Whilst I'm not in any way arguing in favour of destroying culturally significant works, you've completely mischaracterised the answer you linked to. > "Who wou

Whilst I'm not in any way arguing in favour of destroying culturally significant works, you've completely mischaracterised the answer you linked to. > "Who would want to watch a program twice?" This isn't even remotely what was said. The answer makes it clear that it wasn't feasible to air some programs again, due to the fees that must be paid to actors etc., and as such: > So, if a programme could not be aired again, what was the point in keeping it? Which is a reasonable line of thinking for the British _Broadcasting_ Corporation. > "Wow, isn't storage _expensive_?!" Yes, it was. But the answer makes clear that it wasn't just an issue of storage costs; the _tape_ was extremely expensive, and could be reused. So it was. > When I worked in the tape library in the late ’60s a one hour reel of tape cost the equivalent of six weeks of my pay. Storage was expensive too. One final point I would make is that the BBC is publicly funded. It doesn't have unlimited funds, and its primary function is to create content. As the answer clearly states: > Some samples of programmes were kept as being of interest, but the BBC saw itself as a maker of programmes not a museum.