BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Printable Version

+- Pres Café (https://pres.cafe)
+-- Forum: Pres Café TV and Radio Forums (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: News and Sport Presentation (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger (/showthread.php?tid=103)

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - chrisherald - 01-03-2023

(28-02-2023, 11:26 PM)Jimbo2022 Wrote:  Well said. I actually like BBC world. It will be a shame to see it go as such, but it is that that is in reality carrying on. It's the UK who have lost their unique version and it has eroded away over the last few years, more so since last Christmas

It is sad but it seems the BBC can now only afford one news channel. That may seem harsh for some, but to be fair, if you watched news 24 in its get day and bbc1 domestic news bulletins - yes we have some international news - but that is the operative word - SOME.

In my opinion we do not get enough international news on domestic outlets. There is too much UK focussed news on the main bulletins anyway.

Given BBC worldwide as it was once called makes money from international audience and is more beneficial than domestic broadcasts as this is funded by licence fee. So it makes sense to keep BBC world as such to cater for the highest possible viewership.

When BBC world us separated from our domestic version sometimes you get stories on World that never appear on UK domestic news bulletins. As a result you actually know what is going on further afield than in your own back yard.

You could not close BBC World and give international audiences a UK centric news channel so it has to be the other way round. Sad though it may seem that is the reality it would seem. At least the BBC is still providing news. If they had more money yes they could probably carry two separate broadcasts but that is seemingly not possible at the moment.

Let's hope they can bring it all back to normal when resources permit. When that is is unfortunately anyone's guess.

Well that's the bigger knock-on trouble, World is changing, it's not "in reality carrying on". There is a license/regulatory obligation for the BBC to cover, to a regulated extent, domestic issues. That means world output will not exist unscathed, it must pick up the slack (to the extent of the layoffs and failure to provision adequate resources, staffing, and production tooling for the "stand-by domestic opt-out stream team"), altering World's output will occur to deal with this, and this has some potential to impact the commercial viability of the global output, brand/program sales, audience retention/growth abroad. Nothing happens in isolation, changes in the broadcaster, changes in the wider society, it all factors in to what type of institution the BBC is/becomes, what role it plays for audiences.

Further speaking to this change, when one component of the BBC is diminished, the entire thing is less capable because of it. I don't care if license fee payers don't care what's happening in Somalia, if the BBC has radio there or tells stories there, folks in Kent (or wherever) are all the better for it. Institutional, journalistic, and technical capacity are shared resources across the BBC, along with the overall "pulling power" of the organization to drive awareness and change. You get better stories on the news at one because of the capacities continually developed by a BBC that also serves audiences in Asia. That's what makes public service broadcasting so critical and difficult to evolve in this "new" digital age; this ain't Netflix, it's the NHS. It's a public social service, and it must be funded for the betterment of all, least we all suffer from a lesser product, as any output dropped is capacity, growth, and creative/production/story-telling opportunities (and jobs and economic and political impact) squandered. This is not just another broadcaster, after all.

Now, that said. I do hope a proper editorial balance can be struck between domestic and foreign issues. I think it's entirely possible on most days. This really is more about deeper issues of resources across the BBC and how things will evolve. Never mind the cost cutting goals, if the standby team has the right resources, domestic audiences don't have to suffer so much; but it's not looking that way. It really seems as though the news side of things is a drop in the ocean from a funding standpoint, and this is more about killing off something that many have wanted dead for a while. Which is not to say, changes aren't warranted; BBC news has needed an evolution for a little while now, this just ain't it. Budget priorities across the BBC are difficult, and remain so. Perhaps this disaster can still be a stepping stone to something better, but nothing in the current footwork makes it look good.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Worzel - 01-03-2023

(27-02-2023, 07:32 PM)ALV Wrote:  

(27-02-2023, 07:27 PM)Worzel Wrote:  They did send an email out to distributors asking them to update the name, logos etc on 3 February.

This was when the 3 April re-launch date was mentioned alongside the 'new presentational elements' line.

The email also included the new (basic)  brand guidelines for the channel.

If at all possible can you reveal (or describe) a bit on the new logo they've sent out to distributors? Is it still the red boxed BBC News logo or it's something more Chameleon styled like this?

