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 - Lester - 02-01-2023

I'm very pro BBC and hate the way the right wing press treat it.

Having said that.... there is something fundamentally wrong when you essentially close down a British service and replace it with an international one when you are the main public broadcaster for Britain.

---

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

(02-01-2023, 11:29 AM)Connews Wrote:  

(02-01-2023, 11:03 AM)Stuart Wrote:  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.)

If there was suddenly a story of huge domestic interest, where rolling coverage wasn't appropriate for the international audience, then surely they would break into the BBC One schedule and continue using BBC News resources around the UK.

That was always the case before we had the NC. It worked very well back in the day.

---

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

(02-01-2023, 11:29 AM)Connews Wrote:  1. Are all profits from World News being used to help the UK 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 UK 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.

1a. As far as I'm aware BBC World News' profits are largely reinvested into the BBC News division (not necessarily the News channel). In previous years these profits have totalled around £5-10m and so are probably covering the production costs of one or two BBC News programmes.

1b. The licence fee bargain is that in return for letting the BBC provide public service and minority audience functions, the general public get entertainment programming across a range of genres. I don't think it would be fair (or sensible in terms of maintaining BBC legitimacy) to axe dozens of hours of dramas or even more hours of other programming in order to provide evening and overnight content for a post-BBC World BBC News channel. 

2. The BBC News channel does not provide much content for local radio or TV services and that which it does is not comparable in weight to the nearly 11 hours of content that BBC World News produces for the BBC News channel on the average weekday. The BBC News channel is literally dependent on BBC World News, none of the services you mentioned are functionally dependent on the BBC News channel.

3. The BBC should produce services that aren't lucrative but have public value, but I would argue that the BBC News channel is towards the bottom of that list. It is far more expensive than most of the BBC's other 'public service' channels/stations and isn't unique within the BBC in the public service functions it provides. I think it is hard to justify ringfencing such a channel at a time of signficant cuts to more unique BBC services and would be even harder to justify closing BBC World News and the resultant substantial increase in the BBC News channel's budget.

---

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

(02-01-2023, 11:59 AM)DTV Wrote:  

(02-01-2023, 11:29 AM)Connews Wrote:  1. Are all profits from World News being used to help the UK 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 UK 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.

1a. As far as I'm aware BBC World News' profits are largely reinvested into the BBC News division (not necessarily the News channel). In previous years these profits have totalled around £5-10m and so are probably covering the production costs of one or two BBC News programmes.

1b. The licence fee bargain is that in return for letting the BBC provide public service and minority audience functions, the general public get entertainment programming across a range of genres. I don't think it would be fair (or sensible in terms of maintaining BBC legitimacy) to axe dozens of hours of dramas or even more hours of other programming in order to provide evening and overnight content for a post-BBC World BBC News channel. 

2. The BBC News channel does not provide much content for local radio or TV services and that which it does is not comparable in weight to the nearly 11 hours of content that BBC World News produces for the BBC News channel on the average weekday. The BBC News channel is literally dependent on BBC World News, none of the services you mentioned are functionally dependent on the BBC News channel.

3. The BBC should produce services that aren't lucrative but have public value, but I would argue that the BBC News channel is towards the bottom of that list. It is far more expensive than most of the BBC's other 'public service' channels/stations and isn't unique within the BBC in the public service functions it provides. I think it is hard to justify ringfencing such a channel at a time of signficant cuts to more unique BBC services and would be even harder to justify closing BBC World News and the resultant substantial increase in the BBC News channel's budget.

I agree that dramas shouldn’t be axed in favour of a news channel — but the BBC is best placed to offer services that aren’t sustainable for commercial broadcasters. ITV could do Strictly, but we’ve seen a news channel isn’t sustainable for them. 

BBC NC provides a lot of content for local radio and online. Quotes and clips from guests and correspondents are used regularly. It’s a significant newsgathering tool.

The news channel definitely does have public value, I really do disagree with you on that.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - all new phil - 02-01-2023

(02-01-2023, 12:31 PM)Connews Wrote:  

(02-01-2023, 11:59 AM)DTV Wrote:  3. The BBC should produce services that aren't lucrative but have public value, but I would argue that the BBC News channel is towards the bottom of that list. It is far more expensive than most of the BBC's other 'public service' channels/stations and isn't unique within the BBC in the public service functions it provides. I think it is hard to justify ringfencing such a channel at a time of signficant cuts to more unique BBC services and would be even harder to justify closing BBC World News and the resultant substantial increase in the BBC News channel's budget.

The news channel definitely does have public value, I really do disagree with you on that.

It really doesn’t. It doesn’t provide anything unique - both within the BBC and the wider industry. BBC News content is readily accessible through many other avenues that are used more than the NC, and other organisations provide more than adequate rolling news channels.

---

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

(02-01-2023, 12:31 PM)Connews Wrote:  The news channel definitely does have public value, I really do disagree with you on that.

I didn't say that the BBC News channel doesn't have public value, it's just that the public service value that it provides is not unique within BBC services and comes at a far higher cost than most other public service functions. Even the merger proposals as they stand (of which I have been repeatedly critical and feel they could do better than) do not see any BBC public service function eliminated entirely. I just don't think it is fair for a channel that has already seen below average budget cuts, which has low reach for a non-targetted service and which isn't really providing any unique functions to be excluded from the current deeper round of budget cuts (or even, as some seem to propose, see an increase in budget).

---

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

Has it been said what will air on BBC Two between 9am and Politics Live, is that going to be the World News channel as well?

---

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

(02-01-2023, 12:26 AM)Renap Wrote:  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?

BBC News at One has been produced by the Six/Ten team since 2021.

---

RE: BBC News Pres: 2022 - Present - Keith - 02-01-2023

(01-01-2023, 08:36 PM)DTV Wrote:  Just to nip it in the bud because I know it's a matter of minutes before somebody posts 'how can you run a news channel on five presenters' and we don't want to have the discussion for the fourteenth time...

The new channel will not have *just* five presenters. There will be five London-based presenters who have no other duties and are solely allocated to the channel. In addition to this there will be eight London-based presenter-reporters, i.e. those who also have editorial and/or reporting responsbilities (presumably as per Atkins and Hakim at present) and several Washington and Singapore-based presenters. As present, I expect that freelance and certain primarily BBC One presenters will also appear on the channel when needed and I presume that the mysteriously defined UK opt service would require at least one or two additional presenters.

Based on 5 presenters it feels like they might be aiming for UK shifts along the lines of...
- Weekdays 9am to 1pm
- Weekdays 1 to 5pm
- Weekends 9am to 1pm
- Weekends 1pm to 5pm

Presumably after 5pm it'll be a mix of Washington, Singapore, and possibly some presenter-reporters from London (assuming Outside Source and The Context remain).

As DTV mentioned hopefully the presenters for whatever UK opt-out we get won't come from this pool of five presenters. Arguably whoever presents the News at One could also present until 5pm for the UK, though as that network bulletin is no longer managed by the news channel this might not be practical.

---

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

(02-01-2023, 11:56 AM)Stuart Wrote:  

(02-01-2023, 11:29 AM)Connews Wrote:  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.)

If there was suddenly a story of huge domestic interest, where rolling coverage wasn't appropriate for the international audience, then surely they would break into the BBC One schedule and continue using BBC News resources around the UK.

That was always the case before we had the NC. It worked very well back in the day.

Sure. Using which presenter, which studio, which crew, which producers, which resources? Are those people sitting around 24/7 just in case?

---