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 - Radio_man - 01-03-2023

I guess the issue is how this kind of news will be handled between 6 March - 2 April, as reports have said that World and the NC will be running a fully joint service during this period with no option for the NC to opt-out of the joint output for something like this.

---

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

I’d be cautious in declaring that the BBC have worked everything out and will definitely be able to deal with breaking stories well, on the strength of this one occasion. For a start, they already had some warning that a press conference was imminent (so they could get Christian, who was already in the building obviously, to get set up and standing by for it in E; they then broke in only once it started).

My concern continues be how they will deal with breaking news that happens very suddenly and unexpectedly, but is only really relevant to the UK audience.

Will it get a quick mention immediately on the World feed, so they can cover it quickly, and then the UK break away for continuing coverage? Will they be able to get a proper studio (even if only A) up and running for analysis and presentation at short notice?
Will there be the flexibility to contextualise the story after, for example, a press conference or announcement or will the pressure be on to “switch back” to the World feed to avoid too much extended output that is not on the global feed?

Also, presentationally, I hope they can keep things relatively smooth. A feed that just “cuts” in and out of output isn’t going to look professional if they don’t use stings or properly introduce things.

It’s already a bugbear of mine that simulcasting with BBC Two’s awkward opt-out times has made things awkward over the years, with Politics Live frequently starting at quarter-past the hour and the News Channel historically being very flexible with headlines at that time. I also don’t really think it’s acceptable for viewers to opt in and out of bulletins with a strange *tight shot camera, look down, shuffle papers; pause, “Your Watching, *pause*, BBC News”* followed by a cut to either weather or trailers.

They should do proper closes as they do currently at the end of the 10am NC-produced simulcast hour, they are so much better.

---

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

As described above, I like the occasional janky opts (*shuffles papers*), but that's only cause I see it for what it is. Should they aim for better, yes. Do most folks care, no.

But as you say, I also think time to add context to the story/event is the key thing lost if capacity is reduced/airtime shared under pressure.

---

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

(01-03-2023, 10:38 PM)chrisherald Wrote:  As described above, I like the occasional janky opts (*shuffles papers*), but that's only cause I see it for what it is. Should they aim for better, yes. Do most folks care, no.

But as you say, I also think time to add context to the story/event is the key thing lost if capacity is reduced/airtime shared under pressure.

I mean the opts can't be messier than they were on BBC World around 2004 when they changed the way that the regions opted for breaks and consequently had several months of very dodgy opts.

With shared programming, the best way to opt-out is probably to incorporate stings or tags on at least one side of each World break - it's a little less awkward than the pause. For breaking news opts, I think you definitely need to opt-out with a sting - I feel it makes cutting somebody off mid-sentence a bit cleaner (a sort of presentational guilotine) than switching immediately to a presenter. When it comes to opting back in to the main stream, probably best to wait until the next World break, having the opt presenter recap/analyse in the meantime, then start the next joint section with a headline recap.

---

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

Yes, clearly a slightly-less-than-seamless opt is something most people wouldn’t even register, but we on a presentation forum notice it!

I just think it will be a shame if the technical quality of the output and/or the journalistic quality (space for analysis and explanation) is lost. Really I hoped that one reason for the merger of the channels was actually to preserve funds for that kind of quality, so we hopefully still get one high-quality channel instead of two bare-bones ones. I wouldn’t want there to be such a budget restriction that we lost proper analytical reports, for example.

Already, we are losing the immediacy of breaking news coverage from a true rolling-news channel. That may be a small price to pay, given wider cutbacks, but it will have an impact. Clearly, the whole idea of rolling news is that you already have a presenter “in the chair” and a crewed-up, live studio - so if and when something happens, you can react immediately. It’s all a bit BBC Three all over again to me, I just don’t see how it really adds up. Either the opt-outs will be slow to react or done on the cheap (self-opt autocue, limited producer and behind the scenes support, etc) so the output suffers journalistically, or they will have people “twiddling their thumbs” and hardly save any money vs having them on air? You still have the distribution cost of the channel; you still have the news gathering costs (largely for the bulletins on BBC One and World News, plus the website, anyway) and you still have to broadcast some UK news to keep Ofcom happy. Meanwhile, the risk of too much UK news “creeping in” to World output (à la CNN) risks making the channel less relevant and useful for the profitable World audience, so you could end up with less ad revenue to re-invest in UK services anyway. I can’t help feeling a terrible sense of dread that it isn’t going to work, despite my best efforts to be positive and wait to see it on air before casting judgement. Also, news is the core “point” of PSB broadcasting, so if you cannot do that what is the point. The BBC should have kept the channel and inflicted the cuts elsewhere. Even if they are left with only children’s, News and current affairs; those are the core elements of the broadcasting remit that commercial channels can’t/won’t do. It is the niche services that are actually the most important. If a smaller BBC is what we have to have, then something akin to PBS in America should be it - not something where there is money for popular entertainment on BBC One but no money for the News Channel.

As has been said in the thread, frequently people interested in news will see a push notification and then turn on the News Channel for context, analysis, explanation and reaction to that news. That’s an important role that I do hope they keep in mind for the opt-outs.

There have been some funny “inside joke”-type moments with the dodgy opts over time though. I remember at one stage, during Brexit proceedings in Parliament, Joanna Gosling was speaking to an MP on College Green and had to stop the interview, say “Coverage continues on the BBC News Channel, for now we say goodbye to viewers on BBC Two”, look down at her papers, look up again (obviously be told they still hadn’t opted), look down again, look up again and then smile and say “they’ve gone” before returning to her guest to resume the interview, apologising to them as she did so.

It was rather like the awkward BBC Breakfast opt posted here a few weeks back. Again, who decided that saying “Your watching BBC Breakfast, it’s 8:59” was a good way to close a programme? Some of this could go with some careful thinking on how to conduct the opt, and certainly it has been the case in the past that they didn’t like to acknowledge News Channel viewers.

Switching of feeds, the blank-countdown filler, and janky opts have at times made the News Channel feel a bit like a BBC Ringmain or secret clean-feed of studio output, not a public-facing service.

---

(01-03-2023, 11:00 PM)DTV Wrote:  

(01-03-2023, 10:38 PM)chrisherald Wrote:  As described above, I like the occasional janky opts (*shuffles papers*), but that's only cause I see it for what it is. Should they aim for better, yes. Do most folks care, no.

But as you say, I also think time to add context to the story/event is the key thing lost if capacity is reduced/airtime shared under pressure.

I mean the opts can't be messier than they were on BBC World around 2004 when they changed the way that the regions opted for breaks and consequently had several months of very dodgy opts.

With shared programming, the best way to opt-out is probably to incorporate stings or tags on at least one side of each World break - it's a little less awkward than the pause. For breaking news opts, I think you definitely need to opt-out with a sting - I feel it makes cutting somebody off mid-sentence a bit cleaner (a sort of presentational guilotine) than switching immediately to a presenter. When it comes to opting back in to the main stream, probably best to wait until the next World break, having the opt presenter recap/analyse in the meantime, then start the next joint section with a headline recap.

Agreed, or at least (if resources don’t allow going up to the next World break) some sort of American-style “we join this programme already in progress” announcement/sting.

---

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

(01-03-2023, 11:04 PM)interestednovice Wrote:  Agree, or at least (if resources don’t allow going up to the next World break) some sort of American-style “we join this programme already in progress” announcement/sting.

Yes, a bit like what happens when BBC One joins the NC, which is to play and hold on a sting until an appropriate point (i.e. not mid-sentence, and preferably at the start of an intro or report).

---

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

Exactly.

If we can “afford”/justify full live continuity announcers on BBC One and BBC Two, we should be able to playout something for the News Channel. Even if it’s using NBH’s clever “dual output from a single gallery” and is actually a kludge in Viz, or played out by the gallery during a World ad break and then “covered” on World by ads or break filler by Red Bee.

---

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

(01-03-2023, 11:04 PM)interestednovice Wrote:  Yes, clearly a slightly-less-than-seamless opt is something most people wouldn’t even register, but we on a presentation forum notice it!

I just think it will be a shame if the technical quality of the output and/or the journalistic quality (space for analysis and explanation) is lost. Really I hoped that one reason for the merger of the channels was actually to preserve funds for that kind of quality, so we hopefully still get one high-quality channel instead of two bare-bones ones. I wouldn’t want there to be such a budget restriction that we lost proper analytical reports, for example.

Already, we are losing the immediacy of breaking news coverage from a true rolling-news channel. That may be a small price to pay, given wider cutbacks, but it will have an impact. Clearly, the whole idea of rolling news is that you already have a presenter “in the chair” and a crewed-up, live studio - so if and when something happens, you can react immediately. It’s all a bit BBC Three all over again to me, I just don’t see how it really adds up. Either the opt-outs will be slow to react or done on the cheap (self-opt autocue, limited producer and behind the scenes support, etc) so the output suffers journalistically, or they will have people “twiddling their thumbs” and hardly save any money vs having them on air? You still have the distribution cost of the channel; you still have the news gathering costs (largely for the bulletins on BBC One and World News, plus the website, anyway) and you still have to broadcast some UK news to keep Ofcom happy. Meanwhile, the risk of too much UK news “creeping in” to World output (à la CNN) risks making the channel less relevant and useful for the profitable World audience, so you could end up with less ad revenue to re-invest in UK services anyway. I can’t help feeling a terrible sense of dread that it isn’t going to work, despite my best efforts to be positive and wait to see it on air before casting judgement. Also, news is the core “point” of PSB broadcasting, so if you cannot do that what is the point. The BBC should have kept the channel and inflicted the cuts elsewhere. Even if they are left with only children’s, News and current affairs; those are the core elements of the broadcasting remit that commercial channels can’t/won’t do. It is the niche services that are actually the most important. If a smaller BBC is what we have to have, then something akin to PBS in America should be it - not something where there is money for popular entertainment on BBC One but no money for the News Channel.

As has been said in the thread, frequently people interested in news will see a push notification and then turn on the News Channel for context, analysis, explanation and reaction to that news. That’s an important role that I do hope they keep in mind for the opt-outs.

There have been some funny “inside joke”-type moments with the dodgy opts over time though. I remember at one stage, during Brexit proceedings in Parliament, Joanna Gosling was speaking to an MP on College Green and had to stop the interview, say “Coverage continues on the BBC News Channel, for now we say goodbye to viewers on BBC Two”, look down at her papers, look up again (obviously be told they still hadn’t opted), look down again, look up again and then smile and say “they’ve gone” before returning to her guest to resume the interview, apologising to them as she did so.

It was rather like the awkward BBC Breakfast opt posted here a few weeks back. Again, who decided that saying “Your watching BBC Breakfast, it’s 8:59” was a good way to close a programme? Some of this could go with some careful thinking on how to conduct the opt, and certainly it has been the case in the past that they didn’t like to acknowledge News Channel viewers.

Switching of feeds, the blank-countdown filler, and janky opts have at times made the News Channel feel a bit like a BBC Ringmain or secret clean-feed of studio output, not a public-facing service.

---

(01-03-2023, 11:00 PM)DTV Wrote:  I mean the opts can't be messier than they were on BBC World around 2004 when they changed the way that the regions opted for breaks and consequently had several months of very dodgy opts.

With shared programming, the best way to opt-out is probably to incorporate stings or tags on at least one side of each World break - it's a little less awkward than the pause. For breaking news opts, I think you definitely need to opt-out with a sting - I feel it makes cutting somebody off mid-sentence a bit cleaner (a sort of presentational guilotine) than switching immediately to a presenter. When it comes to opting back in to the main stream, probably best to wait until the next World break, having the opt presenter recap/analyse in the meantime, then start the next joint section with a headline recap.

Agreed, or at least (if resources don’t allow going up to the next World break) some sort of American-style “we join this programme already in progress” announcement/sting.

I think, frankly, it's good for presenters to have that cheeky nod to the practical operation of things sometimes come across, it's a human element. The BBC needs to make a connection with audiences to foster trust, not just appear stiff and formal. Radio is a place of warmth for listeners, and the standout continuity announcers of the BBC main channels is hard to find elsewhere in the world. Perhaps it's good if the people who really do watch the news channels everyday can see presenters just saying, "okay they're gone now," and feel like we are in a different, honest/straight-forward space (yes, the Ringmain!). It's not really the worst thing, because in so many things now, humanity is the part getting lost. The BBC does apparently want their presenters to be more "Sweaty & Dirty" so might as well just cut to some colour bars in between channel opts, lol.

I agree with interestednovice as much of what you've said there matches with my rambling on a few posts back (especially about knock-on effects across the BBC, changes to world tanking the commercial viability, etc). A slimmer BBC that meets and excels at PSB core duties should be the goal when cuts have to be made. Output outside of news matters, but entertainment programming doesn't help maintain a useful society like breaking news, global events where everyone is watching, fact-checking the gov, and current affairs docs do.

I don't care if the uninformed people are entertained.

---

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

So, Impact has a new look NEXT WEEK!?

https://twitter.com/murrell_richard/status/1631038039970443266?s=46&t=mfiNv7LHFzRSkMX5ZuaVlQ 

---

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

(01-03-2023, 11:04 PM)interestednovice Wrote:  Also, news is the core “point” of PSB broadcasting, so if you cannot do that what is the point. The BBC should have kept the channel and inflicted the cuts elsewhere. Even if they are left with only children’s, News and current affairs; those are the core elements of the broadcasting remit that commercial channels can’t/won’t do. It is the niche services that are actually the most important. If a smaller BBC is what we have to have, then something akin to PBS in America should be it - not something where there is money for popular entertainment on BBC One but no money for the News Channel.

I'm not sure I'd agree that news is the core point of PSB broadcasting, certainly a core tenet, but only as part of the wider inform, educate, entertain mantra. Ultimately, the PSB bargain in Europe has been that you can have the money for niche services, but you need to do something for the general audience too and I feel that the BBC have typically struck the right balance. It's also worth noting that general entertainment is also getting hit by the cuts - the News channel's contribution to the BBC's latest savings drive only accounts for about 5% of the overall planned £500m annual savings.

While I'd agree that the News channel's effective closing is a shame and that we are absolutely losing something, I do think it's fair given the circumstances. I know there is a lot of trepidation around it, but if the new channel can land somewhere around 'balanced shared hours and decent and regular UK-opt outs' then I think it would be a perfectly adequate and justifiable service. Ideal? No, but nothing about the situation the BBC is currently in is.

---