Time to unfollow them, I guess.

  • axus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Geez, I feel slightly to blame for checking bbc.com a couple times a day and rejecting the cookies

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    A bizarre decision.

    Every paywalled news site is a news site I don’t read.

    I mean, nobody likes adverts, but I think even fewer people like paying.

  • whatevercomeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    The UK obviously is no longer a superpower. But the BBC is the cornerstone of the UKs modern global soft power projection. Broadcasting it free projects the UK government’s voice around the world directly into homes, influencing world policy to their liking.

    Putting a paywall in the US sends a message that they feel it is not needed or not effective in the US market.

    It also mirrors what paid sport broadcasting in the UK has done. Paywall it for short term gain, at the expense of long term viewership growth. The UK is struggling.

    • Raltoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Paywall it for short term gain, at the expense of long term viewership growth.

      Making a company worse for increased short term revenue, at the cost of customer retention, product quality, etc. causing increased turnover which further compounds all the other steps. Is a common issue among all modern companies.

      In short, there was a shift in MBA education a while back that includes a bunch of lies-by-omission and misrepresented data. Meaning that the only thing on their mind when they graduate, is to please investors at any all costs, including company longevity.

  • otp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    As a Canadian, I’d be upset if we got paywalled. The BBC is where I go to for trusted news on international concerns.

    Understandable, but I’d still be upset.

    • Sturgist@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Could just VPN into the UK. Proton offers a free, no login required, VPN tier with several end points in the UK

  • Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    Makes sense, we pay our licence fee for our public service, why should people abroad get for free what we have to pay for?

    I was happy with the current arrangement of adverts supporting the service use abroad, but if it has to migrate to a subscription model to meet modern demands then that’s the way it is.

    I wouldn’t go to another country and ask them to make one of their government’s national public services free for me to use, after all.

    • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Nah mate. Information is free the second it leaves its source. Any attempt to curtail it after then is just a cunts trick.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        I imagine you wouldn’t be saying this if it was your work being used.

        If you went through the painstaking effort or writing a book or something, I imagine you’d be pretty unhappy if nobody wanted to reimburse you, and you were called a cunt for wanting to be paid for your labour.

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            24 hours ago

            That’s exactly my point.

            Presumably you’re paid for the work you do, and you shouldn’t have to do it for free, yes?

    • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      The world service was always free because it’s a propaganda platform that promotes Britain and British values abroad. I guess they are content just to push Reform propaganda to a domestic audience from now on.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    Given that I’m stateside, this makes me sad. But given that they are funded by UK taxpayers, this is probably the right move.

    Of course, that’s just one less outlet for USA citizens to get accurate journalism (better than here, anyway) about what’s happening in our country. Hope Al Jazeera doesn’t follow suit.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Although, you could also argue that those taxes pay for informing and influencing citizens of foreign nations.

      America’s media ecosystem is dominated by Fox, Sinclair, and other state party media players. There is a strategic benefit to having a media outlet that doesn’t run through the state media filter.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        This is a very important point. There is a reason there is a “cultural victory” in the Civilization games and the UK is definitely ceding cultural influence with this move.

  • Alex@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    Seems fair enough, these things cost money and the #BBC is in a race to diversify it’s income in preparation for the license fee going away. The dynamic description sounds like they want to preserve the casual visitors experience of an open site.

    I get ads on my BBC podcasts when I’m abroad. I assume that’s all part of it.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    I know there’s rights issues and all but if they made a real BBC streaming service with their back catalog and every David Attenborough special in 4K, it’d be one thing but Americans are inundated with news and streaming services. I pay for my local newspaper’s digital site — mostly because if I don’t, who will? But even The NY Times has to have recipes and word games to keep people subscribed. Why would anyone pay more than a dollar a month or something for BBC News?

    The U.S. seems like an odd place to trial this. It’s the most competitive media market in the world and we’re all already sick of being asked to pay for 40 different services. In conclusion:🏴‍☠️

    • KumaSudosa@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s insane how much music, art, theatre, television etc still comes out of the UK, and how little they’ve capitalised on it - letting the Americans take all the initiative.

  • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    They’re not that great anyway. They’re barely holding on to my personal list of reliable sources. If I really need something, there are other places to go. Good luck BBC.

      • KumaSudosa@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        I usually use Deutsche Welle actually. Generally happy with it! Also available in English, of course

      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        The Guardian isn’t horrible, but not perfect. Reuters, if you squint, is pretty good 3/4 of the time. Propublica is great for investigative journalism. All of them have horrible headline writers at least half the time. Politico isn’t worth checking, but every month or so, you might miss something. It’s a mixed bag basically, so you have to check out a few.

        I try to post the “real” stuff (not what trump says, but what he and the republicans are doing) on politics at sh.itjust.works on weekdays. It’s US based and I’m anti-right.

  • alexc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    And just at a time when the US really needs a decent news service…

    I am sure this was discussed at the Starmer - Trump talks as a way to further isolate Americans from the truth.

    I guess it’s just Al-Jazeera now…

      • alexc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        I am guessing you’ve never watched (say) Fox News in the US?

        I’m not saying the BBC is good per se. I’m saying it’s slightly more objective than the rest.

    • tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Exactly this. Isn’t the point of the BBC world service to communicate/propagandise the British view of what’s happening in the world to other countries? Imagine Russia Today adding a paywall? It’s counter to the entire point! I think you may be on to something about this being a concession to Trump.

      • alexc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        Actually, the World Service will remain accessible, but that’s also not where most people go these days.

    • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Well to be fair, a perpetual license for media/news wouldn’t make sense

  • NotSteve_@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    BBC announced it’s introducing a paywall for consumers in the U.S

    It seems like it’s only for the US? If that’s true can you update the title OP