funded and popular BBC, would, of course, solve all of the BBC’s apparent money problems at a stroke. Roll on the day!
Hat tip to the various Biased BBC commenters who noted these links.
“Hmmm, perhaps it’s because there
are so many C-words at the BBC …”
I wonder if the BBC’s “I love the
C-word” documentary will quote Derek
and Clive’s suggestion that a letter
to the Director-General of the BBC
need only be addressed to
“C**t, London”.
As ever decent Charles Moore writes what many more should think and say.
If the Beeb is short of cash, they could stop all their incessant plugs and adverts for digital, which is really for the government to fund, as it is Brown who wants the cash from switching off analogue TV and selling the channels.
(which rather begs the question, if the analogue channels are not good enough for the TV and radio, who’s going to want them, or want to pay for them?)
Fear not! If Jockland becomes independent then they’ll not be paying for the BBC! Then again if it is a choice twixt Alex Smarmy Salmond as Chief Expenses Claimer and the BBC I’m stuck between two damm hard rocks!
If the BBC want to save money why don’t they get rid of thier over bloated output. Why don’t they just have BBC1, the Home Service and the Light programme. That would save a few bob. Then they could get rid of all those BBC “fat cats” like Jonathan Ross and Terry Wogan.
Jon, pruning all the other channels is a start.
However try as I might I can’t see justification of BBC1 or radio4 and I’m struggling re radio2, so that leaves, err…
Radio 2 has wogan.
I like wogan.
Unfortunately that’s about all it has going for it…