Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I may do such a diary, but given the variety of possible outcomes I'd be bound to be wrong.

However, I'd take a variation of the claud cockburn principle of government policy; in trying to predict what will happen simply extrapolate to the worst, most craven, compromise imaginable. The areas of greatest waste, ie flagship programmes will remain largely untouched, just a few redundancies to show willing. The areas of least waste, ie minority programmes run on a shoe-string will face a wholesale axing.

However, less visible, but with more catastrophic long-term impact, will be the destruction of the few remaining support services as the BBC concentrates of core services, ie programme making. You might argue that engineering can be sold off, but as we've seen with the IT services and Resources sell-offs, the contract writers don't know the business.

So they agree the current service with no concept of technological evolution. And every upgrade comes at a price...a BIG price. Plus you have a corporate service level agreement that may make no account of other reuqirements, ie News has a different definition of urgent to the rest of the BBC and so every urgent request from News (and there are lots) becomes a financial burden on a budget that doesn't account for it.

But i have a whole other essay on that

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 06:47:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows: