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: harshy - interestednovice - 09-03-2023

(09-03-2023, 11:27 PM)harshy Wrote:  

(09-03-2023, 11:19 PM)DTV Wrote:  Outside Source works when it is Atkins doing his analytical explainers, otherwise it doesn't work as a separate brand as it is just a presentationally duller news bulletin. Given Atkins' explainers are pretty much the sole innovative news format the BBC have and which has had social media traction, the BBC would be idiotic to ditch them, but given that he so rarely presents Outside Source anymore it is probably better that they axed the programme and instead had him pop up to do explainers on a more ad hoc basis, possibly within one of the planned new branded programmes.

If you're broadcasting to an international audience, a UK story has to have some context provided for them. One thing that does get people to switch over when watching news is that they don't understand what is being talked about - giving world viewers stories that they have no frame of reference for is only going to alienate them, which, of course, has financial implications. Ultimately, international viewers will be far more willing to put up with greater UK news if they can understand it.

Outside Source became boring as soon as it lost its touchscreen and the fact that the bbc had many sources to draw stories from, which was what the original was very good at originally.

I agree that the original concept of Outside Source, ironically, was far more innovative. It also fit the name far better.

On the point about context to news for World viewers: good point, however to an extent the reverse it also true - British viewers will be irritated by constant explanations of where Warwickshire is and how the “UK Finance Minister” is called the Chancellor, so will quickly switch away if things get too international. This is party what I meant before when I was saying that it’s impossible to satisfy both audiences. Financially, the WN audience is by far the most important but the BBC must also be seen to do enough for British viewers by Ofcom and the press, so it has no choice really but the unsatisfying fudge we are now seeing.

There is nothing wrong with “proper” WN if that’s what the audience is expecting, though. But it wouldn’t allow the BBC to claim that it’s “not closing the NC”!

---

RE: harshy - Scratch_Perry - 10-03-2023

(09-03-2023, 11:49 PM)interestednovice Wrote:  

(09-03-2023, 11:27 PM)harshy Wrote:  Outside Source became boring as soon as it lost its touchscreen and the fact that the bbc had many sources to draw stories from, which was what the original was very good at originally.

I agree that the original concept of Outside Source, ironically, was far more innovative. It also fit the name far better.

On the point about context to news for World viewers: good point, however to an extent the reverse it also true - British viewers will be irritated by constant explanations of where Warwickshire is and how the “UK Finance Minister” is called the Chancellor, so will quickly switch away if things get too international. This is party what I meant before when I was saying that it’s impossible to satisfy both audiences. Financially, the WN audience is by far the most important but the BBC must also be seen to do enough for British viewers by Ofcom and the press, so it has no choice really but the unsatisfying fudge we are now seeing.

There is nothing wrong with “proper” WN if that’s what the audience is expecting, though. But it wouldn’t allow the BBC to claim that it’s “not closing the NC”!

Or the Home Secretary being called the "UK Interior Minister"...

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - dvboy - 10-03-2023

(09-03-2023, 11:49 PM)interestednovice Wrote:  On the point about context to news for World viewers: good point, however to an extent the reverse it also true - British viewers will be irritated by constant explanations of where Warwickshire is and how the “UK Finance Minister” is called the Chancellor, so will quickly switch away if things get too international.

It is possible to write a script that subtly explains what someone's role is without being too obvious about it.

Take for example the HS2 story. It can be introduced it as being a line linking "parts of England" or "North West England with Birmingham". You don't then later need to introduce Mark Harper as specifically the UK's transport secretary as the context is already there.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Radio_man - 10-03-2023

The new joint service doesn't have any hope of getting devolved government in the UK correct. Eg. Steve Barclay is the Health Secretary for England, not the UK Health Secretary, but you can guarantee that he'll be wrongly referred to as the UK Health Secretary.
Same goes for Education Secretary, Transport Secretary, and any area of government that's wholly devolved to Scotland, Wales & NI, who all have their own ministers responsible for these areas of devolved government.

But the News Channel couldn't even get devolution right when it was just broadcasting in the UK, so trying to explain the UK's complicated system of devolved government to the rest of the world.............

