So........The BBC have shut 606, then several weeks later, produce a new service called Sportsday, a rolling live newsfeed of overpaid Journo Blogs.
Forgive me for sounding cynical, but isn't a live newsfeed of carp a bit of a waste of money, compared to objective debate from the people who actually fund the BBC (i.e US!)?? Theres nothing there that is particularly new, even the stories on there are just rehashed guff about David Haye and Wimbledon. And I bet that it probably cost as much to set up as it would have cost to continue 606.
Another reason why I am moving towards using SSN's website as opposed to BBC Sport.
BBC Sportsday
posted on 4/7/11
Just seems like the BBC don't like the general public being able to discuss anything anymore, perhaps due to the fact that if anyone WAS to be able to discuss anything, it would be how bad the BBC has become!!
posted on 4/7/11
I still use the BBC site for the gossip column, Im a sucker for it. When theres no football I needs to get my fix somewhere.
---------------------------------------
Snap
Sadly i still find myself logging on at midnight to see if they have updated the gossip column
posted on 4/7/11
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/7/11
The BBC still managed to pay Tim Henman £14k a day to "commentate" on the tennis
Could of got me to do it for free
posted on 4/7/11
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/7/11
Come on now. I bet you don't have 1/10th of the charisma Henman has though.
'Come on Tim'- Err no, f*&k off Tim
-------------------------------
Well Tim commentating was the only way he could get himself on court for a Wimbledon Final
posted on 4/7/11
So they can't afford hosting a site where we the consumers made the product for them, for free. An excellent product to, with thousands of consumers. But can afford running live feeds and paying 'professional' BBC commentators?
'All about cost. Running 606 would have been more expensive than paying the 'journo's' contributing to the live newsfeed.'
This argument is far from convincing because if cutting costs was genuinely a serious priority they would be running neither. Who uses live feeds to 'watch' sport anyway? What a pathetic product, in the age of mass media and 24 hour news. Not to mention live streams and Sky Sports. Ask the consumers which they prefer, 606 or reading live feeds.
I'm sorry to say its now clear to me the BBC shut down 606 because it was the only way they could save some money without redundancies, moderators aside. In other words, protecting their people is more important than giving us what we want - the very fundamental problem with state monopolies and the BBC.
posted on 4/7/11
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/7/11
The BBC moved up north because they had this illusion that it would make them more acceptable to the whole country, and not be seen as a "London" station.
This has backfired on them, because presenters do not want to move to Manchester, the celebrities who are London based will not want to travel to Manchester for an interview early mornings....................so what will they do? Well, they will retain studio facilities in London so they can do satellite feeds.......................................the cost of the move in terms of new buildings, staff redundancy payments, travel & hotel costs has been astronomical...................all in all it has been an unmitigated disaster, whoever made the decision is clearly an imbecile.
posted on 4/7/11
Thuddasaurus