On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:56:56 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:


"running dogg" wrote in message
...
Is the BBC a govt agency or isn't
it?

No it isn't - it's entirely separate from the Govt. It is paid for by our TV
licence - about 200 dollars per year, whether you watch any BBC at all.

The World Service is different from the rest of the BBC. It is not
paid for by the licence fee. It is an arm of the Foreign Service, I
think.

''How is BBC World Service funded?

BBC World Service is funded by a Parliamentary grant-in-aid,
administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the British
government. The FCO, in close consultation with World Service, is
involved in the process of deciding which languages are broadcast ,
but editorial control of the programmes rests entirely with BBC.
The relationship between the BBCWS and the FCO is governed by two
documents, the Broadcasting Agreement and the Financial Memorandum


Foreign and Commonwealth Office/BBC World Service - Broadcasting
Agreement


Foreign and Commonwealth Office/BBC - Financial Memorandum

The BBC's UK radio and TV services are financed by the television
Licence Fee (all owners of television sets in the UK are required to
buy an annual licence). The BBC also earns extra income through the
sale of programmes overseas and of books, videos, tapes and other
products linked to BBC programmes.
BBC World Service does not receive any funding from the UK Licence
Fee.''

www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice

Hey, I was right.

"David" wrote in message
...


The BBC's UK radio and TV services are financed by the television
Licence Fee (all owners of television sets in the UK are required to
buy an annual licence). The BBC also earns extra income through the
sale of programmes overseas and of books, videos, tapes and other
products linked to BBC programmes.
BBC World Service does not receive any funding from the UK Licence
Fee.''

www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice

Hey, I was right.

Yes, the WS, unlike the rest of the BBC (you didn't make it clear you were
referring solely to the WS as opposed to the BBC in general) is funded from
the FCO out of our taxes, so we still pay for it. It's our money, not the
Govt's money.

Running Dog asked if the BBC is a Govt agency, which it definitely is not.
Your own post says:

"The FCO, in close consultation with World Service, is
involved in the process of deciding which languages are broadcast ,
but editorial control of the programmes rests *entirely* with BBC."


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:23:41 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .


The BBC's UK radio and TV services are financed by the television
Licence Fee (all owners of television sets in the UK are required to
buy an annual licence). The BBC also earns extra income through the
sale of programmes overseas and of books, videos, tapes and other
products linked to BBC programmes.
BBC World Service does not receive any funding from the UK Licence
Fee.''

www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice

Hey, I was right.

Yes, the WS, unlike the rest of the BBC (you didn't make it clear you were
referring solely to the WS as opposed to the BBC in general) is funded from
the FCO out of our taxes, so we still pay for it. It's our money, not the
Govt's money.

Running Dog asked if the BBC is a Govt agency, which it definitely is not.
Your own post says:

"The FCO, in close consultation with World Service, is
involved in the process of deciding which languages are broadcast ,
but editorial control of the programmes rests *entirely* with BBC."

In the USA, the People are the Government (they just forget that
salient point most of the time).

Simon Mason wrote:


"David" wrote in message
...


The BBC's UK radio and TV services are financed by the television
Licence Fee (all owners of television sets in the UK are required to
buy an annual licence). The BBC also earns extra income through the
sale of programmes overseas and of books, videos, tapes and other
products linked to BBC programmes.
BBC World Service does not receive any funding from the UK Licence
Fee.''

www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice

Hey, I was right.

Yes, the WS, unlike the rest of the BBC (you didn't make it clear you were
referring solely to the WS as opposed to the BBC in general) is funded from
the FCO out of our taxes, so we still pay for it. It's our money, not the
Govt's money.

Running Dog asked if the BBC is a Govt agency, which it definitely is not.
Your own post says:

"The FCO, in close consultation with World Service, is
involved in the process of deciding which languages are broadcast ,
but editorial control of the programmes rests *entirely* with BBC."

Ah. You see, the VOA was (was, since it in effect doesn't exist anymore)
run by an agency of the US govt, USAID I think. In most countries, the
national broadcaster is a govt agency. Since the BBC is not controlled
by the UK govt, the BBC can make all sorts of screwy decisions and
nobody can tell them no. (In contrast, the screwy decisions made at the
VOA were done by presidential appointees. The President and Congress
could have decided to hire new people to run the place.) So the BBC
slashes the WS, they slash domestic programming, they make a lot of
people upset, and nobody can rein them in. At least the big corporate
broadcasters in the US (NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, Time Warner (who runs the WB
network), Paramount Pictures (UPN)) have majority stockholders and
boards of directors who can fire the CEO if he ****s up.

