[Kojak]

Just turned on Nicky Campbell’s show on 5 live. The phone in since 10am is on ‘the ick’ - the things in a relationship where you know it’s not going to work… guests are a matchmaker and a relationship coach.

Coming soon to “BBC News”

And many here thought Victoria Derbyshire and her ‘films’ would be a low point to morning BBC News

Presumably they will have to ensure all the topics are News worthy once it starts being simulcast

HA! And pigs will fly...

[damian]

Why can’t London do short sharp clean toth sequences like these three from Washington?

I say ditch the thunderclaps at every headline as they’re now just restarting the bed are they not? I prefer if they just let the bed play out.

Shame the titles are mess but these short sharp toths are perfect, nicer headline transition too.

youtu.be 

[harshy]

I am guessing it’s coming from the gallery that operates studio c anything from E is out of sync but who knows except for the hierarchy of the bbc what’s going on.

[damian]

I am guessing it’s coming from the gallery that operates studio c anything from E is out of sync but who knows except for the hierarchy of the bbc what’s going on.

But even C’s are garbage too from what I’ve seen so far.

[harshy]

I am guessing it’s coming from the gallery that operates studio c anything from E is out of sync but who knows except for the hierarchy of the bbc what’s going on.

But even C’s are garbage too from what I’ve seen so far.

As well as studio b as they’ve got the butchered chameleon titles on a pres level this is easily the worst with the Uk channel coming off worst.

The audience stats for this channel will make for interesting reading, no doubts the Beeb will find a way to dress that up too.

[Jimbo2022]

I wonder if South Asia version of world has now changed to BBC news yet?

[LDN]

It seems that we've seen the last of the 'full-fat' breaking news lower-thirds, with two lines of text, and with the small, flashing white-backed 'BREAKING' tag to the right of the BBC News logo - i.e. this version: 

   

With the decision to ditch the second descriptive line of text on all lower-thirds, the breaking news version now just scrolls endlessly between all-caps large Reith Bold 'BREAKING' and the mixed-case Reith Serif headline.

I assume the decision to drop the second line of text is a consequence of the leaner staffing operation for the new combined channel; in particular, the challenge of reliably maintaining text for two completely different stories, on those occasions when the UK opts out for its own coverage. Instead of rising to that challenge to maintain the usefulness of the on-screen graphics, as well as continuing to - at the very least - meet the same standards of output provided by the previous two channels, someone evidently decided it would just be much easier to ditch the second line of text entirely, thereby stripping the lower-thirds of most of their usefulness.

So now, we have a large headline graphic on screen both before and during (?!) a story, taking up space to tell us nothing more than the same four- or five-word story title. Who is that helping? How does having that headline on screen for four or five minutes enhance my understanding of the story? How is that better than the more complete story summary I could rely on from the on-screen graphics on the previous channels?  

Previously, I could jump over to the BBC News Channel, and even mid-bulletin, mid-story, I could get a scrolling text summary (in addition to the headline) of the story that was currently being discussed, so I could catch up with the key details related to what was happening on-screen. Additionally, I'd be able to get a quick overview of the day's key stories via the ticker. 

Now, if I've missed any part of a report/package when I switch over to BBC News, I have no idea what the hell's going on, beyond the story headline. There's a good chance I might find myself in the middle of a lengthy 3- or 4-way talking-heads discussion about a news story, but there's nothing on screen to tell me what these people are talking about for five or ten minutes, aside from the ever-present headline; nothing more to bring me up to speed with the key elements of the story. And instead of a useful ticker, all I've got is a static web address -- taking up space, and seemingly begging me to stop wasting my time on the TV channel, and just read the damn website already.

None of this is an improvement, for anybody. All of this is worse than what came before.

[oscillon]

Luxmy Gopal, having presented the morning shift, will also do the lunchtime bulletin (and will be on the UK opt-out team?)
twitter.com 

If they are doing it on a Good Friday, one might expect that on normal weekends lunchtime news will also be done by someone from the mornings/afternoons shift of the combined channel.

[SomeRandomStuff]

I think the following stats explain how we got to the current situation fairly well.
- (Colour) Licence fee in 2010: £145.50
- Inflation adjusted 2010 fee today: £207.38 (according to Bank of England calculator, rounded down to £145.)
- Current (colour) licence fee: £159
- Difference: 26% (rounded to nearest whole number)

So whilst the license fee has only risen by £13.50 in 13 years, not only are the BBC's budgets impacted by the massive real terms cuts of that tiny rise, the BBC must also now fund:
Free TV licenses for over 75s, and funding of the BBC World Service, that it was not responsible for funding from the license fee in 2010. Money from the license fee has also been taken to support the digital TV switchover and broadband rollout since 2010.
So the BBC has had its funding cut whilst at the same time it has been made responsible for funding more services from a smaller funding pot. These are government decisions.

So it's easy to bash the BBC management for the closure of the UK News Channel, but it would not have happened if the BBC had not been cut to the bone for 13 years by consecutive Conservative governments.

Anyone who is upset and angry by what the BBC has become needs to seriously consider which political party they vote for next year, as the party currently in charge has made no attempt to hide the fact that if it wins the next election, the license fee will be abolished altogether.
(It's no coincidence that BBC News 24 / News Channel and the BBC in general, was at its best and most well resourced between 1997 - 2010)

The license fee should be abolished and not - before someone jumps in - for political reasons, but because it is the only way the BBC will survive.

The license fee is the sole route of all the BBC’s problems. The constant supply of money has made the corporation lazy and bloated. Weak management and employees with seemingly more interest in politics than delivering the public service they are paid for. They are completely incapable of operating on a tight budget as has been shown with News channel merger omnishambles this last week.

The License gives the fee payer a proprietary right to criticise everything the BBC do and the government (blue or red) the right to bully the corporation whenever they want. The BBC can scream ‘we’re free and impartial’ until the sun grows cold but very few actually believe them. …and just because all quarters of the political spectrum complain about apparent bias does not mean the BBC is ‘fair and balanced’.

You never hear the government or the fee payer complaining about any of the other commercial channels with the same hyperbole. Ant and Dec get paid significantly more than Anyone at the BBC and nobody cares.

Free the BBC from the license fee. Free it from government interference. Free i from fee paying complainers. Sure it might collapse but it will definitely collapse if it keeps the same funding model.

Audiences are dwindling. Younger people are not watching the TV nearly as much as their parents do. There are better alternatives than the dusty old terrestrial channels.

The license fee cannot be sustained indefinitely as number of fee payers declines the service will get worse and worse. More services will be combined to serve neither of the audiences that watched them and people who don’t watch the BBC cannot be expected to pay for these things to stay on air. And no the BBC is not necessary to society like the health service. There are an abundance of alternatives.

Apologies for the rant… I am someone who was very much a BBC fan, as many from TVF will remember. Now I despair the depths this once great broadcaster has sunk and there is seemingly no end to its destruction in sight.

[damian]

I agree re the removable of the second text line on the straps. They’re entirely pointless now… yet they be fanging out split screens and side bars now like no tomorrow.