SP
I wish no ill to the World Service - indeed I would welcome an analogue outlet in mainland Europe.
ST
I didn't say it was my perception.
Indeed.
The only people who perceive the BBC World Service as a Foreign & Commonwealth propaganda exercise tend to be those who have issues with free speech etc.
Do you actually listen to the World Service? If you did you'd realise how ridiculous that statement was.
Do you actually listen to the World Service? If you did you'd realise how ridiculous that statement was.
I didn't say it was my perception.
To be fair I read Stuart's point to be reflecting the (dubious) perception of others rather than stating his own view.
Indeed.
HA
Accoriding to their latest accounts, BBC Global News Ltd lost £19.63 in FY14-15.
On page 1, it states "(t)he principal activity of the Company is the commissioning of the channel BBC World News and related airtime sales".
BBC Global News Ltd's parent company is continuing to take commercial loans out from BBC Commercial Holdings Limited. Its balance sheet is awful. On page 2, you'll note that the parent company "will provide...a specified level of financial support, including not requiring repayment of monies owed to BBC GNHL."
So, it's not looking good. I'm surprised that they can't make any money at all from the venture after 25 years in operation.
It is a pity if it dies. I like BBC World News and have finally managed to figure out a way to stream it to my TV.
Dosent look like a loss making service, it has far superior studios which can be relit in many ways, quality HD at 19.2e not the washed out HD you see on 28.2e, and even the trailers are in HD, you never see that on domestic BBC channels.
harshy
Founding member
Do we know how much BBC World News brings in from sponsorship/advertising/carriage etc. As compared to the amount the License Fee brings in to BBC News as a whole.
Accoriding to their latest accounts, BBC Global News Ltd lost £19.63 in FY14-15.
On page 1, it states "(t)he principal activity of the Company is the commissioning of the channel BBC World News and related airtime sales".
BBC Global News Ltd's parent company is continuing to take commercial loans out from BBC Commercial Holdings Limited. Its balance sheet is awful. On page 2, you'll note that the parent company "will provide...a specified level of financial support, including not requiring repayment of monies owed to BBC GNHL."
So, it's not looking good. I'm surprised that they can't make any money at all from the venture after 25 years in operation.
It is a pity if it dies. I like BBC World News and have finally managed to figure out a way to stream it to my TV.
Dosent look like a loss making service, it has far superior studios which can be relit in many ways, quality HD at 19.2e not the washed out HD you see on 28.2e, and even the trailers are in HD, you never see that on domestic BBC channels.
RK
Any word on how much money World makes from retransmission fees in the US or are they paying for carriage? Even if it's just 5¢ / month they'd make $2,000,000/month the 40,000,000 homes that receive the channel as a part of their package. Also what about BBC World Service? Like BBC World News, World Service programs are syndicated on public television and radio stations across the country - they're probably not bringing in big money but likely the revenue supports the shows offered.
The ad rates for North America are incredibly cheap but that's likely due to the viewership.
The ad rates for North America are incredibly cheap but that's likely due to the viewership.
LX
Fair enough, but as I stated frankly the only people who do hold that view tend to be those who are afraid of the truth and don't want it told.
As someone who has listened to the BBC World Service for over 25 years, it is unparalleled and long may it continue.
BBC World Service in English is unparalleled. The other languauge services, not so much, they have often been used as a means of broadcasting Foriegn Office propaganda, in a form that people in those countries would understand.
This compares rather differently to Voice Of America which is US Goverment propaganda, no matter the language.
That's a pretty serious allegation to make given the BBC's editorial independence.
To be fair I read Stuart's point to be reflecting the (dubious) perception of others rather than stating his own view.
Fair enough, but as I stated frankly the only people who do hold that view tend to be those who are afraid of the truth and don't want it told.
As someone who has listened to the BBC World Service for over 25 years, it is unparalleled and long may it continue.
