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 - DTV - 02-02-2023

(02-02-2023, 12:19 PM)Kojak Wrote:  It's interesting to me how World is very much the favoured child in all of this, whereas 20 or so years ago things were the complete opposite - 24 was the golden child and World was stuck in a broom cupboard with, as Stephen Cole once put it, News 24's cast-offs. How times change, eh?

Well I suppose in the early-2000s World was not in a financially good state - indeed, at one point it was at real risk of being axed if things didn't improve quickly (around the time of a bit of a kerfuffle around fair use fees). That is why you had a bare-bones schedule and presenters doing quite long shifts even on weekdays. This sort of changed around 2006 when World finally got proper US distribution for the first time - over the next few years, World become profitable and was able to expand its schedules again. The channel has since become financially self-sustaining and has continuously improved its audience, while gaining a solid international reputation - everything executives wanted from the channel.

The News channel hasn't really gone in the opposite direction - it's viewing figures have actually gone up in the last 15/20 years - but it has suffered from being a somewhat superfluous channel at a time of financial difficulties for the BBC. While it has taken several rounds of cuts since, coincidentally, 2006, there are limits to how deep those cuts can actually go on the channel - most have been somewhat superficial (e.g. losing double-headed presentation) and the channel has ultimately seen proportionally fewer cuts than pretty much every other BBC channel or station. So the News channel has been a bit frustrating to executives - it's a sizeable chunk of budget that couldn't really be cut back further.

And that's why World is somewhat favoured - both channels might do what they are supposed to do and meet performance targets, but only one pays for itself and brings in money.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Matrix - 02-02-2023

Aside from the obvious, the way this has been announced internally has been nothing short of a farce. Ringing around desperately because the story was out isn't exactly best HR practice, but then again the whole process has been one which feels a times like it is being made up as it goes.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - leewilliams - 02-02-2023

Wonder if Yalda Hakim's screen test contained an obit scenario - lest we forget...

https://www.joe.co.uk/news/bbc-reporter-apologises-after-accidentally-announcing-queens-death-357720 

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Rolling News - 02-02-2023

Terrible news for these experienced anchors who have lost out. Although I can see Jane and Martine moving to BBC One, with the rest applying for the “reporter-presenter” roles that are being reported on. If they want to, of course.

---

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

(02-02-2023, 12:48 PM)Matrix Wrote:  Aside from the obvious, the way this has been announced internally has been nothing short of a farce. Ringing around desperately because the story was out isn't exactly best HR practice, but then again the whole process has been one which feels a times like it is being made up as it goes.

Honestly, it does sound like the BBC management have just completely forgotten how to actually manage things (not least staff morale). Like with the Reithification project, there just seems to be a lot of putting unfinished plans into action under the assumption that things will sort themselves out in the end/when needed while also making off-the-cuff quite significant changes along the way. Absolutely no way to manage projects of this scale.

---

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

(02-02-2023, 12:44 PM)DTV Wrote:  

(02-02-2023, 12:19 PM)Kojak Wrote:  It's interesting to me how World is very much the favoured child in all of this, whereas 20 or so years ago things were the complete opposite - 24 was the golden child and World was stuck in a broom cupboard with, as Stephen Cole once put it, News 24's cast-offs. How times change, eh?

Well I suppose in the early-2000s World was not in a financially good state - indeed, at one point it was at real risk of being axed if things didn't improve quickly (around the time of a bit of a kerfuffle around fair use fees). That is why you had a bare-bones schedule and presenters doing quite long shifts even on weekdays. This sort of changed around 2006 when World finally got proper US distribution for the first time - over the next few years, World become profitable and was able to expand its schedules again. The channel has since become financially self-sustaining and has continuously improved its audience, while gaining a solid international reputation - everything executives wanted from the channel.

The News channel hasn't really gone in the opposite direction - it's viewing figures have actually gone up in the last 15/20 years - but it has suffered from being a somewhat superfluous channel at a time of financial difficulties for the BBC. While it has taken several rounds of cuts since, coincidentally, 2006, there are limits to how deep those cuts can actually go on the channel - most have been somewhat superficial (e.g. losing double-headed presentation) and the channel has ultimately seen proportionally fewer cuts than pretty much every other BBC channel or station. So the News channel has been a bit frustrating to executives - it's a sizeable chunk of budget that couldn't really be cut back further.

And that's why World is somewhat favoured - both channels might do what they are supposed to do and meet performance targets, but only one pays for itself and brings in money.

On that basis barely anything the BBC does would exist. PSB should be about providing for audiences, not paying for itself.