Yes similar to the above. Also, Monolith screen in studio B. Clue!

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Radio_man - 01-03-2023

(28-02-2023, 09:56 PM)chrisherald Wrote:  Re: the loss of BBC World (and the stages of grief/accepting the reality), that, a tragedy itself...............................

And all of this has been the choice of the Conservative UK Governments since 2010.

It's not just the real terms cuts to the license fee since 2010, but also forcing the BBC to take on the cost of providing free TV licenses for over 75s from a diminished license fee, and forcing the BBC to take on the cost of running the World Service out of the diminished license fee, by ending it's foreign office budget allocation. 
All of this taken together, you can see why there's no money left, and why the commercial news channel has taken over the license fee funded channel. As well as BBC News being hollowed out, Local radio is also being decimated, TV drama series are not as long as they once were. I'm sure there's lots I've left out.

Many would say all this sustained attack on the BBC over the last 13 years has been deliberate.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - chrisherald - 01-03-2023

Yes, as you say, it's a long-term pattern of hostile under-investment. Cuts to local radio and cuts to various worldwide radio outlets are among the most devastating changes.

If the value of the BBC as a PSB (not just for the benefit of the UK, mind you) was well understood by those with authority to impact trajectory (and then, assuming no hostilities), these vital components of journalistic integrity (and tools for fighting a global democratic deficit) would not be sacrificed for the sake of other entertainment-focused outlets (in their full form).

I'd rather the BBC become like America's PBS (less appealing as a national PSB and as an entertainment outlet) than lose it's capacity as a global voice, a capacity built over decades. I'd rather keep Four and a single news feed with some opts but with proper teams, domestic and foreign, than the whole of BBC One and Two; buy some sports rights with the money, yes, okay, get some cheaper presenters, maybe 70 of them, and put most things on streaming and Red Button. A joke, of sorts, all this, but there's no shortage of ways to re-arrange the puzzle, but destroying capacity is the painful issue at heart. Trying to sell this as a pivot to digital is rather sinister in my view. Platforms and distribution evolve, storytelling media tooling and formats evolve, but these are changes to what we put to air, not innocently how. It's very sad.

This is among the first time I've taken to expressing this in writing, so I'm sorry to have possibly burdened the forum here with the verbosity of my grieving process. I know much of my view on this will already have been expressed here and understood by others. It does take some getting used to, when a great cultural institution is (further) relegated to the dustbin and most of us are powerless to impact the decline.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - chrisherald - 01-03-2023

And I have to say, on the topic of appreciating the loss of World as was mentioned a few posts back (rather than just me ranting on about the domestic loses as a component of institutional capacity destruction), I will miss the Global brand on World. Amroiwala (though not gone) is a wonderful presenter from a broadcast nerd's standpoint, his persona, his presence, it strikes right down the line between the professional capacity one expects in the role of newsreader/presenter/journalist, with still a quiet and cheeky undercurrent understanding of the mechanism/aura of TV news. His tie. He knows this is the BBC, and in it's own right, "it's a thing." Clive and Huw know that too, but in a different role, you wear the hat differently. Matthew fits in the role perfectly; some are more animated, some more nuanced, but in a strict way, there is much to be appreciated in Amroiwala's on-screen presence. For Global, I also find the studio teal/aqua (whatever it is) accent colors to be pleasing, and the golden human-element-centric animated World globe to be the best variant of the globe intro. And further, yeah, I like the music on Global best. Wish I could find a clean long version of it.

Speaking of on-screen presence, Tim Davie spoke in one of the hearings about the value (pricetag) of the connection a presenter makes with their audience, I'd say Mike Embley was the best that BBC World ever had at welcoming audiences to the programme, in the overnight window. This has been a process of decline.

So I do appreciate what is changing and what is lost with World, in a strictly on-screen/presentation elements sense. What if the new combined channel had a (combined) continuity announcer instead of just opts (lol). It's sad.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - chrisherald - 01-03-2023

(01-03-2023, 01:30 AM)Independent Wrote:  

(01-03-2023, 12:56 AM)chrisherald Wrote:  I'd rather the BBC become like America's PBS ...

