[Keith]

It’s not a direct reduction to the news budget though, management decided on the hit to news. It’s hard to see other parts of the organisation suffering in this way.

Surely you've noticed the BBC Two daytime schedules these days, compared to 5-10 years ago. Whereas other parts of the BBC had cuts early on, most of BBC News were held off until the past few years.

[bilky asko]

It’s not a direct reduction to the news budget though, management decided on the hit to news. It’s hard to see other parts of the organisation suffering in this way.

They've had to close services over the years, and they've reduced new content hours significantly this year alone. There have been recent BBC Local Radio cuts too, It's silly to say that the rest of the organisation hasn't been affected.

They protected news for as long as they could, and it's inevitable that news would eventually be affected.

[DTV]

It’s not a direct reduction to the news budget though, management decided on the hit to news. It’s hard to see other parts of the organisation suffering in this way.

This is completely wrong. News as a department has seen below average cuts relative to the rest of the BBC; News and Current Affairs is, by some margin, the genre the BBC spends the most on; and, even after the last decade of cuts, the pre-merger BBC News channel was the only major BBC broadcast service to have received a real terms increase in budget from 2012/13 to 2022/23. 

Far from News being some poorly treated department, it is typically resented across the rest of the corporation as an executive's darling which largely gets what it wants. Sure, cuts to news do appear more apparent, but this is really just a combination of cuts to news programming being harder to cover up (no repeats) and job losses being direct (rather than simply freelancers not getting hired). Things have simply got to the point where having two news channels that can't really be cut back individually became unsustainable.

[qwerty123]

This is completely wrong. News as a department has seen below average cuts relative to the rest of the BBC; News and Current Affairs is, by some margin, the genre the BBC spends the most on; and, even after the last decade of cuts, the pre-merger BBC News channel was the only major BBC broadcast service to have received a real terms increase in budget from 2012/13 to 2022/23. 

Far from News being some poorly treated department, it is typically resented across the rest of the corporation as an executive's darling which largely gets what it wants. Sure, cuts to news do appear more apparent, but this is really just a combination of cuts to news programming being harder to cover up (no repeats) and job losses being direct (rather than simply freelancers not getting hired). Things have simply got to the point where having two news channels that can't really be cut back individually became unsustainable.

The problem is that the cuts to News could have been entirely avoidable. For example by all accounts the budget for Wimbledon is bigger than what the news channel had pre merger and alternative programmes for the slots filled by Wimbledon could be sourced at basically no cost (given a lot of coverage falls into slots typically occupied by low budget repeats).

[interestednovice]

This is such an typical accountant-style “line item” view, which excuses errors going to air.

The fact is it doesn’t cost more for people to do their jobs properly, and they should. It ought to be a point of professional pride.

Unfortunately, corporate leadership at the BBC is exceedingly poor and, as such, the changes have been poorly managed and have led to a combination of very low morale and loss of experienced staff. As a result, we are more likely to see errors and it’s no surprise that suddenly staff seem to be asleep at the wheel. What was once a leading global news broadcaster is now unable to produce a professional output, it’s a very sad state of affairs.

I don’t understand how two well-run channels, merged into one, have now ended up as one low-rent channel more similar to local news production standards than either of the predecessor services. Yes, some behind-the-scenes cuts have had a screen impact (such as the loss of autocue operators) but most roles still exist so the frequency of technical errors now seen can’t be explained by it.

---

The problem is that the cuts to News could have been entirely avoidable. For example by all accounts the budget for Wimbledon is bigger than what the news channel had pre merger and alternative programmes for the slots filled by Wimbledon could be sourced at basically no cost (given a lot of coverage falls into slots typically occupied by low budget repeats).

Exactly, if funds really were running that low then the BBC should examine output costs and look to support (and prioritise) PSB output such as news.

[Reith85]

I still don’t understand how the likes of Deborah Turness and Paul Royall are presiding over this mess and not (as far as we can tell) doing more to up the merged channel’s game, with the few resources they now have. Visually, it’s a mess and journalistically, an unprofessional shambles.

[News76]

And how this mess is allowed to go on for this long-somebody must be willing to step in and say "enough" even if Ofcom aren't willing to.

[DTV]

Exactly, if funds really were running that low then the BBC should examine output costs and look to support (and prioritise) PSB output such as news.

As has been the case with most of the cuts. But you get to a point where the amount of things that have been ringfenced is unsustainable and it makes more sense to continue to protect mass-use PSB stuff like network news than a supplementary news channel, which, let's not forget, is used by only a small minority of those who use BBC News services, despite not catering to a minority audience.

And I'm getting a bit bored of having to say this, but there's no quicker way to destroy any remaining public support for the licence fee than to substantively cut back things that people enjoy to fund worthy things they don't want to watch - that's just not the PSB bargain that allows the BBC to survive. Ditching a sporting tournament that a) the BBC have broadcast for nearly as long as television has existed and b) is one of the most-watched programmes when it is on, to help add extra funds to a channel whose better-performing slots rate about as well as Look North (Hull) is just bad politics.

Plus, I just don't believe that funding alone explains the output flaws. Given the broad numbers suggested, we're probably looking at a channel with a budget a bit higher than either channel previously had and which is only a bit smaller than the combined budgets for the entire English TV regional news operation. Given direct production costs are only a fraction of a news channel's budget, there should be more than enough money for a more professional operation. Bad executive decisions, poor resource management and poor staff retention are likely to be bigger culprits.

[bkman1990]

Would there be a lot of viewers watching Verified Live with Matthew at that time of the day when it's on in the UK or even outside of it.

If you were to put a percentage of viewers that watched the error with the bad language in it coming from Belfast. How many of those viewers would lodge a direct complaint to the BBC to make an on air apology. It is definitely not something that you want to see frequently with the one of the most famous news broadcasters in the world. In an ideal world all of us as viewers of the newly merged BBC News Channel would prefer to see it as a blip and not see it happen again. Although if a error of judgement like that occurred more frequently with OB's in future; it should definitely warrant a serious discussion about it on Newswatch to try and clear up the mess.

Whatever happened to the Irish woman that was supposed to be their big DC signing? She hasn't been on air, if I'm not not wrong?

That is Catriona Perry. I watched a clip of her presenting WNA on Youtube yesterday morning. She did ok for her first stint on that bulletin. But she herself had made a few errors in the broadcast of the programme which was done on either Tuesday or Wednesday night.

When she was co-presenting the RTÉ Six One News over in Dublin. She did handle the programme very well as she felt very much at ease with the role after doing that job for six years. When she went to apply for one of the roles of Chief Presenter of BBC News in Washington. Her background in getting the job was mainly having an interest in U.S. Politics.

If you starting your job with a new news broadcaster on the 1st day; it's probably normal to be nervous with having one or two errors here and there for a little while. But if you are either an experienced reporter or presenter it's definitely not normal to keep repeating the same mistakes when you are in it for the long term; your long time likability on screen with your viewers does start to become stale.

[harshy]

Odd isn’t it that the mistake went out on Verified Live, clearly it wasn’t verified before they put that to air. These named shows are just there to make sure the affiliates have something to promote, I can’t think of any other reason why they are there. There must be a problem with Studio C again as they are now in E, whilst the Nicky Campbell radio show is on for licence fee viewers.