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 Pres: 2022 - Present - DTV - 01-01-2023

(01-01-2023, 10:17 PM)Chud Wrote:  Who are considered “BBC One presenters” these days? 
Huw, Fiona, Sophie, Reeta, Clive, Jane and Ben?

Don't forget George! But those eight are what I'd say the core network team are these days.

My suspicion is that a few extra presenters will get saved by being officially moved from the channels to other programmes. Those who also regularly present elsewhere, e.g. Ben Boulos on Breakfast, can probably be kept on while meeting the overall reduction targets.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Renap - 02-01-2023

Unfortunately there will likely be resentment among the ranks that some presenters are being exempt from all this, although the feeling is Huw may not be around for the long term so perhaps there will be a vacancy for someone from the channel to join the ranks.

You also have the question of whether the One O' Clock presenters are exempt too despite it being produced by the News Channel.

Either way as long as the BBC are insistent on making cuts and delivering a bad merger, this is the consequences of such.

As I have asked before, is there still a likelihood of a strike happening or have the staff ultimately accepted their fate?

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - ALV - 02-01-2023

Are WN london-based presenters included in the cutting axe list? (e.g Lucy Hockings, Yalda Hakim, Matthew Amroliwala, Ros Atkins, Christian Fraser) or it's just NC presenters?

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Keith - 02-01-2023

(02-01-2023, 08:01 AM)ALV Wrote:  Are WN london-based presenters included in the cutting axe list? (e.g Lucy Hockings, Yalda Hakim, Matthew Amroliwala, Ros Atkins, Christian Fraser) or it's just NC presenters?

Both, as the two channels are merging to form a single chanel called BBC News.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Connews - 02-01-2023

I do find the approach they’re taking unusual — as it feels like it prioritises World over U.K. output.

Of course, we’re seeing CNN go the other way, championing U.S. output over International.

If tough decisions are to be made, should the BBC be doing things the other way around? Not sold one way or another — genuinely asking.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - nthnrw - 02-01-2023

(02-01-2023, 09:49 AM)Connews Wrote:  I do find the approach they’re taking unusual — as it feels like it prioritises World over U.K. output.

Of course, we’re seeing CNN go the other way, championing U.S. output over International.

If tough decisions are to be made, should the BBC be doing things the other way around? Not sold one way or another — genuinely asking.

Both are following the highest revenues. CNN has greater advertising potential in the US so is focussing on that. Of course the BBC can only advertise internationally so that is where it is focussing.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Connews - 02-01-2023

(02-01-2023, 10:03 AM)nthnrw Wrote:  

(02-01-2023, 09:49 AM)Connews Wrote:  I do find the approach they’re taking unusual — as it feels like it prioritises World over U.K. output.

Of course, we’re seeing CNN go the other way, championing U.S. output over International.

If tough decisions are to be made, should the BBC be doing things the other way around? Not sold one way or another — genuinely asking.

Both are following the highest revenues. CNN has greater advertising potential in the US so is focussing on that. Of course the BBC can only advertise internationally so that is where it is focussing.

Very good point — but as a public broadcaster operating through a licence fee, you could argue the BBC has bigger considerations to make.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Stuart - 02-01-2023

(02-01-2023, 10:54 AM)Connews Wrote:  Very good point — but as a public broadcaster operating through a licence fee, you could argue the BBC has bigger considerations to make.

You can equally argue that the domestic viewer is going to benefit from seeing a news channel which may be largely funded externally.

I don't know what sort of revenue WN currently generates, but BBC Studios returns about £260m a year from commercial ativities with a turnover of £1.6bn.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - DTV - 02-01-2023

(02-01-2023, 09:49 AM)Connews Wrote:  I do find the approach they’re taking unusual — as it feels like it prioritises World over U.K. output.

Of course, we’re seeing CNN go the other way, championing U.S. output over International.

If tough decisions are to be made, should the BBC be doing things the other way around? Not sold one way or another — genuinely asking.

Because BBC World News turns a profit (one of the few news channels anywhere to do so) and uses this profit to subsidise BBC News' UK operations. Turning this profit is dependent on it being an international news channel and if it ceases to turn a profit then it has to be axed as the licence fee cannot subsidise the BBC's commercial operations, particularly not at the minute.

If BBC World News goes then so does the enormous amount of output that it produces for the BBC News channel. While BBC News do (or certainly did) pay a fair use fee to use this output, the amount of money required for the BBC News channel to fill those hours would require a significant increase in budget - try justifying that in the current climate.

In short, an international news channel with UK opt outs is the only thing keeping the BBC from having a news channel for both the domestic and international markets. While BBC World News would probably surivive without the BBC News channel, the same is not true in reverse.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Connews - 02-01-2023

(02-01-2023, 11:03 AM)Stuart Wrote:  

(02-01-2023, 10:54 AM)Connews Wrote:  Very good point — but as a public broadcaster operating through a licence fee, you could argue the BBC has bigger considerations to make.

You can equally argue that the domestic viewer is going to benefit from seeing a news channel which may be largely funded externally.

Editorially I disagree — domestic viewers aren’t going to benefit when there’s a story of huge interest to the U.K. but not worldwide. Global viewers don’t pay the licence fee, and so you could also argue that those who do should get a service tailored for them. A profit-making channel shouldn’t impact the service. (Being devil’s advocate.)

(02-01-2023, 11:16 AM)DTV Wrote:  Because BBC World News turns a profit (one of the few news channels anywhere to do so) and uses this profit to subsidise BBC News' UK operations. Turning this profit is dependent on it being an international news channel and if it ceases to turn a profit then it has to be axed as the licence fee cannot subsidise the BBC's commercial operations, particularly not at the minute.

If BBC World News goes then so does the enormous amount of output that it produces for the BBC News channel. While BBC News do (or certainly did) pay a fair use fee to use this output, the amount of money required for the BBC News channel to fill those hours would require a significant increase in budget - try justifying that in the current climate.

In short, an international news channel with UK opt outs is the only thing keeping the BBC from having a news channel for both the domestic and international markets. While BBC World News would probably surivive without the BBC News channel, the same is not true in reverse.

You make compelling points here. My argument: would be…

1. Are all profits from World News being used to help the U.K. news channel? Probably not. And even if not, the licence fee is paid to provide such a service. I’d suggest that the BBC ought to focus on its public service obligations rather than blockbuster dramas — using the licence fee to provide content that isn’t profitable but important.

2. If the U.K. channel disappears, that’ll eliminate the vast amount of content that it creates for local radio, local TV news, online and social media.

3. I agree that BBC World is more financially viable because sponsorships, product placement and advertising are possible, but a licence fee should be used to support services that aren’t lucrative but are beneficial to the public.

Just to stress, only my opinion!

---