Of course realistically budgets have to be adhered to, and at this moment the BBC have to make tough choices due to decisions largely from a relatively hostile government who ultimately control the purse strings. I and others on this thread can see that World and NC provide very different services to very different audiences who have largely different expectations, and that a merger as proposed will satisfy neither group. That's fine, that's a decision the BBC has made - albeit we await the actual results - but they should be being very honest with audiences and stakeholders, including government, what the end result of those choices will be.

I don't believe that funding-providing domestic audiences will be served fully by this change, regardless of how many press releases state that they will be, at least not at the expense of the income-generating World audience. That's going to be a very difficult balance to get right in the event of conflicting news agendas - and I believe the channel as proposed will reduce audience to the combined channel compared to the combined audience right now. That, in turn, may lead to a reduction of income greater than the cost of providing the two individual channels.

Only time will tell. As someone who produces the content, and has done for 20 years, I remain extremely sceptical.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Kojak - 02-02-2023

(02-02-2023, 12:44 PM)DTV Wrote:  

(02-02-2023, 12:19 PM)Kojak Wrote:  It's interesting to me how World is very much the favoured child in all of this, whereas 20 or so years ago things were the complete opposite - 24 was the golden child and World was stuck in a broom cupboard with, as Stephen Cole once put it, News 24's cast-offs. How times change, eh?

Well I suppose in the early-2000s World was not in a financially good state - indeed, at one point it was at real risk of being axed if things didn't improve quickly (around the time of a bit of a kerfuffle around fair use fees). That is why you had a bare-bones schedule and presenters doing quite long shifts even on weekdays..

That’s really interesting. I never knew there was a danger of World being closed. Any idea where I could find out more about that?

I know the World shifts were long (about 5 hours a piece and longer at weekends, were they not?) but it was very rigidly news at x:00 and programmes at :30, so I’d imagine the format was much less demanding on the presenter than the rolling style we have now?

Obviously I get that things have done a 180 now because World is commercial and 24 isn’t - I just find it amusing (if that’s at all the right word) how the tables have turned over the years.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Newsroom - 02-02-2023

(02-02-2023, 12:54 PM)Rolling News Wrote:  Terrible news for these experienced anchors who have lost out. Although I can see Jane and Martine moving to BBC One, with the rest applying for the “reporter-presenter” roles that are being reported on. If they want to, of course.

I can't recall seeing Martine on BBC One since she was temporarily taken off air so can't see them accommodating her unfortunately.  Agreed on Jane, she's been appearing more frequently on the Ten of late and is more or less a semi-regular network presenter - fingers crossed at least!

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Matrix - 02-02-2023

(02-02-2023, 12:55 PM)DTV Wrote:  

(02-02-2023, 12:48 PM)Matrix Wrote:  Aside from the obvious, the way this has been announced internally has been nothing short of a farce. Ringing around desperately because the story was out isn't exactly best HR practice, but then again the whole process has been one which feels a times like it is being made up as it goes.

Honestly, it does sound like the BBC management have just completely forgotten how to actually manage things (not least staff morale). Like with the Reithification project, there just seems to be a lot of putting unfinished plans into action under the assumption that things will sort themselves out in the end/when needed while also making off-the-cuff quite significant changes along the way. Absolutely no way to manage projects of this scale.

The Project Lead walking out mid way through the recruitment process has been a particular ‘highlight’ but, as you allude to, there is so much which just smacks of rank-amateurism. 

Don’t get me wrong. I can see a rational for the approach of merging the two channels. The execution, however, is just demoralising and insulting — often without need if only someone with actual change management experience had led this. 

Quite black humour around though this morning.

---

RE: BBC News Channel/BBC World News Merger - Kojak - 02-02-2023

(02-02-2023, 01:00 PM)Newsroom Wrote:  

(02-02-2023, 12:54 PM)Rolling News Wrote:  Terrible news for these experienced anchors who have lost out. Although I can see Jane and Martine moving to BBC One, with the rest applying for the “reporter-presenter” roles that are being reported on. If they want to, of course.

I can't recall seeing Martine on BBC One since she was temporarily taken off air so can't see them accommodating her unfortunately.  Agreed on Jane, she's been appearing more frequently on the Ten of late and is more or less a semi-regular network presenter - fingers crossed at least!

Yeah, sadly I think the Boris debacle gave them a very good excuse to get rid. If that is indeed the case then hopefully she will pop up elsewhere in due course! Jane will certainly move to network, I’d have thought?

Agreed with everyone above who said this whole saga sounds like a complete mess. I can’t see how it will work at all well - though I am more than happy to be proven wrong, of course! Sky News will be rubbing their hands with glee, I’m sure. Hopefully new management chez Sky News will pull the finger out and make it more dynamic again, like it used to be. At the moment it’s just so dull to watch.

---