BBC World Service in English is unparalleled. The other languauge services, not so much, they have often been used as a means of broadcasting Foriegn Office propaganda, in a form that people in those countries would understand.
This compares rather differently to Voice Of America which is US Goverment propaganda, no matter the language.
That's a pretty serious allegation to make given the BBC's editorial independence.
CI
Fair enough, but as I stated frankly the only people who do hold that view tend to be those who are afraid of the truth and don't want it told.
As someone who has listened to the BBC World Service for over 25 years, it is unparalleled and long may it continue.
BBC World Service in English is unparalleled. The other languauge services, not so much, they have often been used as a means of broadcasting Foriegn Office propaganda, in a form that people in those countries would understand.
This compares rather differently to Voice Of America which is US Goverment propaganda, no matter the language.
That's a pretty serious allegation to make given the BBC's editorial independence.
Jeez, I'm shocked! Shocked to find out there are people who actually don't know that that is true. That was basically the price of being funded by the Foreign Office. It wasn't all the time, and it certainly wasn't every day or necesarily every week, but at some points, there were broadcasts made that had more to do with the Foreign Office in content, than it did BBC journalism.
You can doubt it if you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
Fair enough, but as I stated frankly the only people who do hold that view tend to be those who are afraid of the truth and don't want it told.
As someone who has listened to the BBC World Service for over 25 years, it is unparalleled and long may it continue.
BBC World Service in English is unparalleled. The other languauge services, not so much, they have often been used as a means of broadcasting Foriegn Office propaganda, in a form that people in those countries would understand.
This compares rather differently to Voice Of America which is US Goverment propaganda, no matter the language.
That's a pretty serious allegation to make given the BBC's editorial independence.
Jeez, I'm shocked! Shocked to find out there are people who actually don't know that that is true. That was basically the price of being funded by the Foreign Office. It wasn't all the time, and it certainly wasn't every day or necesarily every week, but at some points, there were broadcasts made that had more to do with the Foreign Office in content, than it did BBC journalism.
You can doubt it if you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
LL
You can doubt it if you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
Prove it or at least base it on your listening to the various foreign language services.
London Lite
Founding member
You can doubt it if you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
Prove it or at least base it on your listening to the various foreign language services.
CI
You can doubt it if you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
Prove it or at least base it on your listening to the various foreign language services.
Are you seriously telling me that you don't know about the BBC External Serivces' role during World War 2? Are you seriously saying that you don't know that the Russian Service would broadcast propaganda during the Cold War?
Are you telling me that you don't know that the BBC would broadcast material during their broadcasts on the various foreign language services that came not from BBC journalists, but from the Foreign Office? It's part of the reason why Britian is so popular not just with foreign tourists, but with refugees.
Again, I am shocked. Shocked that there are people out there who claim an interest in the broadcasting industry, who know little about its actual history.
But then, I guess this is the world we live in today. If it ain't written on the internet, it didn't happen, even though a lot of what is written on the internet also didn't happen, and in a lot of cases, isn't even based on anything even approaching reality.
You can doubt it if you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
Prove it or at least base it on your listening to the various foreign language services.
Are you seriously telling me that you don't know about the BBC External Serivces' role during World War 2? Are you seriously saying that you don't know that the Russian Service would broadcast propaganda during the Cold War?
Are you telling me that you don't know that the BBC would broadcast material during their broadcasts on the various foreign language services that came not from BBC journalists, but from the Foreign Office? It's part of the reason why Britian is so popular not just with foreign tourists, but with refugees.
Again, I am shocked. Shocked that there are people out there who claim an interest in the broadcasting industry, who know little about its actual history.
But then, I guess this is the world we live in today. If it ain't written on the internet, it didn't happen, even though a lot of what is written on the internet also didn't happen, and in a lot of cases, isn't even based on anything even approaching reality.
LL
You can doubt it if you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
Prove it or at least base it on your listening to the various foreign language services.