PBS buys a lot of BBC content that's not news. A smaller BBC just means less money flowing to the UK.

Oh yes, I know. That's something I seek to express with my repeated mention of "institutional capacity destruction". The BBC fuels (or has the chance to) the UK creative industry through direct employment and outsourced production, and in a more general industry atmospheric sense, and, yes, sales much abroad, to PBS, the Australian ABC, etc. It's all at continued risk of decline.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Independent - 01-03-2023

(28-02-2023, 08:44 PM)ginnyfan Wrote:  Anyway, nice to have Tanya Beckett presenting Global this week. Somehow I thought she left BBC, she's been off screen for a couple of years, but made a welcome return few months ago. Is this her final week as well? So many questions....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqZeqtDD2E8 

I've seen Tanya present on weekends over the last year from time to time.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - chrisherald - 01-03-2023

(01-03-2023, 01:56 AM)Stockland Hillman Wrote:  

(01-03-2023, 12:37 AM)Radio_man Wrote:  And all of this has been the choice of the Conservative UK Governments since 2010.

It's not just the real terms cuts to the license fee since 2010, but also forcing the BBC to take on the cost of providing free TV licenses for over 75s from a diminished license fee, and forcing the BBC to take on the cost of running the World Service out of the diminished license fee, by ending it's foreign office budget allocation. 
All of this taken together, you can see why there's no money left, and why the commercial news channel has taken over the license fee funded channel. As well as BBC News being hollowed out, Local radio is also being decimated, TV drama series are not as long as they once were. I'm sure there's lots I've left out.

Many would say all this sustained attack on the BBC over the last 13 years has been deliberate.

All the above points have an effect, and the current licence freeze in an high inflation economy is unwise. 

But it's £250m reduction on a £5billion pound revenue pot.

The BBC made a choice to target core services with double the required savings to put £185m or so extra into online services that are less distinctive with no clear consumer desire.

The BBC could also choose take £8m a piece off R1/2/3 £40m a year budgets and around £2 million of Wales/ Cymru and more from Scotland;  So £500k  for Zoe Ball not £800+k, Maybe do away with £400k 2 hour show Scott Mills and his 4 production staff etc etc

Million pound Gary Lineker? Luxury can do without. 

They could end duel TX of TV in SD/HD and FM/DAB and  save £150-210 Million; giving option to move to CAM based access management of TV via DTT and payTV partners,  plus login iplayer costing £50m a year to run (after some DTT box subsidy and setup costs) saving £80m a year on TV licence collection 

All choices they could make. They don't.

Instead they feed misleading narratives about government cuts. If you lost £500 a month  salary but rented a Ferrari at £750 a month , you wouldn't stop eating or paying for a roof over your head to keep the ferrari.  Choices 

The BBC is great,  but it's managing to focus on what some staff want to provide rather than what the audience wants. Hiding behind buzz words and strategies that are a decade out of date but sound plausible.

The BBC has been able to target News Channel, Local Radio and regional News in part becouse they've shifted the blame, successfully using anti tory [majority these days] sentiment.  Every naive repetition of their misdirection has played a part in enabling its cuts.

Cuts are essential. But as a public service, it should fall on the government to foster a BBC fit for the well being of all (with impacts home and abroad; less this island be even less globally relevant), not undercut it and everything else within sight. It's difficult to freeze the license fee, I'd say amid the cost of living/voting-**** crisis, I'd rather the gov foot the bill to keep things right while consumers weather this economic storm for some years to come.

I'd be wary of ending dual TX SD/HD too soon, but yes, eventually. I believe everyone at the BBC should be there for the right reasons, top talent included, so some cuts, as you say, 500k not 800k, may be fitting. I don't care, but yes, they could ditch Gary. The BBC's biggest moments are global moments (weddings/funerals/etc), I'd avoid conditional access so absolutely everyone in the UK (license fee or not) can tune in to those moments that unite these nations and isles. It's important every member of the public at least once has a chance to feel the value in what we all share in this, our BBC.

The Australian ABC has a tagline, "[ABC Logo] Yours" in cursive. This is a shared resource for us all.

