Monday, December 20, 2004
BBC reins in commercial online functions
According to this report, the BBC's Cult website is either going to be closed or at least severely cutback. To be honest, I'm not surprised.
As a big supporter of the BBC, I've long felt that the Cult website wasn't something that it should be spending the licence fee on - at least in its current form.
I've no problem with the BBC providing somewhere for newbies and kids to surf safely. I've no problem with their website "supporting" other areas of the BBC, such as BBC-owned programmes or ones shown by the BBC.
Therefore, covering "Doctor Who" is perfectly acceptable as its a BBC-owned programme. So was their "Buffy" or "Simpsons" coverage when those programmes were shown by the BBC.
However, programmes that have no connection to the BBC are a different matter. The BBC never showed "Angel", so I'd argue that it's upto Sky, Channel 4 and Five to "support" it online. If they chose not to, then that's their choice, but I don't think it's right to spend the licence fee promoting other broadcasters.
Neither do I have a problem with their webcasts, whether that's of BBC "brands" such as "Doctor Who", or original content such as "The Ghosts of Albion".
On the other hand, Cult news is something that dozens of websites cover, so there's no need for that unless it's related to BBC series, such as the new "Doctor Who" (except for the waste-of-time that is their production cam series) or releases of older ones such as "Quatermass" or "Day of the Triffids". On that note, it's about time that someone told them to stop announcing things before there's been an official announcement - e.g. the "Adam Adamant Lives!" DVD which has apparently been pulled before it was announced (even though bbc.co.uk/cult had "announced" out).
If the site does close totally, then I think it's a step too far. However, I'd certainly support a closure of many areas of the site, especially as some of those working on it seem to have forgotten that they're working for a licence-fee funded organisation and have expanded into areas that shouldn't have been part of their remit.
According to this report, the BBC's Cult website is either going to be closed or at least severely cutback. To be honest, I'm not surprised.
As a big supporter of the BBC, I've long felt that the Cult website wasn't something that it should be spending the licence fee on - at least in its current form.
I've no problem with the BBC providing somewhere for newbies and kids to surf safely. I've no problem with their website "supporting" other areas of the BBC, such as BBC-owned programmes or ones shown by the BBC.
Therefore, covering "Doctor Who" is perfectly acceptable as its a BBC-owned programme. So was their "Buffy" or "Simpsons" coverage when those programmes were shown by the BBC.
However, programmes that have no connection to the BBC are a different matter. The BBC never showed "Angel", so I'd argue that it's upto Sky, Channel 4 and Five to "support" it online. If they chose not to, then that's their choice, but I don't think it's right to spend the licence fee promoting other broadcasters.
Neither do I have a problem with their webcasts, whether that's of BBC "brands" such as "Doctor Who", or original content such as "The Ghosts of Albion".
On the other hand, Cult news is something that dozens of websites cover, so there's no need for that unless it's related to BBC series, such as the new "Doctor Who" (except for the waste-of-time that is their production cam series) or releases of older ones such as "Quatermass" or "Day of the Triffids". On that note, it's about time that someone told them to stop announcing things before there's been an official announcement - e.g. the "Adam Adamant Lives!" DVD which has apparently been pulled before it was announced (even though bbc.co.uk/cult had "announced" out).
If the site does close totally, then I think it's a step too far. However, I'd certainly support a closure of many areas of the site, especially as some of those working on it seem to have forgotten that they're working for a licence-fee funded organisation and have expanded into areas that shouldn't have been part of their remit.
