[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

save the world service (r)



	 BurmaNet's concern with possible damage to the Burmese Service as a
result of the BBC restructuring  is understandable, especially given that, in
the days following the announcement of the  restructuring, much remained unclear
about what it would actually entail. One month on, sufficient details have
emerged so as to reassure listeners worldwide that the restructuring will not
damage the service we provide to our audiences, including the millions who tune
into the BBC in Burma.  The hours broadcast, the scope of programming and, above
all, our unbiased news coverage will not be affected by the changes: there is no
threat to the  independence of the BBC's news coverage.
I reproduce below an article by the World Service's Managing Director, Sam
Younger, which refers specifically  to the concerns of Burmese listeners. 
Marcia Poole, Head, Burmese Section, BBC World Service
**********************
"BBC will 'continue to tell truth'
by Sam Younger, Managing Director, BBC World Service
The Guardian, 20.7.96

" This is to inform you that the news about the reform of the BBC World Service
touches our people here with cold hands", write Burmese students. They describe
vividly how the BBC can be heard everywhere in Burma. The military regime has
"shut our eyes, as a country in the dark.People listen to the BBC every morning
and night. Please keep the BBC World Service, dont' split it, please let the
Burmese people rely on BBC".
Whenever the future of the World Service becomes an issue there is intense
interest among listeners and supporters worldwide. And although there is a
growing audience in the UK, you have to travel overseas to appreciate fully how
much goodwill it generates for this country [Britain]. By providing a trusted
source of information in closed societies, the World Service is literally a
lifeline. Even in the media-saturated United States, where World Service
programmes are now increasingly available on FM as well as short wave, there is
a dedicated and growing audience. Concerned about the future, this American
listener writes: "It is the best news organisation in the world. I pray that the
BBC World Service will always remain where and what it is".
Over the years, the main topic that has made the headlines has been funding -
indeed, the Burmese service itself was nearly a victim of financial cutbacks in
the early 1980s, but was reprieved. Today funding is still a central issue. This
year's cuts have only affected the money the World Service is allocated for
capital investment. Next year, further reductions are planned by the [British]
Government, not just in the capital budget but also, more worryingly, in the
budget for broadcasting operations. We face a prospective shortfall of L5
million. The closure of some language services will be the only solution if the
planning figures are not changed. 
Today's concern, however, is not just about funding. It also centres on the very
structure of the World Service and how it fits into the BBC as a whole as the
corporation prepares itself for the digital age. Should the World Service be
exempt from the restructuring of the BBC - should it stand alone and beat its
own path into the 21st century?
And should our listeners, whether in Burma or the United States or here in
Britain, be so concerned? That they are concerned, and have made their views
known so vigorously, is a measure of the esteem in which the service is held.
Much has been written, and quite rightly, about the need to preserve the ethos
of the World Service: in particular, the need to protect the relationship within
Bush House [WS headquarters] between the newsroom and their colleagues in more
than 40 language services - like a "United Nations that actually works", as one
distinguished former colleague described it.
When the restructuring was announced last month, the answer was not immediately
clear. Much detail had to be worked out to establish arrangements that would
work effectively for our listeners. More work has to be done, but some of the
most important aspects have already been agreed and I believe they can work.
The World Service will remain a specific entity in its own right, responsible
for the key relationship with the Foreign Office, and will have full managerial
and editorial control of all programme commissioning. News and daily programmes
will be commissioned by the current editor from a team that will remain a
distinct unit dedicated to World Service output. It will be involved in key
editorial appointments, and in staff training and development. Similar
arrangements for non-daily news programmes and the rest of our English
programmes are being worked out. But as with news, the arrangements will have to
guarantee the distinctive nature of our programming and the supply of
information to non-English services, whose programmes will continue to be
produced as well as commissioned by the World Service.
Over the long term, I believe the changes could help us to improve the programme
quality and reduce costs. So long as [British] governments sustain their
commitment  to the World Service, listeners can be quite sure that their eyes
will remain open.
END