[UTVLifer]

Honestly, the persistence of this 'it's a rebadged World News' view is just so bizarre. Sure, it's formatted more as per World News, but, during 'core' UK hours, it is far closer in terms of editorial lean to the old News channel than World News - UK news, including some incredibly parochial stories, lead about 50% of the time, with UK politics in particular adequately covered.

I would be surprised if the hour-to-hour repeating of reports has gone up - I suspect it's just more noticeable due to the slower pace. The News channel was always fairly similar one hour to the next, it was only ever World News during its stranded heyday (2007-15) when you really saw particularly changing news agendas hour-to-hour.

I would suspect that the current editorial lean will be put under an increasing strain next year once the months of build-up to the US election begins, especially if (as looks likely) Rishi holds off on a GE until next autumn as well.

[Former Member 237]

Indeed, they should have been honest with viewers from the start. Autocue operators and behind the scenes technical staff and journalists should not have been axed.

If they couldn’t afford a proper UK opt, then they shouldn’t have done it. They should have admitted to Ofcom that they were closing the BBC News Channel, kept BBC World News pretty much as it was and broadcast that in the UK. The “World News” name would be a clear differentiator signalling that the channel was a global feed. In quarter-past-the-hour breaks, they could have done “UK News in Brief” headlines much as Newsday used to do. This would be infinitely more useful to viewers than the “Across the UK” repackaged local reports - valuable naturally UK-only time should cover the top UK stories of the day and not random regional human interest stories.

Separately, basic feeds covering UK rolling stories could have been made available via iPlayer, the BBC News website and app. I would call this channel “BBC News Breaking” and this would basically be equivalent to opts now but using a real studio.

I would have kept radio and any NBH newsroom revamps away from the plans. No “visualised radio”, no non-news content aside from established weekend Click, Travel Show, Hardtalk, etc factual programmes. No simulcast domestic bulletins - straight World feed instead.

If budgets couldn’t cover this, cut elsewhere. It’s often brought up that there’s some kind of “compact” with viewers that they get “stuff they want to see” (entertainment; Eastenders etc) and also “stuff they should be shown”. I reject that thinking entirely. Just go like PBS and refocus on true exclusively “nobody else will do it” PSB content and leave entertainment for others. That would preserve news at the cost of things like Match of the Day. You could get the same programme elsewhere (probably ITV) and it would make no difference. No other broadcaster will step in to provide news in an equivalent way.

The technology is not “there” for staff to be axed. Now that presenters have to operate their own autocue, the visual variety of the channel is sorely lacking as they cannot easily move around nor can they switch between cameras in the way they used to.

Other cutbacks have also had an impact, with stories repeated more due to fewer reports being produced and gallery staff cut so presentation has become more basic (compounding the autocue issue) leading to problems such as a restricted ability to accommodate in-studio guests.

Very simple iPlayer streams (live press conferences, etc, perhaps not covered directly on the merged channel) would be virtually free as they should only need one producer to put to air, which is why I suggested it.

When I said “newsroom revamp”, I meant the needless extra screens and adaptations to the weather balcony - it’s not a full revamp, I agree, but it’s money spent on alterations that didn’t have to be and hasn’t improved content for the viewer at all. Everything they do out there could be done more professional on existing in-studio screens or packaged as part of a proper report.

Well just because the presentation has changed does not mean the technology is not there. It clearly is as it is in use and works to achieve its function. If there are limitations to that, it means you have to find better technology, but that doesn't mean we should not remove outdated setups. 

I can't say I have noticed much difference in regards to repeats or on air guests. Many changes were made in covid which were not changed back, as in many other places.

I don't disagree with the iPlayer idea.

Yes but the newsroom, will actually be re-vamped. So let us wait and see with it before we assume what we have now is the finished product.

[KatsKaravan]

I must be in the minority as I think the news channel is better since the changes. The old way was 'here's an intro, report, here's another intro, report, here's some more info, let's go live, here's a report...' rinse and repeat. In the new style, they actually go behind the headlines and talk about why something is happening, not just 'it's happening'.

It's much better value than just a rundown of stories each hour, which you can get on the website anyway. The news channel needs to offer something more... which it is. Each strand is more tightly focused and you actually know roughly what you're getting.

Yes, the presentation is a lot more static now, but that probably won't be for long. When studio E is finally refitted and the AI cameras are installed it should hopefully look more dynamic.

[Radio_man]

I would suspect that the current editorial lean will be put under an increasing strain next year once the months of build-up to the US election begins, especially if (as looks likely) Rishi holds off on a GE until next autumn as well.

I saw an article this weekend that suggested Sunak will delay until November.
We could see the US and UK elections either being held in the same week, or within weeks if each other.
If this happens, I suspect next September & October we'll have the international channel getting the 'professional' presentation from the studio, with the UK stream stuck on a noisy balcony in front of a dull background for two months, to handle the inevitable opt outs that will be needed to cover campaign announcements, speeches & other UK specific election developments, whilst the international channel is focussed on the US election.

