The BBC has a huge archive of shows and sports coverage that it should be making available for watching and download.
For example...
Every cricket season the BBC covered on television - test series, domestic matches and other matches - I'd subscribe and pay for downloads.
Same with the James Burke specials and Tomorrow's World.
Had a rough day at work? Don't bother looking on YouTube for a crappy VHS recording of Graham Gooch's 333 v India, log on to the BBC website and enjoy every ball.
Feeling down about AI Slop getting everywhere? Log on to the BBC website and enjoy a time where Raymond Baxter, William Woollard, Michael Rodd, Judith Hann and Maggie Philbin made us excited about science and the future.
This is stuff that may not have massive Doctor Who style commercial DVD release potential but would get traffic and money coming in.
I love the BBC county cricket commentaries. Local commentators who know their county clubs, know their areas, know the game and deliver true Reithian broadcasting that coverage of The Hundred could never attain.
There are savings to be made but there is material that can be reintroduced and exploited (in the business jargon).
I wonder what we will end up seeing from this exercise?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyv11lryv7ro
Interim Director General Rhodri Talfan Davies says ""We need to look at everything, and at a scale of £500m inevitably there are going to be some big and some difficult choices, but we do need to step through this carefully,"
BBC News and BBC Sport reporting has a problem. I've seen three examples of massive, basic failures in their written pieces. Things that should never happen because information is publicly and easily verifiable.
If BBC News and BBC Sport can't be trusted to get basic stuff right on things I know stuff about (Doctor Who, Black Sabbath and Surrey CCC for anyone interested in these particular cases), how can I trust their reporting on issues I don't know much about?
Answering clear, direct questions about the use of AI is avoided. As are questions about who proofread and checked the incorrect pieces I've identified.
I'm still awaiting a full reply to a complaint I raised over a basic error.
The BBC Board is another area where I have concerns. How could the Chair of the BBC Board not see that in the aftermath of the Gregg Wallace case, the Masterchef brand was irretrievably tarnished?
BBC Local Radio and local services used to be the very definition of Reithian broadcasting. 15 years ago if snow hit, it was my BBC Local Radio station I'd bring up to tell me what was affected.
I'm not sure BBC Local Radio has that same ability, focus and coverage. And the should leave what remains of that well alone.
If the BBC want to make big savings, look at the top earners. That's low hanging fruit that can make a huge difference.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c15wxgjn9xjo
This list doesn't include those paid through production companies.
Interim Director General earns between £305,000 - £309,999. Are they really worth that?
Look at the use of consultants and external agencies.
And do an in depth review of journalists' and commentators' output. How impartial are they? Do they shill and cheerlead for people and organisations they like? If they do then they should go.
It's a complex issue but there are things that can be done quickly.
Kriszta Satori
Mat
Llewelyn Pritchard
Jamie Dowling [Moon Joy Arc]