The Fall and Fall of the BBC

Way back, we used to listen to the BBC on shortwave. It was almost constant news with a few history or science programs tossed in. The reporting style was often touted by our teachers, especially at the highest levels, as the model for answering exam questions.

<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Source</a>


In ancient days, the BBC would list the news events it was going to broadcast, then go through each of the events in depth, giving a lot of information. At the end of the broadcast there would be a listing of the events covered. In short;   ‘tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you told them’.

Many years later, the BBC began broadcasting on FM. This made it more available. Many of us would turn on the radio as we got up, and listen to the news from the BBC. We turned it off when we left for work, turned it on when we came in, and only turned it off if there was a television program we wanted to watch.

As the BBC was virtually all news all the time, if something happened in Trinidad or Tunisia, we heard about it as soon as the BBC did, because handing a news reader new news to read was no dislocation.

Then something changed.

I don’t know why or really care, all I can tell you is that the BBC is rubbish. It didn’t start that way, it has become that way.

<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Source</a>


News is squashed into six minutes at the hour and two minutes at the half hour, and most of the time is the most boring blah blah you can imagine. I can’t really go into much depth about the blah blah because I don’t listen to it

I can tell you they have a pseudo interview program called Hard Talk where one or the other egotists, fascinated by the sound of his/her own voice doesn’t let the VIP do much talking. I don’t know about you, but I couldn’t care less what some guy employed to the BBC thinks about anything.

There’s other programs, so called history or science which are so vague you can’t repeat them. There is no attempt to present the show in an educational fashion so that you can’t be sure when or where or who or what.

<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Source</a>


These blobs of blah blah are very important to the BBC so if they are interviewing someone who has seen or been or done, they’ll cut him or her off to present the blah blah.

If you really want to hear bad radio take a listen to the BBC, then you’ll turn back to your local station with joy.


What do you think?

Written by jaylar


Leave a Reply
  1. Looking over the comments it is clear there are those who have NEVER listened to the BBC World Service so have no idea what is being aired. Those who listened up to the 1990s when it was truly the ‘World’s Radio Station’ will be nauseated by the decline.

    The budget cuts mean that an announcer will read the news for six minutes. This will be recorded and a copy reduced to two minutes extracted. This recorded news will be run until some other news item occurs and need be included.

    Various ‘interview’ shows are recorded filling 22 minutes. These ‘interviews’ will be run three times a day for the first day, then again next month.

  2. But Wait…. so it is My Duty as a Citizen of Jamaica to search the Internet for other BBC Stations? No. It is not. It my ability to Turn off the BBC and listen to something else. If the BBC wants people to listen to it, which one assumes is the purpose of a Radio station…then it is its responsibility.

    • since I’m not a man… but the point is… unless you can listen to the BBC World Service as it is today with some knowledge of what it was then….

      I wouldn’t be surprised it the BBC cuts down or ceases broadcasting

      • I’m not sure what your gender has to do with it, Jaylar?
        The World Service is just one part of the BBC operation, albeit the only part you appear to have had any experience with. Judged by some in high places as among the least important branches, it has borne the brunt of budget cuts repeatedly. But you shouldn’t fall into the error of judging the entire operation on a relatively minor part of it 🙂

        • I live in Jamaica. It is all I know. It is all anyone outside of the UK knows. The budget cuts have been devastating. It shouldn’t be the least important, it ought be the most. For this was the venue where we get most of our solid news.

          Our stations in Jamaica focus on Jamaica and the Caribbean. But there’s a world out there. We don’t have reporters on the ground in Aleppo or Seoul, the BBC does.

          So when the value of the BBC drops it effects those of us who live outside of the UK

          • I don’t live in the UK either, but you can listen to all of the BBC radio stations on the internet. Saying “It is all I know” is a very feeble excuse. it’s easy to know more if you wish to.

  3. That is not how the BBC – both radio and TV – come across to most of us who live in the UK. There are many brilliant programmes that inform and entertain, and it would be hard to imagine anything better. However, I am aware that funding cuts have been made, and that the World Service has been forced to bear the brunt of these.

      • Personally I think it is a three fold problem:

        1. 20 years ago there was less competition so the drive to news was more easily supported. It was not like you had 300 choices then.
        2. People want more information in a shorter time period. News is often boring.
        3. People are overloaded with information.

        Just my thoughts…

        • Not really… the BBC was educational. It was dry hard news and information. There wasn’t the rubbish that there is now … if you turn it on and get some of the stupid blah blah… I turn it off.

          The blah blah isn’t really information. It’s kind of like killing time. It’s just empty noise.

Leave a Reply