Septic Isle has a really good post over here, mentioning that:
cynics are suggesting that it’s chosen 6 Music and Asian Network specifically because it knows that they have such a dedicated following that the uproar at their disappearance will ensure the BBC Trust intervenes
which has helped me immensely in saving time I would otherwise have spent wondering what it was that smelt so fishy to me about the BBC’s decision. It simply can’t be a coincidence, can it? That the BBC, looking at rapidly sinking budgets and wondering what to jettison, decided to plump for two stations that have no direct equivalent in commercial radio, but that do possess passionate and vocal listeners, happy to use all the social media at their well-connected fingertips to reverse the decision. Were they concerned that if they picked BBC Three (annual cost: £115m) there wouldn’t be enough Snog, Marry, Avoid fans to mount a proper campaign?
I know that I will be accused of displaying far too much cynicism but, having seen public sector managers in action previously in my career, I know the way the game is played. Often it will be the well-loved but non-statutory services which are the first to go, rather than the inefficient or easy savings, as the mandarins hope that enough of a stink is caused to send the wannabe-cutters running for the hills, leaving budgets intact.
With our economy so much in the hole, we can’t afford to duck these issues anymore. We need to know our politicians and public servants are capable of keeping the things we need and trimming the wasteful or unneccessary. What should be most concerning about the BBC’s planned cuts is not the loss of 6 Music and the Asian Network, since if there really is this much demand for their service then a commercial provider would be mad not to set up something similar if they go, but what it portends for public services in a cuts-laden future.