tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post1167974272592423925..comments2023-05-01T16:14:04.382+01:00Comments on Scots and Independent: A World Dis-ServiceRichard Thomsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-4793192383959132882011-01-28T14:43:24.930+00:002011-01-28T14:43:24.930+00:00Hi.
I see advantages in it not being paid for by ...Hi.<br /><br />I see advantages in it not being paid for by the Government, but given the fact that the FO has always traditionally made a contribution towards the costs without the World Service being seen to be compromised, I don't see why that shouldn't continue. <br /><br />The World Service offers a vehicle for the BBC to sell its goods and merchandise, and also to sell its programmes, which helps to fund the Corporation. Many of the local radio stations in the USA which are part of the PBR network carry a feed from the World Service, particularly for news, when they aren't broadcasting their own programmes. <br /><br />Your point about the difference in the way PMQs and FMQs is broadcast is well made, and I have, as I said, issues of my own with the editorial standards of some BBC Scotland output. However, for me, maintaining the scope of the World Service isn't about feeding the power delusions of those inside the Westminster bubble.<br /><br />One of the best international services comes from Radio Netherlands at Hilversum. Many other countries have their services carried on the World Radio Network (www.wrn.org). Given the ability to broadcast via the internet and satellite radio rather than relying on short wave infrastructure, I'd like to think that the state broadcaster in an independent Scotland would try to do something similar.<br /><br />The French Government launched the France 24 TV service to present a Francophone view of the world in a number of languages. I don't see the utility in trying to emulate the scope of the BBC WS in an independent Scotland, but we could certainly do better in presenting our take on the world than the turgid Voice of America manages.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />RichardRichard Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00380671811598211337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35490153.post-79805748975363429282011-01-28T00:40:40.282+00:002011-01-28T00:40:40.282+00:00I don't think that the BBC should be expected ...I don't think that the BBC should be expected to pay for it. The Foreign Office should take over the budget because as you point out, it does a lot more than the Diplomatic Service does. However, do we still need it? When are we going to realise, we are not a world power? Does some rubber tree planter's desire to hear the BBC every night, mean that we have to spend fortunes on a Foreign Service, when our National broadcaster can't even get it right in Scotland? As an example, why do they have to cut FMQs every week when they run out of time. They don't do that for PMQs, when there is an hour and a half show fitted round it and they don't have some Unionit twat like Cochrane from the Telegraph, a paper know one in Scotland reads, 'summing up' for the thick viewer, when 99% of everyone that watches that programme will be politically switched on.Dark Lochnagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09086636653505467565noreply@blogger.com