Budget blowout heaps pressure on BBC news

The BBC has exceeded its foreign news budget by nearly £1m and is considering closing some of its foreign bureaux to make ends meet.

The corporation has already axed the half-hour BBC News channel programme Your News to help save cash and faced the prospect of not sending staff to cover the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo because of financial constraints.

Head of BBC newsroom Peter Horrocks sanctioned an extra £20,000 to send a BBC reporter to cover the conflict - but is having to make savings from other parts of the news budget.

One source said: "We're now looking at how we can get money from other areas. There is a real possibility that we may close some foreign bureaux." 

The BBC has not yet decided which bureau could be the first to close.

"It's an ongoing concern for us. There is an expectation that we have top coverage - that's one of the things that defines the BBC for a lot of people. We don't want to let people down," the source added.

According to insiders, the far-reaching budget cuts introduced last year by director general Mark Thompson under the Fewer, Bigger, Better strategy have been exacerbated in the foreign news department by a spate of major stories overseas, such as the Beijing Olympics and the US election. The budget has also been stretched by the weakening pound.

The BBC spokesman confirmed there had been an overspend, but said it was less than £1m. He added that BBC news would not close foreign bureaux as a "short-term cost saving".

"Everyone recognises that this year has been a significant one for foreign news, but as ever BBC news will live within its means," the spokesman said.

"The budget for the BBC News channel is separate [from the foreign news budget] and Your News on the BBC News channel has now run its course. After two years we have decided we can find a better way of spending the budget for this programme, a budget which will stay within the News Channel."


Please note: In order to post a response you need to be registered on the site. You can register here.

Reader Response

I am sure that the BBC could have cut its budget on reporting the momentous US election. There did not seem to be a week went by in the last year when one or more of its correspondents were attending or anchoring their show from an event at the US election. For example, do we really need to have Bill Turnbull live this morning at a diner in the middle of the night in New York to understand the impact of Barack Obama's election?
Money spent in covering the hell in the Congo would definitely be more illuminating for us all.

Isn't it incredible how we keep hearing that the BBC is having to axe things which are firmly INSIDE its remit, but the meanderings into off-remit areas - many in direct competition to existing commercial services - are somehow safe from cuts???

The BBC is largely immune from the dire pressures on private sector businesses, which have to constantly re-jig their plans to cope with economic realities.

Is it too much to ask that they properly identify and fund their CORE activities, and accept that the luxury of being able to play around in worldwide multimedia markets is a luxury they just might not be able to fund?

Even those of us who are supporters and admirers of the BBC are finding it increasingly difficult to defend some of the "Alice in Wonderland" ventures which have nothing at all to do with being a publicly funded national broadcaster.

Sacrifice instead some of the wilder activities like the iPlayer - which will be adequately delivered by the private sector...when economic and market conditions permit!

A £million shortfall in the budget.
Hmmmm, a problem staring a solution in the face.
If the BBC continue Jonathan Ross's suspension for a further three months would that not cover it. "Change we need!"