´óÏó´«Ã½

I am in agreement with the contributor from LA in that we seem to be bobarded with news-repeats every 15 mins or so; surely this is unecessary - 30 min updates are ok and fuller headlines on the hour are great but the 15min repeats - no! As for content about the Uk why not suggest to Richard that he retunes to ´óÏó´«Ã½Rad4 or ´óÏó´«Ã½Rad 5live about 2am GMT; while the Americana tells us loads about the US we miss out on usually, the same can be said for ex-pats living in the US if they do not know about the coverage given to UK issues generally; of course he'll have to be patient while the Uk Elections are on as we have to be when the US Presidential campaigns fill our air time. AS I say Patience Richard.... it's always handy to have some in to spare. Stu Nottm

"Whose broadcasting corporation is it anyway?
When it comes to the World Service isn't the answer the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Leastwise the FCO provides and substantial part of the funds for the WS, they certainly did and I believe they still do. Okay, I'm not saying they have a controlling say in the WS, I don't believe they dictate or try to influence WS policy but the origins of the WS lie with the british government wanting to spread british culture and influence to the rest of the world so it would be churlish not thing this has not had some effect on the WS, far more than with the ´óÏó´«Ã½ donestic services.
As to the lack of UK news who needs it? That is there is some, we don't need more. One of the refreshing things about the WS is getting more international news and perspectives from other countries. When in the UK I find it frustrating how parochial the news is. it's primarily british with some american and a bit of european news thrown in and occasionally the rest of the world. News from outside the UK to often seems to be based on how far it impinges or has some effect on the country.
I dislike the term ex-pat. I am proud to come from Yorkshire but describe myself ethnically as (north) european from the yorkshire region. Anyone wanting british news there are plenty of possibilities. Richard Ahearn is in Carlifornia so I presume is listening via webcasts, listen again and podcasts though maybe some local station relays some WS broadcasts. Radio 4 is available as a webcast, there's listen again and podcasts all with lots of british news. You don't have just listen via a computer either. Get a Wi-Fi radio. Okay, ideally I'd like a portable wi-fi radio and that they are not, well not yet but you can wake up listening to ´óÏó´«Ã½ domestic radio. The Today programme gives me an abundance of british news. And what about the ´óÏó´«Ã½ News websites, website of british papers? Plenty of british news there.
guy

My original comment (4/28/10) was censored so it gave the impression I cannot get news from Britain. That was not my intention. It was a complaint about the flavour of the Service: too much foreign content and not enough British. However, what started as lugubrious sarcasm turned to rage at Anne Koch's reply to Noel Holburn's and my comments. She confirmed my worst fears. If you think I'm being harsh, just listen to her reply carefuly. However, here is a transcript of her most offending statements:-

Koch:
Moreover, most of our listeners, of course, are not British ex-pats: as much as we welcome them and hope they are listening to us. Our two biggest audiences, for example, are in Nigeria and in the United States.

You have to think, ninety minutes about domestic UK policy - do people in places like Nigeria; Ghana; the Far East and United States - do they want to hear ninety minutes of this?

I have a feeling that when this interview goes out on the programme, a number of people will get in touch to complain that there is too much British news.

In terms of audiences, we had very strong feedback from our re-broadcasters that they did not want us to broadcast the full debate. Not because they are not interested, per se - although perhaps they aren't - I don't know that: but it also disrupts a lot of other programming. Of course, when they are ninety minutes long each, and so it really causes havoc with the schedule.

Datar:
Because it was an historical moment: a leading politician called it "game-changing when it came to British Politics" - the first time that the three main leaders in Britain were head-to-head - surely that was worth a live broadcast?

Koch:
You have to think: ninety minutes about domestic UK policy: do people in places like Nigeria; Ghana; the Far East and the United States- do they want ninety minutes of this?

I emailed the following but, of course, it was not used. If it had, maybe they would have felt better if I had read it Alf Garnett-style. There is nothing more patriotic than someone who has got the heck out of his auld country.

"I accept that the World Service cannot cater just for the ex-pat minority. Nevertheless, it is the voice of Britain and if there is a conflict between domestic news of great importance and routine world events, the former should take precedence even if the world yawns. But here we had an event which was an unique landmark in our political history: the Party Leaders' Debate.

But was it broadcast in full? No. Why? Because Anne Koch's re-broadcasters (read the buyers) thought it would bore the Americans and the Nigerians. This was not an editorial decision: it was a commercial one. Britain gets sold out yet again.

It may also be interpreted as unconstitutional. It is going to be a close election. Polls indicate that the national broadcast has produced considerable gain in the polls for one party. Had it gone out overseas in full, that party would have also benefited from the overseas postal vote.

Her decision was a studied insult to our country and a prostitution of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Charter which would make Reith turn in his grave. Had she been British rather than Southern Irish, her instinct would be to trumpet Britain and, if the foreign audience didn’t like it, they could return to their own stations. If they find Britain so boring, why are they listening anyway?

The Service was not created to give employment to smug jobs-worth globalists who want to prove what superior broadcasters they are to inferior outlets and to whom Patriotism is a dirty word. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ World Service is paid to be nationalistic: the Voice of Britain: warts and all. And those at the top should have British fire in their bellies.

It was also the worst of decisions at this time. Politicians are notably touchy about ´óÏó´«Ã½ sound-bytes. Sound-byting future Prime Ministers during their mating ritual is as dangerous as muzzling pit-bulls during a fight. One of the parties represented in that discussion is talking openly of canceling the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Charter. If it wins and asks why didn't the ´óÏó´«Ã½ cover them in full, all the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s pleadings of Britishness, independence and journalistic integrity will be damned by her words. She would be most wise to broadcast it in full before the election. It doesn't matter if it falls on deaf ears overseas: as long as the more predatory Ministers-in-waiting hear it."
I have also written a lampoon of that edition but it is horribly politically incorrect. Being an ex-political cartoonist, I haven't a PC bone in my body and love to annoy the *** out the PC set. I would love to send that to the producers. :-)