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - dvboy - 10-03-2023

(10-03-2023, 12:53 AM)Radio_man Wrote:  The new joint service doesn't have any hope of getting devolved government in the UK correct. Eg. Steve Barclay is the Health Secretary for England, not the UK Health Secretary, but you can guarantee that he'll be wrongly referred to as the UK Health Secretary.
Same goes for Education Secretary, Transport Secretary, and any area of government that's devolved to Scotland, Wales & NI, who all have their own ministers responsible for these areas of devolved government.

But the News Channel couldn't even get devolution right when it was just broadcasting in the UK, so trying to explain the UK complicated system of devolved government to the rest of the world.............

I don't see why they can't get it right - it would also benefit domestic viewers if Steve Barclay was referred to as "England's Health Secretary".

That said, I do wonder why they treat viewers like they don't have access to google and can't look up something they don't understand (like Chancellor of the Exchequer). CNN doesn't seem to have this problem when it comes to US officials.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - AaronLancs - 10-03-2023

(10-03-2023, 12:53 AM)Radio_man Wrote:  The new joint service doesn't have any hope of getting devolved government in the UK correct. Eg. Steve Barclay is the Health Secretary for England, not the UK Health Secretary, but you can guarantee that he'll be wrongly referred to as the UK Health Secretary.
Same goes for Education Secretary, Transport Secretary, and any area of government that's devolved to Scotland, Wales & NI, who all have their own ministers responsible for these areas of devolved government.

But the News Channel couldn't even get devolution right when it was just broadcasting in the UK, so trying to explain the UK complicated system of devolved government to the rest of the world.............

Probably they could refer to Barclay as the Health Secretary of the Westminster Government perhaps?
With the following being applied where needed when explaining devolved matters:
Humza Yousaf of the Scottish Government*
Eluned Morgan of the Welsh Government*
Robin Swann of the Northern Ireland Executive*^
*Data sourced from Wikipedia.
^The last known minister listed.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - interestednovice - 10-03-2023

(10-03-2023, 12:52 AM)dvboy Wrote:  

(09-03-2023, 11:49 PM)interestednovice Wrote:  On the point about context to news for World viewers: good point, however to an extent the reverse it also true - British viewers will be irritated by constant explanations of where Warwickshire is and how the “UK Finance Minister” is called the Chancellor, so will quickly switch away if things get too international.

It is possible to write a script that subtly explains what someone's role is without being too obvious about it.

Take for example the HS2 story. It can be introduced it as being a line linking "parts of England" or "North West England with Birmingham". You don't then later need to introduce Mark Harper as specifically the UK's transport secretary as the context is already there.

You rarely need to make a point of introducing anyone when an Aston will do, but it’s a bit odd to crash into somebody speaking about a topic without some kind of introduction!

---

(10-03-2023, 12:53 AM)Radio_man Wrote:  The new joint service doesn't have any hope of getting devolved government in the UK correct. Eg. Steve Barclay is the Health Secretary for England, not the UK Health Secretary, but you can guarantee that he'll be wrongly referred to as the UK Health Secretary.
Same goes for Education Secretary, Transport Secretary, and any area of government that's wholly devolved to Scotland, Wales & NI, who all have their own ministers responsible for these areas of devolved government.

But the News Channel couldn't even get devolution right when it was just broadcasting in the UK, so trying to explain the UK's complicated system of devolved government to the rest of the world.............

This isn’t really a legitimate complaint. People are referred to with their official titles, and that is it. If those titles are misleading that’s a separate issue. Barclay is the UK government health secretary, despite the fact that Health is a devolved issue and the role is therefore only relevant to England. This situation arises because there is no “England Assembly”, so the “default” has to continue to be the main overall Westminster government.

That’s just how things have been set up.

Viewers in Scotland/Wales/NI are likely to already know about devolution so it shouldn’t be too difficult to follow if information is relevant to them. However, with less time to explain arguably “parochial” stories about the U.K., you can’t really blame the BBC if they don’t provide a full explanation on the NC in my view - interested viewers can always look details up via the BBC News website.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Worzel - 10-03-2023

(09-03-2023, 11:49 PM)interestednovice Wrote:  

(09-03-2023, 11:27 PM)harshy Wrote:  Outside Source became boring as soon as it lost its touchscreen and the fact that the bbc had many sources to draw stories from, which was what the original was very good at originally.

