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 - Kojak - 10-03-2023

(10-03-2023, 09:01 PM)DTV Wrote:  

(10-03-2023, 08:50 PM)Kojak Wrote:  One thing I don't quite get is this: the 5pm GMT hour is presented by (and AIUI also produced by) the same people who do the One. World goes separate for the 1pm hour in Studio C. Is there any particular reason why the One team couldn't simply stay on until, say, 4pm (as they did during the first lockdown) for a couple more hours of UK-only news? I know similar solutions were suggested multiple times in the run up to this merger, and it would seem to me to make much more sense than what is currently done.

Absolutely, it would be eminently sensible and would not be the only way of squeezing out a bit more UK-only output using domestic teams. While, yes we have to see what the UK-opt and wider finished product is like in practice first, the fact that (fairly obvious) compromise solutions like that were avoided - even for the interim period - does have a real 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' vibe to it.

I am fairly optimistic that it will all come right - it just seems to be this interim period that is a bit of a mess. Even then it's only been a week. I'd like to think the BBC bosses are keeping a close eye on it all (though at the moment they seem to be more interested in picking fights with its presenters!) and will intervene if the news content is deemed unsatisfactory. That being said, I expect we will ultimately end up with a solution more like what I outlined. It's the only thing that makes sense - if the people and studio are there, they might as well use them!

---

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

Leading the 8pm bulletin as well.

A completely inconsequential story that would be totally bewildering to every single viewer outside the UK has taken over the channel in its first week of existence. Surely this is the worst case scenario for the merged service?

Somehow having the story read by someone with a non-British accent makes it seem all the more ridiculous.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - excel99 - 10-03-2023

(10-03-2023, 12:23 PM)Newshound47 Wrote:  And there are a few responsibilities and departments that are UK wide that the Westminster Health Secretary has to oversee.

Exactly. Certain aspects of genetics policy and medicine/medical device approval are 'reserved' to Westminster (although the Northern Ireland Protocol means the European Medicines Agency is involved in medicine approval in Northern Ireland). If Steve Barclay wants to change the process for approving medicines in Scotland or genetics policy in Wales, I don't believe the Scottish or Welsh Governments could do anything to stop that.

Of course most aspects of health policy are devolved, but referring to the Westminster Health Secretary as the 'Secretary of State for Health in England' is oversimplification to the point of inaccuracy.

(10-03-2023, 12:53 AM)Radio_man Wrote:  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.

I'm not familiar with environment policy, but transport is very much mixed in terms of what is devolved or not devolved. Perhaps perfectly summed up by Network Rail. A GB-wide body, but in Scotland it has it's strategic priorities and funding set by the Scottish Government.

Aviation (except taxation), Maritime and Transport Security are Westminster (The Scottish government in particular may be heavily involved in internal flights and ferries, but they can't legislate). Roads and Local Transport are devolved. Cross-border rail services within Great Britain are mostly Westminster, but not internal services within Scotland/Wales. The regulatory framework for rail in Great Britain is set by Westminster. I'm guessing driving/vehicle licensing is fully Westminster

---

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

(10-03-2023, 09:26 PM)excel99 Wrote:  

(10-03-2023, 12:23 PM)Newshound47 Wrote:  And there are a few responsibilities and departments that are UK wide that the Westminster Health Secretary has to oversee.

Exactly. Certain aspects of genetics policy and medicine/medical device approval are 'reserved' to Westminster (although the Northern Ireland Protocol means the European Medicines Agency is involved in medicine approval in Northern Ireland). If Steve Barclay wants to change the process for approving medicines in Scotland or genetics policy in Wales, I don't believe the Scottish or Welsh Governments could do anything to stop that.

Of course most aspects of health policy are devolved, but referring to the Westminster Health Secretary as the 'Secretary of State for Health in England' is oversimplification to the point of inaccuracy. 

(10-03-2023, 12:53 AM)Radio_man Wrote:  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.

I'm not familiar with environment policy, but transport is very much mixed in terms of what is devolved or not devolved. Perhaps perfectly summed up by Network Rail. A GB-wide body, but in Scotland it has it's strategic priorities and funding set by the Scottish Government.

Aviation (except taxation), Maritime and Transport Security are Westminster (The Scottish government in particular may be heavily involved in internal flights and ferries, but they can't legislate). Roads and Local Transport are devolved. Cross-border rail services within Great Britain are mostly Westminster, but not internal services within Scotland/Wales. The regulatory framework for rail in Great Britain is set by Westminster. I'm guessing driving/vehicle licensing is fully Westminster

The role of the European Medicines Agency is supposedly reduced under the new Windsor Agreement - so it’s possible that new drugs approved by UK regulators will not need to also be approved by the EMA in  order to be sold in Northern Ireland in the future. I believe this is going to be policed by the new “UK only” label, similar to supermarket foods, and light touch spot checks to make sure no “UK only” products are turning up in the ROI or EU.

As ever, we will see how it works in reality once the process is tested!