"running dogg" wrote in message
...

Ah. You see, the VOA was (was, since it in effect doesn't exist anymore)
run by an agency of the US govt, USAID I think.

USAID is the US Agency for International Development. t helps farmers get
better crops, etc. The USIS, US Information Service, is what you are
thinking of.

VOA very much exists. It just is reducing its usage of SW and increasing in
other bands and media.

In most countries, the
national broadcaster is a govt agency. Since the BBC is not controlled
by the UK govt, the BBC can make all sorts of screwy decisions and
nobody can tell them no.

The BBC is a government chartered orgainzation, and financed by government
taxes.

(In contrast, the screwy decisions made at the
VOA were done by presidential appointees. The President and Congress
could have decided to hire new people to run the place.) So the BBC
slashes the WS, they slash domestic programming, they make a lot of
people upset, and nobody can rein them in. At least the big corporate
broadcasters in the US (NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, Time Warner (who runs the WB
network), Paramount Pictures (UPN)) have majority stockholders and
boards of directors who can fire the CEO if he ****s up.

What has been screwed up at the VOA? They are simply moving into the new
centrury.

David Eduardo wrote:


"running dogg" wrote in message
...

Ah. You see, the VOA was (was, since it in effect doesn't exist anymore)
run by an agency of the US govt, USAID I think.

USAID is the US Agency for International Development. t helps farmers get
better crops, etc. The USIS, US Information Service, is what you are
thinking of.

VOA very much exists. It just is reducing its usage of SW and increasing in
other bands and media.

In most countries, the
national broadcaster is a govt agency. Since the BBC is not controlled
by the UK govt, the BBC can make all sorts of screwy decisions and
nobody can tell them no.

The BBC is a government chartered orgainzation, and financed by government
taxes.

(In contrast, the screwy decisions made at the
VOA were done by presidential appointees. The President and Congress
could have decided to hire new people to run the place.) So the BBC
slashes the WS, they slash domestic programming, they make a lot of
people upset, and nobody can rein them in. At least the big corporate
broadcasters in the US (NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, Time Warner (who runs the WB
network), Paramount Pictures (UPN)) have majority stockholders and
boards of directors who can fire the CEO if he ****s up.

What has been screwed up at the VOA? They are simply moving into the new
centrury.

Basically, they're focusing WAY too much on music services and not
enough on news, information, and the American way of life. The Russians
liked VOA because it gave them information about the outside world. VOA
today plays rap music. Most *Americans* don't like Eminem. I can only
imagine what the Muslims think of it.

"running dogg" wrote in message
. ..
David Eduardo wrote:

What has been screwed up at the VOA? They are simply moving into the new
centrury.

Basically, they're focusing WAY too much on music services and not
enough on news, information, and the American way of life.

If you want to reach youth before their minds are made up, usinga
music-based setting is the only way. The VOA music formats, such as Sawa,
have plenty of news and commentary and US information, but are based on the
appeal of US music around the world. Talk programming will only reach people
who already favor the US point of view and will not reach younger people and
will not sway those over 35 or so who listen to talk programming.

The Russians
liked VOA because it gave them information about the outside world. VOA
today plays rap music. Most *Americans* don't like Eminem. I can only
imagine what the Muslims think of it.

Most Americans under 25 or 30 do like hip hop and US pop music. And the rest
of the world adores it.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:17:08 -0800, running dogg wrote:



Basically, they're focusing WAY too much on music services and not
enough on news, information, and the American way of life. The Russians
liked VOA because it gave them information about the outside world. VOA
today plays rap music. Most *Americans* don't like Eminem. I can only
imagine what the Muslims think of it.

What do ''most Americans'' like, if not Eminem?

David wrote:

What do ''most Americans'' like, if not Eminem?

Hmmm, well, dare I say....the Black Eyed Peas (?) ....completely
talentless rot.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...



The BBC is a government chartered orgainzation, and financed by government
taxes.

It is financed by the TV licence fee, not Govt taxes.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net