I agree that the original concept of Outside Source, ironically, was far more innovative. It also fit the name far better.

On the point about context to news for World viewers: good point, however to an extent the reverse it also true - British viewers will be irritated by constant explanations of where Warwickshire is and how the “UK Finance Minister” is called the Chancellor, so will quickly switch away if things get too international. This is party what I meant before when I was saying that it’s impossible to satisfy both audiences. Financially, the WN audience is by far the most important but the BBC must also be seen to do enough for British viewers by Ofcom and the press, so it has no choice really but the unsatisfying fudge we are now seeing.

There is nothing wrong with “proper” WN if that’s what the audience is expecting, though. But it wouldn’t allow the BBC to claim that it’s “not closing the NC”!

That's my point. 

On one story, UK viewers were treated to a detailed explanation as to where Birmingham and Oxford were, that they're cities in England, the counties they're in and where they are relation to London, complete with a highly detailed map and a guest being credited as being in 'Oxford, UK', yet the next story which was captioned and scripted as 'UK snowfall' mentioned three places, one in England and two others in Wales and had no geographical context attached as to which country they were in. Then the reporter pops ups in Cumbria which is described as 'the North of England' and talks about several other places, one of which was in Scotland. If anything the UK snowfall piece needed more detailed context than where the HS2 line is going to run.

As a UK viewer I found the whole 20 minutes very odd indeed. As a World viewer, I'd just be confused and how the presenter felt, goodness knows.

The same happened with the Wayne Couzens story on Monday with the presenter and reporter having to go into huge detail about who he was, what he'd done, when it happened, where it happened, what his court appearance was about etc. It comes across as a bit patronising to UK viewers.

Some of these issues can be resolved with some consistency in whoever is writing the presenter scripts. If they're going to recycle a script from the BBC News at One it either needs to be better tweaked for international viewers so presenter lead-in pieces to a package or report that is UK focussed go into microscopic detail or you keep the explanations brief, as they used to be on the news channel. You can't really do both as the way it is at the moment is very jarring, sounds quite bizarre and just becomes plain awkward after a while.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - interestednovice - 10-03-2023

(10-03-2023, 01:18 AM)Worzel Wrote:  

(09-03-2023, 11:49 PM)interestednovice Wrote:  I agree that the original concept of Outside Source, ironically, was far more innovative. It also fit the name far better.

On the point about context to news for World viewers: good point, however to an extent the reverse it also true - British viewers will be irritated by constant explanations of where Warwickshire is and how the “UK Finance Minister” is called the Chancellor, so will quickly switch away if things get too international. This is party what I meant before when I was saying that it’s impossible to satisfy both audiences. Financially, the WN audience is by far the most important but the BBC must also be seen to do enough for British viewers by Ofcom and the press, so it has no choice really but the unsatisfying fudge we are now seeing.

There is nothing wrong with “proper” WN if that’s what the audience is expecting, though. But it wouldn’t allow the BBC to claim that it’s “not closing the NC”!

That's my point. 

On one story, UK viewers were treated to a detailed explanation as to where Birmingham and Oxford were in England, the counties they're in and where they are relation to London, complete with a highly detailed map and a guest being credited as being in 'Oxford, UK', yet the next story which was captioned and scripted as 'UK snowfall' mentioned three places, one in England and two others in Wales and had no geographical context attached as to which country they were in. Then the reporter pops ups in Cumbria which is described as 'the North of England' and talks about several other places, one of which was in Scotland. If anything the UK snowfall piece needed more detailed context than where the HS2 line is going to run.

As a UK viewer I found the whole 20 minutes very odd indeed. As a World viewer, I'd just be confused and how the presenter felt, goodness knows.