[Brekkie]

Honestly, the persistence of this 'it's a rebadged World News' view is just so bizarre. Sure, it's formatted more as per World News, but, during 'core' UK hours, it is far closer in terms of editorial lean to the old News channel than World News - UK news, including some incredibly parochial stories, lead about 50% of the time, with UK politics in particular adequately covered.

That may be the case but the problem is it doesn't feel like it, and a 50:50 shot of them feeling relevant isn't great.

The foundations are probably there though to improve things as long as management are willing to accept there are issues that need addressing rather than just being deaf to criticism.

[aaron_scotland]

I saw an article this weekend that suggested Sunak will delay until November.
We could see the US and UK elections either being held in the same week, or within weeks if each other.
If this happens, I suspect next September & October we'll have the international channel getting the 'professional' presentation from the studio, with the UK stream stuck on a noisy balcony in front of a dull background for two months, to handle the inevitable opt outs that will be needed to cover campaign announcements, speeches & other UK specific election developments, whilst the international channel is focussed on the US election.

Atleast they have the option to put the UK feed on BBC2, perhaps more than they normally would for any other GE.

[DTV]

That may be the case but the problem is it doesn't feel like it, and a 50:50 shot of them feeling relevant isn't great.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as I'd certainly agree that news from one particular country leading half the time isn't great, though I suspect for different reasons.

[AaronTV]

I haven’t really commented on the merged channel here as of yet as I feel that whilst there is understandably a good deal of frustration at the situation, much of the criticism of the combined channel has strayed into hyperbole in my opinion. From what I’ve seen, it looks absolutely fine. It’s rolling news, as it always has been.

In numbers terms, it remains the case that well over 90% of the people who consume news from the BBC regularly will not have noticed these changes. The 100,000 people or so who tended to watch the previous incarnation of the news channel are absolutely dwarfed by the 5-6 million people collectively who watch the main network bulletins each day, alongside the many more who access BBC News content but never switch a TV on.

At times when there has been breaking domestic news, people will have switched to BBC News to find the story being covered, as has always been the case.

The biggest sign that it’s actually been handled rather well is that nobody outside of circles like this forum has actually noticed the merger - there’s been no media criticism, no commentary, nothing.

Many other organisations have to make the best of the resources available to them in the name of efficiency - ITN have always done an excellent job of this, with far less space and far fewer resources than the BBC.

What we are seeing now is the BBC having to make difficult decisions that its commercial counterparts have faced for decades. Clearly there has been an impact on the merged channel presentation, and it does look a little rough round the edges at times, but it’s absolutely fine overall.

Interestingly my only real criticism is that I honestly don’t believe the BBC needs to necessarily hide that it’s a merged channel - why not make the most of the BBC’s global assets more? People are not completely insular and would probably be pretty interested in global news (outside of breaking news) and with regular UK updates.

Mornings, for example, could consist of some generic BBC News output and regular headlines and weather, but with dedicated blocks that go out on both feeds ie. UK focused, then US, then a global show (Around the UK, America Today, The World Today, etc).

Where else would you get such a range of output and talent with bases all over the world? Only with the BBC.

Rather than the BBC being embarrassed about running a merged service, it seems to me that the trick to making it a success would actually be to shout about it and make the global focus with a UK angle it’s USP!

[KatsKaravan]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as I'd certainly agree that news from one particular country leading half the time isn't great, though I suspect for different reasons.

I'm with you on that one. The only thing wrong with the news channel is they focus too much on UK news. If it's being broadcast around the world it should reflect that. We could all do with knowing a bit more about the rest of the world. Go and watch Sky News if you want UK news.

[DTV]

If this happens, I suspect next September & October we'll have the international channel getting the 'professional' presentation from the studio, with the UK stream stuck on a noisy balcony in front of a dull background for two months, to handle the inevitable opt outs that will be needed to cover campaign announcements, speeches & other UK specific election developments, whilst the international channel is focussed on the US election.

Since the merger, the channel has spent multiple days leading with each of the highly UK-centric Lineker, Schofield and Edwards stories. It has covered every major UK political story, often as lead during core UK hours without opt-outs. Last week, they utilised the Millbank team to produce a full proper by-election night programme for the first time in years. The idea that the channel is somehow going to be shy in covering the UK election is absurd. Yes, they'll cover the US election as well, but this continued pessimism about things like this is just really unfounded. There are many things to complain about the new channel, but, in terms of the UK-World news balance, it's basically what most of the people on here wanted short of a continued separate channel.

Plus, with Nicky Campbell, for its many faults, an election campaign is when I could see it having genuine purpose. It could serve as a replacement for Election Call/Ask... and covering live campaign events (i.e., speeches) is hardly difficult for visualised radio.