09-08-2023, 02:35 AM
Noticed during Washington and Sally Burdocks hour, the bbc logo does not animate in the titles but does outside of the hours mentioned.
(09-08-2023, 02:26 AM)ViridianFan Wrote: I couldn’t agree more with your last point. When I think back to when I get the channel was it’s best was in the news24 days, when they had the promos about headlines every 15 mins. Must be about 2003 as it was clamshell era. The channel worked because it was always flipping between summary of headlines, couple of stories in depth summary of headlines, news in brief. You actually got a lot of information.
(09-08-2023, 11:33 AM)harshy Wrote: Just bizarre that WBR is the only show, comes with old titles, also has BBC News in a red box and turns studio C blue now but it’s pointless especially with those ridiculus red graphics, this channel just a joke presentation wise, rubbish.
(09-08-2023, 04:25 AM)AaronLancs Wrote: Just been searching up the BBC Motion Graphics Archive and came across Suzie Brown's creation from 1999 for BBC News 24. How bits were so organised back then.To recycle an earlier graphic of mine, this is broadly how the channel's standard hour schedule evolved over time.
(09-08-2023, 03:56 PM)DTV Wrote: To recycle an earlier graphic of mine, this is broadly how the channel's standard hour schedule evolved over time.When you look at the structure of the hour like that it becomes really clear why it felt like the news channel had a much snappier pace.
- The xx:30 news summary got shorter and shorter, becoming just a headline sequence by the latter half of the 2000s. (Conversely, the TOTH headlines got longer).
- The coming up sequence and business headlines were dropped by the mid-2000s.
- Business and sport segments got shuffled in mid-2002 and then moved back when Sport moved to Salford in 2012 (though, of course, business segments were dropped from March to November 2013
(09-08-2023, 09:03 PM)ViridianFan Wrote: When you look at the structure of the hour like that it becomes really clear why it felt like the news channel had a much snappier pace.As you suggest, what the graphic doesn't show is that how much time was spent on each story has increased over time. The first 15 minutes of an hour in the early-2000s would typically cover about seven/eight stories, with those (and sometimes even more) recapped reasonably well in the five-minute BOTH summary. By the mid-2010s, you generally only got three/four stories in the top 15 minutes, with that basically falling to two more recently (some of the slow pacing habits do precede the merger). Obviously, there are arguments for spending longer - the BBC would say it gives more analysis, though personally I find that a four-minute talking head (even internal) tends to be a less efficient way of imparting the same info as a 90-second package.
(09-08-2023, 06:34 PM)harshy Wrote: Clearly not a fan it truely sucks especially after watching 20+ years of BBC World News where the bar was set so high now it’s so bad and a mish-mash of legacy and poor new stuff.In late-2004, BBC World changed the way that opt-outs were done. For the best part of a year, a far too high proportion of opts were botched, with network frequently cutting out or in of the studio output mid-sentence.