|
Post by charmbrights on Aug 6, 2015 11:50:35 GMT
I do wonder why the BBC web sites have such extensive and frequently updated 24/7 (and therefore expensive) web pages giving a weather forecast. The forecasts are based on information from the Meteorological Office which also has a very good web site at the taxpayer's expense. Why can the BBC web site not save a fortune by simply referring people to the Met Office web site?
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 6, 2015 16:30:01 GMT
James Delingpole actually answers your question yesterday at Breitbart with this statement: Both, after all, are bloated, publicly-funded institutions with both an ideological commitment to and a vested interest in promulgating the great global warming scare.
Worth reading the whole article as I copied below.
|
|
|
Post by charmbrights on Aug 8, 2015 9:56:42 GMT
I agree with most of Delingpole's article, but my question is why the BBC feel the need to duplicate the Met Office web site at enormous expense when the MO is where they get their forecasts?
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 8, 2015 13:26:54 GMT
I would presume their justification would be that they are providing the forecasts to everybody in the country regardless of whether they have the means to access reports from the Met Office via the internet. I believe every major media outlet tends to provide weather forecasts for this reason.
|
|
|
Post by charmbrights on Aug 9, 2015 8:11:20 GMT
I would presume their justification would be that they are providing the forecasts to everybody in the country regardless of whether they have the means to access reports from the Met Office via the internet. I believe every major media outlet tends to provide weather forecasts for this reason. Yes, but the BBC must spend a fortune on their web site when a simple link to the Met Office on one page would serve the same people.
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 9, 2015 18:30:04 GMT
I know they BBC also do a Weather app for iPhone that uses the Met Office for the predictions. Since the Met Office produce one as well. which is lot more informative than that of the BBC, I don't know why the BBC feel they need to, unless it's to try and ensure that the public will 'cherish' them for their usefulness.
|
|