The BBC can only provide what gov funding and regulation permits to reasonably occur. Yes,questionable management influence might ultimately be sabotage. I promise you, everyday staff want to provide the best BBC that is possible, and free of outright bias. It's difficult in a climate of political absurdity, we can see the challenges of that in the on-air output and discussions that small journalistic hiccups often prompt.

I do worry about the cost of moving more things to digital, given the bandwidth costs of CDN providers and current internet infrastructure. It's not free to run iPlayer. But yes, some transmission should go off-air.

When looking at the small cost of the news channel amid the entire bucket, it does seem like some re-jigging of things could have been done, but again, now we have to see what emerges for this current chapter of decline.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Moz - 01-03-2023

The thing is, it’s not a world news channel and never will be.

It’s very much NATO zone focussed with little from the rest of the world (from what I’ve seen). Despite being anchored from Singapore for overnight hours they cover very few Asian stories compared to Europe/US, and Africa and South America hardly feature.

If there was a train crash in Peru that killed 30 people I doubt it’d get the same coverage as the one in Greece.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - chrisherald - 01-03-2023

(01-03-2023, 08:35 AM)Moz Wrote:  The thing is, it’s not a world news channel and never will be.

It’s very much NATO zone focussed with little from the rest of the world (from what I’ve seen). Despite being anchored from Singapore for overnight hours they cover very few Asian stories compared to Europe/US, and Africa and South America hardly feature.

If there was a train crash in Peru that killed 30 people I doubt it’d get the same coverage as the one in Greece.

You're right, it's not meeting the moment adequately. Ideally it would at least meet the needs of the commonwealth.

I care foremost of the BBC as a standards marker for balanced output (if not always broad output; balanced for the stories they do tell, though granted, which stores get told does matter) against a globally complex media environment.

But yes, this is where other outlets do come in handy, Al Jazeera, CNA, etc.

I do wish the Singapore hours would be revamped into something more worthwhile, and the Washington output isn't delivering anything that breaks through the noise floor either; I do want fresh formats and presentation! Too much actually rests on the "BBC" pillar, be bold (but honest)!

I don't think the recent and continued investments in Washington will pay off (it's just, yes probably, a UK staff overtime/overnight dodge), as it's not an investment towards actual journalistic/format leeway to tell deep stories in an expansive manner, or even utilize US airtime in a unique way.

Strands probably do need to go and the BBC probably should reconsider how it tells stories for a new age. It's getting to be, as issues globally become more intractable, a "news channel" maybe doesn't make sense in the old format (except when breaking news occurs!), but with the current trend of under-investment and outright resource starvation, how could anything good emerge. More of the Ross Atkins way may be needed, but many global audiences have short attention spans, so the visuals need to be richer, the stories (brought) "closer to home" in emotional impact, without losing truth or balance (how to depict the everyday world with "impartiality" when increasingly little of everyday reality is driven by any semblance of truth or balance, manipulation in everything). Telling stories to drive understanding and social impact isn't easy, and I'm not sure the news channel to date has actually been doing the most good. It's been fine for general awareness, but perhaps a new age demands more.

It may also be worth considering, how do you tell stories to a global audience when the lived experiences of people globally are so (always, but increasingly) varied by ever more struggle and tragedy? There is an editorial voice to the BBC, but who does that voice resonate with (worth asking that question, even in the UK domestic audience)? Can it reach beyond NATO countries? Stories get told by a voice, and the BBC does have work to do, and a real opportunity to evolve to actually reflect the full lives of everyone watching. Many people likely depend on the BBC's global services for base awareness are still not often represented in the depth of output.

Perhaps, to date, the BBC just can't tell stories from the global south, from Asia, even from America, in the same capacity as it speaks ordinarily to England (if the people in Scotland sometimes question if the BBC speaks to/for them, what must global audiences think, on occasion). Having a presence/bureau somewhere isn't the same as living it, or giving airtime to the voices of those who do live the story. It's challenging. I'm proud of what the BBC has been in past, and what it still could be, if the destruction was halted and new thought given to voice. It is time to meet the moment, which the BBC has a history of doing, but never in a world like this.

---