The BBC has slashed its budget for foreign TV imports such as AMC’s Mad Men and Danish thriller The Killing, which was a hit for the broadcaster. Budget cuts announced this morning mean that talent may also quit for rival channels because the BBC cannot afford them. Mark Thompson, BBC director general, said in London that the BBC will cut its budget by a further $1 billion a year by 2016/17. This comes on top of savings already announced. Around 2,000 of the broadcaster’s 17,000-strong workforce will lose their jobs – 12% of employees. It is thought half of the redundancies will come from BBC News. The Beeb also plans to move out of its west London headquarters, possibly knocking down its huge offices and maybe sell the land to Chelsea soccer club, which has been looking for a new home. The Corporation, which, in economic terms matches the size of the British film industry, is cutting its budget by 20% to $5.4 billion a year for six years. Last October the Beeb rushed into what many saw as a hastily-agreed deal with the UK government, agreeing to have its state grant cut by 16%. Plus the BBC is looking to divert 4% of the money it currently spends into programming and technology rather than on back-office operations. In 2010’s UK government spending review, the BBC licence fee – the compulsory tax which everybody must pay — was frozen at $225 per head until 2016-17.
Much of what Thompson announced this morning seems like good sense. Rival TV broadcasters complain that the BBC has far too much freedom to map what they do already. Anything the private sector does, the BBC can ape using billions of public money, they complain. Thompson has stopped short of scrapping any individual channels or services. Rather, he has trimmed round the edges: BBC2, the BBC’s second channel for more offbeat shows, will scrap most of its afternoon programming; there will be more TV drama repeats; and some local radio stations will share shows outside breakfast and drive-time hours. Big outside broadcast events from pop festivals such as Glastonbury will be scaled back. The BBC has been criticised for the amount of money it squanders staging these outside broadcasts for its pop radio channels.


Long known for Maxist-type politics, the BBC is no longer considered a valid news source. Their days of social engineering came to an end when Fox News came about, ensuring BBC’s demise.
Good riddance.
What!? Marxist? Since when? I’m guessing you’re neither British nor well-informed, which makes sense if you rate Fox News.
The BBC isn’t dead.
Many more people watch and listen to BBC News than Fox.
The BBC isn’t Marxist.
Anything else?
Those danged Maxists! They’re everywhere. Just look at all the trouble Max caused, shame on him:)
Max Headroom rises again from his electronic grave.
Just what exactly are smoking/drinking/inhaling/injecting??
Must be harsher than that infamous teabagged koolaid for republican whackos…
That is a shame that people complain about the money that the bbc spends on its programming; they have many wonderful shows and a little compition never hurt anyone; Now if only PBS could do the same.
Big story for those companies that anchor their foreign sales on the UK number. The BBC has and is the biggest fish in that pond and the slashing here ripples across every market.
But how does this affect ‘Doctor Who”?
It doesn’t
Look out for “Intern What”.
The BBC as a whole has produced some of the finest TV shows in the world. Their documentaries and news our outstanding. They have been the source of truly unbiased reporting around the globe.
As much as I myself have long believed the BBC have held a monopolized position in the market place and have often had a sense of arrogance about that position. But they also have helped nurture and build careers such as mine. For that I will for ever be in their debt. Two thousand jobs have been lost along with the potential for thousands more that like me could have found a career in the media.
These cuts however necessary mark the changing times in new media. My hope is that the BBC looks at what it does have and how it could remain a power house of great content. For scripted drama they should look to the US model. The creative writer producer model is the way forward. But I would say that.
This will be my one and only post after an article but just had to say that Smarg is a ill-informed muppet.
The BBC doesn’t get a state grant, they are funded by a license fee. There is a big difference.
Just wanted to correct a factual error. The TV licence fee is not a compulsory tax on everyone. If you don’t have a TV you don’t need a licence and you have a licence per household so only one per home rather than one per person.
Speaking as an American, I think the BBC rocks! Sorry to hear about the layoffs and wish those folks all the best.
Just don’t mess with my Eastenders.
I have been listening to BBC’s World Service since the mid 1960s. It provides the most comprehensive, balanced news in the world. It is the only reason I bought XM for the cars. And at home…BBC America provides something besides incessant repeats and regurgitation of CSI:Duluth, Law&Order: Drive Thru Unit and NCIS: Staten Island Ferry.
As for FoxNews…their average 1.1Million viewers per slice, 1/3 of 1% of Americans barely blip the radar.
But did they cancel Top Gear?
So pretty much the same number of overpaid chiefs but a few less Indians?
Oh… And a brand new £1 billion headquarters up north! Hooray!
Yes! A hapless ne’er-do-well assistant solves the office’s greatest mysteries accompanied by a different colored stapler every season.
As an American, I would happily pay a healthy yearly fee to be permitted to download BBC programs at the time they air in the UK.
As a Brit, I would happily not pay a single penny yearly fee to be allowed to watch all my other tv channels with the option of subscribing to that BBC that I actually want to want. The BBC is not an impartial broadcaster, though perhaps it has toned down in the last couple of years.
While it does produce some very fine programming it also makes an awful lot of minority interest tosh that few people watch. It is another example of a public sector dinosaur – no matter how independent it is, it is nonetheless essentially a public body with all the waste that goes with it.
There is no competition when a single broadcaster can swallow over $5 billion a year without having to make programming that people watch (and yes, I know they DO make programming that people watch, but they make a whole lot that they don’t).