BBC News Pres: Apr 2023 - Present (News Channel/BBC One) - 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 Pres: Apr 2023 - Present (News Channel/BBC One) (/showthread.php?tid=412)

---

RE: BBC News Pres: Apr 2023 - Present (News Channel/BBC One) - DTV - 28-04-2024

(28-04-2024, 08:28 PM)ginnyfan Wrote:  That promo plus the new breakfiller all feature better music and visuals than the ones currently used for the generic BBC News bulletins and branded programs, except for TWT.

If they're finally getting the channel's act together, that's obviously great. But, if it's the case, hard not to feel that the last 13 months of directionless sub-par output could have been avoided if they'd planned better (or really at all) and not rushed into a half-thought out and often unconnected set of ideas, implemented at random points, that have frequently left a lot to be desired, both in terms of presentation and underlying content. Obviously there were some financial constraints, but a prolonging of the interim stage (as per March 2023) until the full plans had been finalised would have been superior to what came after.

---

RE: BBC News Pres: Apr 2023 - Present (News Channel/BBC One) - Moz - 28-04-2024

Not seen this shot used before:

   

---

RE: BBC News Pres: Apr 2023 - Present (News Channel/BBC One) - interestednovice - 28-04-2024

(28-04-2024, 09:58 PM)DTV Wrote:  a prolonging of the interim stage (as per March 2023) until the full plans had been finalised would have been superior to what came after.

I’ve been thinking this for a while; actually, since the launch itself!

Somebody commented here last April, on launch day if my memory serves correctly, that the launch had been messy (paraphrasing) but they understood the budgetary reasons meant it “had to be today” and I immediately thought when I read that: they could have prolonged the interim stage instead. They couldn’t even get the name “BBC News” cleared by Indian regulators before launch, so used a horrible overlay graphic to name the channel BBC World News for weeks (in one of the biggest markets for the channel). That sort of sloppiness shouldn’t have made it to air.

The overnight axing and then gradual and awkward reintroduction of branded programming was another symptom of the rush to air.

It made no sense.

Yes, the interim arrangements resulted in no opt-out facility for U.K. stories, but if a massive story broke I’m sure they could have got on air from Studio D or Studio B - and, let’s be honest, hardly anyone has been watching the few disorganised opts we have had over the past year anyway. So they would hardly have been much of a loss. On-location opts, such as Anna Foster covering the maternity scandal at Countess of Chester hospital, would also still have been possible.

Yes, a year is too long to set up a new channel, especially when it was supposed to be an amalgamation of two related but separately-successful predecessor services, but if they have finally got going now I am pleased! A shame they had to have so many mis-steps just to get here.

---

RE: BBC News Pres: Apr 2023 - Present (News Channel/BBC One) - ViridianFan - 29-04-2024

(28-04-2024, 10:18 PM)interestednovice Wrote:  I’ve been thinking this for a while; actually, since the launch itself!

Somebody commented here last April, on launch day if my memory serves correctly, that the launch had been messy (paraphrasing) but they understood the budgetary reasons meant it “had to be today” and I immediately thought when I read that: they could have prolonged the interim stage instead. They couldn’t even get the name “BBC News” cleared by Indian regulators before launch, so used a horrible overlay graphic to name the channel BBC World News for weeks (in one of the biggest markets for the channel). That sort of sloppiness shouldn’t have made it to air.

The overnight axing and then gradual and awkward reintroduction of branded programming was another symptom of the rush to air.

It made no sense.

Yes, the interim arrangements resulted in no opt-out facility for U.K. stories, but if a massive story broke I’m sure they could have got on air from Studio D or Studio B - and, let’s be honest, hardly anyone has been watching the few disorganised opts we have had over the past year anyway. So they would hardly have been much of a loss. On-location opts, such as Anna Foster covering the maternity scandal at Countess of Chester hospital, would also still have been possible.

Yes, a year is too long to set up a new channel, especially when it was supposed to be an amalgamation of two related but separately-successful predecessor services, but if they have finally got going now I am pleased! A shame they had to have so many mis-steps just to get here.

You sum it up perfectly; it was sloppy and things made it on air that never should have.

The more I reflect on it all, the more I come to the conclusion that actually there is no excuse for how badly the merger has gone.

I agree that it’s likely that the merger had to happen that day due to budgets but we all often talk as if it was last minute decision however they’d announced the merger was going to take place 8 months previously. I think it’s safe to assume that they didn’t make the decision the night before the announcement and one would hope there would have been discussions about what they wanted from the merge.