Are you seriously telling me that you don't know about the BBC External Serivces' role during World War 2? Are you seriously saying that you don't know that the Russian Service would broadcast propaganda during the Cold War?
So you're basing current day BBC foreign output on events of the 1940s?
And there was me thinking that we were debating the current BBC World Service/News editorial policy?
Prove that there is at the present day editorial interference from the Foreign Office or quite frankly go back to your Cornish pit and produce another dire radio show where you can ramble on about your conspiracies somewhere else where nobody cares.
London Lite
Founding member
You can doubt it if you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
Prove it or at least base it on your listening to the various foreign language services.
Are you seriously telling me that you don't know about the BBC External Serivces' role during World War 2? Are you seriously saying that you don't know that the Russian Service would broadcast propaganda during the Cold War?
So you're basing current day BBC foreign output on events of the 1940s?
Quote:
]Again, I am shocked. Shocked that there are people out there who claim an interest in the broadcasting industry, who know little about its actual history.
And there was me thinking that we were debating the current BBC World Service/News editorial policy?
Prove that there is at the present day editorial interference from the Foreign Office or quite frankly go back to your Cornish pit and produce another dire radio show where you can ramble on about your conspiracies somewhere else where nobody cares.
RK
You can doubt it if you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
Prove it or at least base it on your listening to the various foreign language services.
Are you seriously telling me that you don't know about the BBC External Serivces' role during World War 2? Are you seriously saying that you don't know that the Russian Service would broadcast propaganda during the Cold War?
Are you telling me that you don't know that the BBC would broadcast material during their broadcasts on the various foreign language services that came not from BBC journalists, but from the Foreign Office? It's part of the reason why Britian is so popular not just with foreign tourists, but with refugees.
Again, I am shocked. Shocked that there are people out there who claim an interest in the broadcasting industry, who know little about its actual history.
But then, I guess this is the world we live in today. If it ain't written on the internet, it didn't happen, even though a lot of what is written on the internet also didn't happen, and in a lot of cases, isn't even based on anything even approaching reality.
Here's an archived page from the BBC Website about the World Service in the 1940s. It mentioned messages that the BBC were told to pass on that made no sense. If you read between the lines you get the impression that they're saying that some of their broadcasts were propaganda without outright saying it.
Recently there were articles about the governments fear that the BBC is loosing the soft information war against RT and other state sponsored broadcasters.
It may not be as blatant or frequent as it was in the past or compared to the competitors but it's still out there.
You can doubt it if you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
Prove it or at least base it on your listening to the various foreign language services.
Are you seriously telling me that you don't know about the BBC External Serivces' role during World War 2? Are you seriously saying that you don't know that the Russian Service would broadcast propaganda during the Cold War?
Are you telling me that you don't know that the BBC would broadcast material during their broadcasts on the various foreign language services that came not from BBC journalists, but from the Foreign Office? It's part of the reason why Britian is so popular not just with foreign tourists, but with refugees.
Again, I am shocked. Shocked that there are people out there who claim an interest in the broadcasting industry, who know little about its actual history.
But then, I guess this is the world we live in today. If it ain't written on the internet, it didn't happen, even though a lot of what is written on the internet also didn't happen, and in a lot of cases, isn't even based on anything even approaching reality.
Here's an archived page from the BBC Website about the World Service in the 1940s. It mentioned messages that the BBC were told to pass on that made no sense. If you read between the lines you get the impression that they're saying that some of their broadcasts were propaganda without outright saying it.
Recently there were articles about the governments fear that the BBC is loosing the soft information war against RT and other state sponsored broadcasters.
It may not be as blatant or frequent as it was in the past or compared to the competitors but it's still out there.
BA
You can doubt it if you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
Prove it or at least base it on your listening to the various foreign language services.
Are you seriously telling me that you don't know about the BBC External Serivces' role during World War 2? Are you seriously saying that you don't know that the Russian Service would broadcast propaganda during the Cold War?