A lot of the issues can be resolved with some consistency in whoever is writing the presenter scripts. If they're going to recycle a script from the BBC News at One it either needs to be better tweaked for international viewers or every presenter lead-in piece to a package or report that is UK focussed has to go into microscopic detail. You can't really do both as the way it is at the moment is very jarring, sounds very bizarre and just becomes awkward after a while.

I think perhaps the relevance of where HS2 might go, to international viewers, was a bit higher - as they might actually travel on it when visiting the UK, if it ever gets built!

The snow, on the other hand, was a story almost entirely of relevance to U.K. viewers and was, at best, a mild curiosity to viewers on BBC WN. Therefore, because they didn’t need to know and probably weren’t interested, the BBC opted not to bother with long explainers? Perhaps that was the logic - it was just “pitched at the UK audience” and they aimed to get it over quickly before WN viewers switched away, so they could move on to something else! Again, they had to cover it because British people would have expected them to, but it would have been inappropriate last week for WN.

Even for British viewers though, the “editorial whiplash” is a problem, and risks being very confusing to WN viewers as you say.

I’m not convinced there is a way around it. Long explainers, as you say, would work - but at the expense of the pacing of the channel; we are constantly hearing how everyone has a short attention span these days so that would surely be detrimental to viewership as people would get bored and switch off!

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Worzel - 10-03-2023

(10-03-2023, 01:31 AM)interestednovice Wrote:  

(10-03-2023, 01:18 AM)Worzel Wrote:  That's my point. 

On one story, UK viewers were treated to a detailed explanation as to where Birmingham and Oxford were in England, the counties they're in and where they are relation to London, complete with a highly detailed map and a guest being credited as being in 'Oxford, UK', yet the next story which was captioned and scripted as 'UK snowfall' mentioned three places, one in England and two others in Wales and had no geographical context attached as to which country they were in. Then the reporter pops ups in Cumbria which is described as 'the North of England' and talks about several other places, one of which was in Scotland. If anything the UK snowfall piece needed more detailed context than where the HS2 line is going to run.

As a UK viewer I found the whole 20 minutes very odd indeed. As a World viewer, I'd just be confused and how the presenter felt, goodness knows.

A lot of the issues can be resolved with some consistency in whoever is writing the presenter scripts. If they're going to recycle a script from the BBC News at One it either needs to be better tweaked for international viewers or every presenter lead-in piece to a package or report that is UK focussed has to go into microscopic detail. You can't really do both as the way it is at the moment is very jarring, sounds very bizarre and just becomes awkward after a while.

I think perhaps the relevance of where HS2 might go, to international viewers, was a bit higher - as they might actually travel on it when visiting the UK, if it ever gets built!

The snow, on the other hand, was a story almost entirely of relevance to U.K. viewers and was, at best, a mild curiosity to viewers on BBC WN. Therefore, because they didn’t need to know and probably weren’t interested, the BBC opted not to bother with long explainers? Perhaps that was the logic - it was just “pitched at the UK audience” and they aimed to get it over quickly before WN viewers switched away, so they could move on to something else! Again, they had to cover it because British people would have expected them to, but it would have been inappropriate last week for WN.

Even for British viewers though, the “editorial whiplash” is a problem, and risks being very confusing to WN viewers as you say.

I’m not convinced there is a way around it. Long explainers, as you say, would work - but at the expense of the pacing of the channel; we are constantly hearing how everyone has a short attention span these days so that would surely be detrimental to viewership as people would get bored and switch off!

It's a consistency issue that they're going to have to grapple with and find a solution to because as we both agree, it's like watching a round a tennis at Wimbledon. 

UK viewers don't really need a geography lesson and to be told that Birmingham is a city in England, with a map of where Birmingham is, likewise World News viewers don't really need to be told what county it's in and how far away it is from London to the nearest mile.

In terms of the other point being discussed re. how you describe 'Chancellor of the Exchequer', it's simple. Jeremy Hunt is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nothing else. There's always context about money/the economy etc to go with the story so you don't need to say UK Finance Minister. We don't hear Germany's Chancellor described as 'Germany's President' and I've never heard the BBC describe the Irish Taoiseach as 'Ireland's head of government' when I've watched World News.

---