BBC Six Music and Asian Network to go by 2011

[DuelingFanjo]

Arrggghhh! story

BBC broadcaster Charlie Brooker said: "I was going to buy a digital radio next week. If they get rid of BBC 6 music I might as well not bother."

Comedian and DJ Phill Jupitus described the potential axing of 6 Music as "an act of cultural vandalism".

They should keep 6Music, it is really good.

There are loads of Asian only channels, most of them way better than Asian Network. Same with 1Xtra. No reason for them to exist.

The one thing they should definitely get rid of is BBC3. It is even worse than Channel 5.

It's up to the BBC Trust to accept or reject these proposals (which will include BBC4 not being able to buy upcoming series of Mad Men ). The Trust is rumoured to be underwhelmed by the report.

Tell the Trust what you think: [email protected]

I reckon they should bump off R1 and R2 first. They do what the commercial stations do, so it's duplicating. Deeply daft. Where do we march/ crochet banners?? I will e-mail the trust pronto. Ta for the link wonk.

policywonk

If the BBC doesn't buy Mad Men ITV or Ch4 will do. Not a big deal.

The BBC should spend more making programmes and less buying programmes from abroad.

When it comes to sport, it should cover more amateur and obscure sports - with exceptions for massive events like big football matches. My DH tells me that BBC F1 coverage is much better than ITV, but not as good as Sky. Either way, it is still a huge waste of money which could be used to promote less well known sports.

The distinctive things the BBC does which are not done by commercial broadcasters - R3, R4, R5, BBC4, 6music should be spared entirely.

BBC1, R1, R2 are safe because they are simply too popular. Though there is nothing R1 and R2 do which isn't really done by dozens of other radio stations.

BBC3, 1Xtra, 6music, Blast, etc. can easily be scrapped, as can a lot of the less news-based stuff on its website.

There is no reason in the world why the BBC should own Lonely Planet.

don't know what I will listen to when 6 music goes! I feel too young for radio 2 (in spite of chris evans taking over from wogan) and radio 1 is just dire.

Craig Charles funk and soul show is the best thing on the radio IMO!!

I will be writing in protest and have for the 1st time in my life joined a facebook group campaigning against the closure!

longfingernails - not having Mad Men on the BBC isn't a big deal on the face of it (although being able to watch it continuously for 40 minutes without ad breaks adds considerably to my enjoyment of it. Ironically.) Mind you, I'm not convinced that ITV or C4 would buy it - both are strapped for cash.

But it's symptomatic of something that is a big deal: the drive by Rupert fucking Murdoch to hobble the BBC so that he has no serious competitors in the UK media market. Why on earth should the best, quirkiest and most valuable aspects of the BBC by hacked off to appease Voldemort and his spawn?

Similarly, the proposal to restrict big, one-nation moments on the BBC - like your suggestion that it stop covering popular sports - is the thin end of a wedge. It would lead inexorably to the end of the license fee IMO. And then it would be bye-bye, Radio 4 and the World Service.

I think you're spot on policywonk. You can see the road ahead and it's not looking good. imo the BBC should be a mix of big national event coverage and quirky non-commerical innovation (so for me 6 music should definitely stay). I applaud losing half the website though as that's sprawled out of hand.

Do you know you've got 6Music on both your 'should be saved' and 'should be scrapped' lists?

Re. 'There's no reason in the world why the BBC should own Lonely Planet' - this line of argument seems to me to be a prime example of why the BBC just cannot win against its right-wing critics (not saying you are one, but Lord knows it has many). 20 years ago, the BBC's enemies were arguing that it was a state-dependant enterprise with no footing in business, and that it should get out there and make its own revenue. So the BBC trotted off and made a hugely successful job of BBC Worldwide, marketing, magazines, etc. 20 years down the line, and suddenly the same fucking people are saying - how outrageous that the BBC should own successful revenue-making enterprises!

policywonk

Ch4 and ITV wouldn't be so strapped for cash if the BBC did less though. They can't afford to compete in the bidding wars.

Sorry, 6music should be saved, that was a mistake!

Thanks smee!

'Ch4 and ITV wouldn't be so strapped for cash if the BBC did less though.' - I'm not sure that this is true. C4 and ITV are penniless because of the advertising downturn. And because they, despite being marvellous private sector orgs (which - as we all know - do things so much better than state enterprises), they have completely failed to capitalise on their products in the same way that the BBC has.

Anyway sorry for argumentativeness and fisking. The BBC is one of those things that I really would set up a flaming barricade for.

Must go and do some work.

I've read some of the report and while the Asian Network underperforms, Six music doesn't; it has 700,000 listners while the Asian Network has lost soething like 20% of it's audience. Six music is mostly listened to by people betweeen 37 and 54 and that's seen as an audience which could be served by Radio 2. I personally think that is bollox. If I don't have 6 music then I won't start listening to Radio 2. Although the plan is to shift some of the six music stuff to radio 2 and 1.

ITV, Channel 4 and other independent broadcasters don't put back as much money as the BBC do into their programmes from the money they earn through wadvertising, which is why the BBC make better quality programmes than something like Sky.

agree with you DF although most of the people I know who listen to 6 music are younger than 37 (myself included 8just8)and are not served by either radio 1 or 2.

i have never heard either station...

sticks fingers in ears and loudly sings 'la-la' to the theme tune from The Archers

I really don't understand this story. It seems that the BBC is too good at its job and needs cutting down to size to give its competitors a chance.
So does anyone fancy closing down their local school to give the independent sector a chance to flourish? Or close your local hospital to let BUPA in?
What is the logic in attacking one of the few things that the Establishment (I know that it's not Govt) does well.

would be a big shame about 6music - agree with everything PW says too

not convinced about Lonely Planet though - travel publishing has been really suffering - though not sure how much they'd gain by selling it

I'm just wondering if the BBC are doing that thing of announcing something that's very extreme, gauging public reaction, then being seen as the good guys for pulling back from it (while still letting everything else go through).

I mean, for 6Music in particular, this really makes NO sense (in that there is no way it's a threat to commercial stations) and doesn't even answer the criteria they're setting themselves. They must have known there would be a huge public outcry and that the Trust wouldn't go for it.

Does that make sense?

PWonk's right about the success of Worldwide, but I think Lonely Planet was a step too far. It wasn't organic - the magazines and spin offs in merchandising work because they stem from BBC content. Lonely Planet's something else and is also a niche market in lots of ways.

The six music/Asian Network thing is just a small part of a much much longer and more detailed review. Looks like there will be some major job losses, particularly in online services.

Six music is a real headline grabber.

A slightly off topic question. Do all new cars have a digital radio fitted as standard?

am gutted about 6music

actually only discovered it fairly recently but it is wonderful

I would say its listeners are not catered to by any other station so I really don't understand the logic of getting rid of it. It plays music you wouldn't hear anywhere else.

I am very very pissed off!

Am cynical, but they must know that by cutting those two they'll get lots of protests/ coverage. So is it to show they're listening - ie they'll reinstate (having had no intention to cut anyway deep down), and quietly axe whole swatches of other stuff..?

no more wonderful live sessions by wonderful people I have never heard of