However, I agree with you that calling roles “England Minister” would not be appropriate. It’s not the official name, which is therefore confusing in itself, and it is also not entirely accurate so it risks leading to far more confusion for the sake of appeasing Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish viewers at the expense of accuracy. I accept that the current “UK Minister” is also misleading but we haven’t thought of a better title yet, as a country, so it will have to do for now.

---

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

(10-03-2023, 09:13 PM)Kojak Wrote:  

(10-03-2023, 09:01 PM)DTV Wrote:  Absolutely, it would be eminently sensible and would not be the only way of squeezing out a bit more UK-only output using domestic teams. While, yes we have to see what the UK-opt and wider finished product is like in practice first, the fact that (fairly obvious) compromise solutions like that were avoided - even for the interim period - does have a real 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' vibe to it.

I am fairly optimistic that it will all come right - it just seems to be this interim period that is a bit of a mess. Even then it's only been a week. I'd like to think the BBC bosses are keeping a close eye on it all (though at the moment they seem to be more interested in picking fights with its presenters!) and will intervene if the news content is deemed unsatisfactory. That being said, I expect we will ultimately end up with a solution more like what I outlined. It's the only thing that makes sense - if the people and studio are there, they might as well use them!

But that sort of thing is not unique to now.

Take when the News channel moved to N6 and shared with the national news from 2008. You'd end up with the 'BBC Ten O'clock News Hour' being half presented by the network presenter on BBC One and then the other half by the evening News channel presenter with the rather awkward half past pause, and... 'now with the rest of the Ten O'clock news hour here's Chris Eakin etc'. Why the network presenter couldn't stay on to finish the back half hour never made sense.

Then (up until recently) you'd have the silliness of a weekend network bulletin going out at 17:20, with a separate presenter coming in to read almost the same set of stories in the same order that the news channel presenter had just read out (for all of 10 minutes). When the network bulletin started at 17:05 you were often treated to the same headline sequence done twice within 5 minutes, read by 2 different presenters! There was always opportunities to make cutbacks if needed right there, but it was never done.

The BBC do it with the One now where the network presenter stays on but why not for the Six and Ten? There's no real reason why the BBC One presenter can't stay on to finish off the back half hours at those times. You'd then end up squeezing out 3 full hours on UK-focussed news at relatively peak times. Move BBC London to a small studio and let the news channel continue with the network presenter in studio B.

The BBC never really learnt anything from how the ITV News Channel did things where the ITV network presenter would often stay on to back-fill the channel saying something like 'join me/us over the ITV News Channel in a few minutes when we'll be talking about X, Y, and Z'.

I suspect it's all down to internal politics!

---

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

(10-03-2023, 11:17 PM)Worzel Wrote:  

(10-03-2023, 09:13 PM)Kojak Wrote:  I am fairly optimistic that it will all come right - it just seems to be this interim period that is a bit of a mess. Even then it's only been a week. I'd like to think the BBC bosses are keeping a close eye on it all (though at the moment they seem to be more interested in picking fights with its presenters!) and will intervene if the news content is deemed unsatisfactory. That being said, I expect we will ultimately end up with a solution more like what I outlined. It's the only thing that makes sense - if the people and studio are there, they might as well use them!

But that sort of thing is not unique to now.

Take when the News channel moved to N6 and shared with the national news from 2008. You'd end up with the 'BBC Ten O'clock News Hour' being half presented by the network presenter on BBC One and then the other half by the evening News channel presenter with the rather awkward half past pause, and... 'now with the rest of the Ten O'clock news hour here's Chris Eakin etc'. Why the network presenter couldn't stay on to finish the back half hour never made sense.

Then you'd have the silliness of a weekend network bulletin going out at 17:20, with a separate presenter coming in to read almost the same set of stories that the news channel presenter had just read out. When the network bulletin started at 17:05 you could end up with 2 headline sequences in 5 minutes read by 2 different presenters. There was always opportunities to make cutbacks if needed there but it was never done.

The BBC do it with the One now where the network presenter stays on but why not for the Six and Ten? There's no real reason why the BBC One presenter can't stay on to finish off the back half hours at those times? You'd then end up squeezing out 3 full hours on UK-focussed news at relatively peak times.

The BBC never really learnt anything from how the ITV News Channel did things with the ITV network presenter would often stay on to back-fill the channel saying something like 'join me/us over the ITV News channel in a few minutes when we'll be talking about X, Y, and Z'.

I suspect it's all down to internal politics!

Well, no, you're absolutely right. After the move to N6, Peter Sissons insisted on presenting any network bulletins that fell during his NC shift, which made perfect sense, and as you say, should have been done across the board. He thought the same as you do - that the 'musical chairs' thing was pointless. 

I think the reason what you suggest can't be done with the Six or Ten is that BBC London comes from the same studio? It would probably be a tall order to power up studio C for 25 minutes and have the presenter rush there with such a short lead time. Though saying that, it might be good if perhaps whoever was down for each network bulletin did an hour of UK news before (say, 11-12, 3-4, 8-9?). Just an idea - I haven't really thought it through.

