I've been thinking a lot lately about the BBC's website, bbc.co.uk, because it has one of the highest hit rates on the internet world wide. This makes sense; given the BBC is a respected news source. But it occurred to me that the BBC is respected for its broadcast media, rather than print media—there is no BBC newspaper. And rightfully so, as it is a publicly funded body.
Yet through its website, suddenly the BBC has become a source of written media. News, sports, politics—it’s all being consumed in written form. This change has been so subtle; it seems to have passed many people by unnoticed as it’s just another delivery channel for their beloved BBC. But this is a huge threat to online newspapers. These newspapers take the time to hire journalists known for their writing (or at least attempt to) and they subscribe to certain journalistic principles (well, I like to think so anyway). The BBC faces its fair share of criticism for its broadcast journalism, but I don’t know that its written journalism comes under as much scrutiny. There isn’t the same focus on the writers as there is with newspapers.
No one would ever think the BBC should be able to have a newspaper, why does no one have a problem with it having a website?
One solution would be for the BBC to move to video and audio content only. This would make sense and with connectivity improving globally, not an impossibility either.
But for now, there is no reason for the BBC to change its website, as no one seems to be challenging it.