If it hadn’t been the first time the bbc were launching a news channel you could excuse errors in the early days but they’d run two separate news channels for years.

The BBC can make changes quickly; when you think about when Covid hit changes had to take place practically overnight and they managed it.

In this situation consultations and the correct process had to take place but that wouldn’t have stopped them planning and getting everything else decided. They could have been working on program ideas, structure of the programs, branding. In reality the presenters could be spotted in.

The biggest problem was they were telling everyone it was a merger when really it was the closer of the uk news channel. If they’d have been honest and up front the need to rebrand and create new programs as they would have been able to use the old names instead of renaming them to what they are now.

I still don’t think the channel works as it is as it’s not fully meeting the need of either audience. The opt outs just sit on one story. Do the opt outs save money? You’ve still got a presenter (Inguess on a lower wage) but do they have a gallery still? The studios are automated. If packages are coming in all the time for the 1, 6 and 10. The opt out still have interviews. You’ve also got news teams around the uk who are producing content. I seem to remember watching something where the reports are uploaded to a central server.

Even if you had a uk news channel from 10am till 6 which is structured like a bulletins. You don’t need all the fancy graphics or walking about. Yes it makes visually more interesting but in reality it’s not essential. You’re got people making the content as someone has to be collating it for the live pages and the opt outs.

---

RE: BBC News Pres: Apr 2023 - Present (News Channel/BBC One) - Keith - 29-04-2024

(29-04-2024, 12:49 PM)ViridianFan Wrote:  You sum it up perfectly; it was sloppy and things made it on air that never should have.

The more I reflect on it all, the more I come to the conclusion that actually there is no excuse for how badly the merger has gone.

I think it's what happens when a lot of experienced staff are made redundant. Those that are left may not have as much experience, as well as presenters having to get used to operating the autocue themselves.

Then there was the small matter of the five presenters in dispute with HR, which saw them kept off-air. This resulted in the news channel having to use freelance presenters, as well as paying others to act up to cover shifts. (I dare speculate that Huw Edwards' suspension may also have stretched available presenters and financial resources further, as some may have had to cover the national news instead.)

One can only hope that a year on with the HR review complete and at least some of the five returning to air things may settle down a bit. (Hopefully their reported legal action won't keep them off-air.) If I recall correctly a review a few months ago had determined they required more presenters to cover UK news, which resulted in two of those five getting presenter roles (rather than just one).

---

RE: BBC News Pres: Apr 2023 - Present (News Channel/BBC One) - Rolling News - 29-04-2024

Karin Giannone is also in rehearsals:

https://x.com/karinbbc/status/1784982738774200374?s=46&t=T0tm5lPRG5Alj3SZhqC1tw 

---

RE: BBC News Pres: Apr 2023 - Present (News Channel/BBC One) - RhysJR - 29-04-2024

BBC launches BBC Verify US, lead by Ros Atkins. With the launch of the News Channel on FAST channels and livestream on BBC.com, it has doubled its reach in the US.

https://www.bbcstudiospressroom.com/press/rising-above-partisan-divides-the-bbc-will-help-u-s-consumers-navigate-the-u-s-presidential-election-like-never-before/ 

---

RE: BBC News Pres: Apr 2023 - Present (News Channel/BBC One) - radio listener - 30-04-2024

Very clunky transition from "World" BBC News to "UK" BBC News regarding the breaking news of stabbings in Hainault.

---

RE: BBC News Pres: Apr 2023 - Present (News Channel/BBC One) - Moz - 30-04-2024

Can I just say that I can remember when it was announced that the new merged channel would have break outs for UK breaking news - people didn’t believe it, they thought it would be slow to react and not happen often.

I think they’ve been proved wrong.

While the break out service needs to work on how long it stays with a single story ignoring all other news, its ability to actually break out can’t be questioned I don’t think.

The stabbing in London this morning a case in point.

---

RE: BBC News Pres: Apr 2023 - Present (News Channel/BBC One) - leewilliams - 30-04-2024

(30-04-2024, 10:20 AM)Moz Wrote:  While the break out service needs to work on how long it stays with a single story ignoring all other news, its ability to actually break out can’t be questioned I don’t think.

The stabbing in London this morning a case in point.

Not sure how much we should be celebrating the BBC doing the minimum it promised and often in a much less dynamic way than Sky, which manages to handle multiple domestic breaking stories at once while the NC often seems tethered to just one issue.

---