---

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

(10-03-2023, 11:28 PM)Kojak Wrote:  

(10-03-2023, 11:17 PM)Worzel Wrote:  But that sort of thing is not unique to now.

Take when the News channel moved to N6 and shared with the national news from 2008. You'd end up with the 'BBC Ten O'clock News Hour' being half presented by the network presenter on BBC One and then the other half by the evening News channel presenter with the rather awkward half past pause, and... 'now with the rest of the Ten O'clock news hour here's Chris Eakin etc'. Why the network presenter couldn't stay on to finish the back half hour never made sense.

Then you'd have the silliness of a weekend network bulletin going out at 17:20, with a separate presenter coming in to read almost the same set of stories that the news channel presenter had just read out. When the network bulletin started at 17:05 you could end up with 2 headline sequences in 5 minutes read by 2 different presenters. There was always opportunities to make cutbacks if needed there but it was never done.

The BBC do it with the One now where the network presenter stays on but why not for the Six and Ten? There's no real reason why the BBC One presenter can't stay on to finish off the back half hours at those times? You'd then end up squeezing out 3 full hours on UK-focussed news at relatively peak times.

The BBC never really learnt anything from how the ITV News Channel did things with the ITV network presenter would often stay on to back-fill the channel saying something like 'join me/us over the ITV News channel in a few minutes when we'll be talking about X, Y, and Z'.

I suspect it's all down to internal politics!

Well, no, you're absolutely right. After the move to N6, Peter Sissons insisted on presenting any network bulletins that fell during his NC shift, which made perfect sense, and as you say, should have been done across the board. He thought the same as you do - that the 'musical chairs' thing was pointless. 

I think the reason what you suggest can't be done with the Six or Ten is that BBC London comes from the same studio? It would probably be a tall order to power up studio C for 25 minutes and have the presenter rush there with such a short lead time. Though saying that, it might be good if perhaps whoever was down for each network bulletin did an hour of UK news before (say, 11-12, 3-4, 8-9?). Just an idea - I haven't really thought it through.

Sorry, edited my post. I added a piece about moving BBC London to studio D.

I never knew Peter Sissons insisted on doing that - kudos to him!

---

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

(10-03-2023, 11:17 PM)Worzel Wrote:  

(10-03-2023, 09:13 PM)Kojak Wrote:  I am fairly optimistic that it will all come right - it just seems to be this interim period that is a bit of a mess. Even then it's only been a week. I'd like to think the BBC bosses are keeping a close eye on it all (though at the moment they seem to be more interested in picking fights with its presenters!) and will intervene if the news content is deemed unsatisfactory. That being said, I expect we will ultimately end up with a solution more like what I outlined. It's the only thing that makes sense - if the people and studio are there, they might as well use them!

But that sort of thing is not unique to now.

Take when the News channel moved to N6 and shared with the national news from 2008. You'd end up with the 'BBC Ten O'clock News Hour' being half presented by the network presenter on BBC One and then the other half by the evening News channel presenter with the rather awkward half past pause, and... 'now with the rest of the Ten O'clock news hour here's Chris Eakin etc'. Why the network presenter couldn't stay on to finish the back half hour never made sense.

Then (up until recently) you'd have the silliness of a weekend network bulletin going out at 17:20, with a separate presenter coming in to read almost the same set of stories that the news channel presenter had just read out for all of 10 minutes. When the network bulletin started at 17:05 you were often treated to the same headline sequence done twice within 5 minutes, read by 2 different presenters! There was always opportunities to make cutbacks if needed right there, but it was never done.

The BBC do it with the One now where the network presenter stays on but why not for the Six and Ten? There's no real reason why the BBC One presenter can't stay on to finish off the back half hours at those times? You'd then end up squeezing out 3 full hours on UK-focussed news at relatively peak times.

The BBC never really learnt anything from how the ITV News Channel did things where the ITV network presenter would often stay on to back-fill the channel saying something like 'join me/us over the ITV News channel in a few minutes when we'll be talking about X, Y, and Z'.

I suspect it's all down to internal politics!

These are seriously valid points and I really expected the BBC to look more closely than they appeared to before going for the “nuclear option” of what is effectively a NC closure in favour of WN. There were, and continue to be, seemingly easy ways of producing additional output for little additional cost.

It must have also cut costs to have used the same presenter for the 6 and 10 bulletins, as they did for the pandemic, and it makes sense given that the two are largely similar broadcasts these days. Again, the 1 being a NC production clearly opens up opportunity for an extended coverage of some sort to be done on the cheap. Why not? The BBC just don’t appear to have addressed these ideas at all. At the very least, the Six and Ten presenter should stay on for the rest of the hour (as you rightly say). The One presenter already does this, so why not the 6 and 10? At least we would be spared the “guide dogs time” of 22:40 every night! It’s like the new CBeebies Bedtime hour, but for adults!

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - AJB39 - 10-03-2023

The Guide Dogs programme is on the BBC News Channel for the fifth night in a row.

---

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

Guide dogs AGAIN! This is seriously getting beyond a joke now.

---