Are you telling me that you don't know that the BBC would broadcast material during their broadcasts on the various foreign language services that came not from BBC journalists, but from the Foreign Office? It's part of the reason why Britian is so popular not just with foreign tourists, but with refugees.
Again, I am shocked. Shocked that there are people out there who claim an interest in the broadcasting industry, who know little about its actual history.
But then, I guess this is the world we live in today. If it ain't written on the internet, it didn't happen, even though a lot of what is written on the internet also didn't happen, and in a lot of cases, isn't even based on anything even approaching reality.
"History" is the important word, the word you didn't mention at first. I doubt you remember the Second World War, and the Cold War is a generation ago.
You can doubt it if you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
Prove it or at least base it on your listening to the various foreign language services.
Are you seriously telling me that you don't know about the BBC External Serivces' role during World War 2? Are you seriously saying that you don't know that the Russian Service would broadcast propaganda during the Cold War?
Are you telling me that you don't know that the BBC would broadcast material during their broadcasts on the various foreign language services that came not from BBC journalists, but from the Foreign Office? It's part of the reason why Britian is so popular not just with foreign tourists, but with refugees.
Again, I am shocked. Shocked that there are people out there who claim an interest in the broadcasting industry, who know little about its actual history.
But then, I guess this is the world we live in today. If it ain't written on the internet, it didn't happen, even though a lot of what is written on the internet also didn't happen, and in a lot of cases, isn't even based on anything even approaching reality.
"History" is the important word, the word you didn't mention at first. I doubt you remember the Second World War, and the Cold War is a generation ago.
RK
Prove it or at least base it on your listening to the various foreign language services.
Are you seriously telling me that you don't know about the BBC External Serivces' role during World War 2? Are you seriously saying that you don't know that the Russian Service would broadcast propaganda during the Cold War?
Are you telling me that you don't know that the BBC would broadcast material during their broadcasts on the various foreign language services that came not from BBC journalists, but from the Foreign Office? It's part of the reason why Britian is so popular not just with foreign tourists, but with refugees.
Again, I am shocked. Shocked that there are people out there who claim an interest in the broadcasting industry, who know little about its actual history.
But then, I guess this is the world we live in today. If it ain't written on the internet, it didn't happen, even though a lot of what is written on the internet also didn't happen, and in a lot of cases, isn't even based on anything even approaching reality.
"History" is the important word, the word you didn't mention at first. I doubt you remember the Second World War, and the Cold War is a generation ago.
Here's a recent article about programs going out on World News that were sponsored by foreign governments that were deemed propaganda by OfCom. https://web.archive.org/web/20150824081954/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-among-broadcasters-to-repeatedly-breach-ofcom-code-over-propaganda-content-10459743.html
Prove it or at least base it on your listening to the various foreign language services.
Are you seriously telling me that you don't know about the BBC External Serivces' role during World War 2? Are you seriously saying that you don't know that the Russian Service would broadcast propaganda during the Cold War?
Are you telling me that you don't know that the BBC would broadcast material during their broadcasts on the various foreign language services that came not from BBC journalists, but from the Foreign Office? It's part of the reason why Britian is so popular not just with foreign tourists, but with refugees.
Again, I am shocked. Shocked that there are people out there who claim an interest in the broadcasting industry, who know little about its actual history.
But then, I guess this is the world we live in today. If it ain't written on the internet, it didn't happen, even though a lot of what is written on the internet also didn't happen, and in a lot of cases, isn't even based on anything even approaching reality.
"History" is the important word, the word you didn't mention at first. I doubt you remember the Second World War, and the Cold War is a generation ago.
Here's a recent article about programs going out on World News that were sponsored by foreign governments that were deemed propaganda by OfCom. https://web.archive.org/web/20150824081954/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-among-broadcasters-to-repeatedly-breach-ofcom-code-over-propaganda-content-10459743.html