The UK obviously is no longer a superpower. But the BBC is the cornerstone of the UKs modern global soft power projection. Broadcasting it free projects the UK government’s voice around the world directly into homes, influencing world policy to their liking.
Putting a paywall in the US sends a message that they feel it is not needed or not effective in the US market.
It also mirrors what paid sport broadcasting in the UK has done. Paywall it for short term gain, at the expense of long term viewership growth. The UK is struggling.
Paywall it for short term gain, at the expense of long term viewership growth.
Making a company worse for increased short term revenue, at the cost of customer retention, product quality, etc. causing increased turnover which further compounds all the other steps. Is a common issue among all modern companies.
In short, there was a shift in MBA education a while back that includes a bunch of lies-by-omission and misrepresented data. Meaning that the only thing on their mind when they graduate, is to please investors at any all costs, including company longevity.
Given that I'm stateside, this makes me sad. But given that they are funded by UK taxpayers, this is probably the right move.
Of course, that's just one less outlet for USA citizens to get accurate journalism (better than here, anyway) about what's happening in our country. Hope Al Jazeera doesn't follow suit.
Although, you could also argue that those taxes pay for informing and influencing citizens of foreign nations.
America’s media ecosystem is dominated by Fox, Sinclair, and other state party media players. There is a strategic benefit to having a media outlet that doesn’t run through the state media filter.
This is a very important point. There is a reason there is a "cultural victory" in the Civilization games and the UK is definitely ceding cultural influence with this move.
I suppose the TV licence in the UK is a sort of paywall, even if it is made of swiss cheese and enforced by folk with all the legal standing of Larry the Head Mouser or whatever moggy it is now.
I pay it, but I'm loathed to now. Not because I watch any live TV or BBC programming, but because I use the BBC News site a metric fucktonne and I suppose I justify it to myself as funding the BBC News department rather than Graham Norton's salary.
Maybe I'll fuck it off though. I do fancy a letter war with Capita or whoever managed the enforcement these days.
Exactly this. Isn't the point of the BBC world service to communicate/propagandise the British view of what's happening in the world to other countries? Imagine Russia Today adding a paywall? It's counter to the entire point! I think you may be on to something about this being a concession to Trump.
Makes sense, we pay our licence fee for our public service, why should people abroad get for free what we have to pay for?
I was happy with the current arrangement of adverts supporting the service use abroad, but if it has to migrate to a subscription model to meet modern demands then that's the way it is.
I wouldn't go to another country and ask them to make one of their government's national public services free for me to use, after all.
The world service was always free because it’s a propaganda platform that promotes Britain and British values abroad. I guess they are content just to push Reform propaganda to a domestic audience from now on.
They're not that great anyway. They're barely holding on to my personal list of reliable sources. If I really need something, there are other places to go. Good luck BBC.
The Guardian isn't horrible, but not perfect. Reuters, if you squint, is pretty good 3/4 of the time. Propublica is great for investigative journalism. All of them have horrible headline writers at least half the time. Politico isn't worth checking, but every month or so, you might miss something. It's a mixed bag basically, so you have to check out a few.
I try to post the "real" stuff (not what trump says, but what he and the republicans are doing) on politics at sh.itjust.works on weekdays. It's US based and I'm anti-right.
I know there’s rights issues and all but if they made a real BBC streaming service with their back catalog and every David Attenborough special in 4K, it’d be one thing but Americans are inundated with news and streaming services. I pay for my local newspaper’s digital site — mostly because if I don’t, who will? But even The NY Times has to have recipes and word games to keep people subscribed. Why would anyone pay more than a dollar a month or something for BBC News?
The U.S. seems like an odd place to trial this. It’s the most competitive media market in the world and we’re all already sick of being asked to pay for 40 different services. In conclusion:🏴☠️
It's insane how much music, art, theatre, television etc still comes out of the UK, and how little they've capitalised on it - letting the Americans take all the initiative.