[Moz]

Yes, I didn't say it was inaudible, but I found the background noise and Reeta's raised voice noticeable - particularly at the start of the programme - and felt it was a bit distracting.

It was just unfortunate really, as they clearly needed important contributions from Judith Moritz who was one of the few journalists in court throughout the trial. They did the best they could given the weather/impending storm.

I just don't get the persistent 'anti-background sounds' lobby that seems to exist here. Not saying they're wrong - everyone is entitled to their opinion of course - just that I don't get it.

I think these things *add to* the broadcast and bring texture and reality.

It was raining in Manchester, and it was raining where I am just down the road, so it brought a connection and underlined that it was live coverage from location.

I also think that the buzz of a newsroom with the occasional shout or bang brings something to a broadcast rather than being a distraction.

[Andrew]

Certainly. There's always been a tendency among certain programmes and outlets to conflate 'analysis' and spending more time saying the same thing. Other than the biggest 'category A' stories, there's rarely any need to spend more than about 5/6 minutes on even lead stories.

There also seems to be a rule these days that if a story is big, it has to be covered at great length, or else the story isn’t seen as being covered adequately

So for example you’ll have the Ten being extended and all but 5 minutes will be covering the big story. Like you say that extra time will be filled with correspondent interviews, vox pops etc.

Obviously some stories are complex or have different angles and do need extra time, but if it’s straight forward you’d don’t always need 20 minutes.

I agree that making BBC News more like hourly network bulletins with the ability for more coverage as required would be better than this slow paced, spend 10 minutes on every story, format

[LDN]

I just don't get the persistent 'anti-background sounds' lobby that seems to exist here. Not saying they're wrong - everyone is entitled to their opinion of course - just that I don't get it.

I think these things *add to* the broadcast and bring texture and reality.

It was raining in Manchester, and it was raining where I am just down the road, so it brought a connection and underlined that it was live coverage from location.

I also think that the buzz of a newsroom with the occasional shout or bang brings something to a broadcast rather than being a distraction.

I think that, for many people, the 'texture and reality' that background noise brings to news presentation generally ends up being an unnecessary distraction. In the middle of trying to listen to and understand the details of a potentially complex story -- about a serial murderer, a terrorist attack, a plane crash -- that kind of background noise serves no useful purpose other than to draw attention to itself, and draw attention away from the news topic being covered. 

In my opinion, most viewers watching a news bulletin are not seeking the kind of 'connection' to a location that you allude to; in the example you cited, most viewers watching were not just down the road as you were, and would therefore surely have been less forgiving of background noise pulling focus from the story being discussed. 

I recall watching various OBs over the years where the gentle patter of rain in the background has suddenly become a MASSIVE RELENTLESS DOWNPOUR -- and in the middle of a correspondent trying to do their bit to camera, as a viewer, one's attention immediately becomes distracted by the monsoon conditions that have suddenly appeared, and you're no longer paying attention to the story. 

Similarly, it might add some 'buzz' to be watching a BBC Verify slot, for example, in the newsroom and to randomly hear someone in the background shouting "Can you send that to me?" or to suddenly hear a loud bang or thud off-camera, but if that happens in the middle of a report, I find myself no longer paying attention that report -- all my attention is now on who's emailing what to whom; or wtf that loud bang was. Perhaps that's just me. 

Indeed, I can only speak for myself, but I don't get those who are so in favour of embracing background noise to add some kind of 'ambience' or 'buzz' to news presentation -- for the simple reason that, all too often, it ends up doing nothing but drawing attention away from the content, and distracting from the actual news.

[scottishtv]

I just don't get the persistent 'anti-background sounds' lobby that seems to exist here. 

I'm not part of any lobby against OBs. In fact, I've been in favour of the road trips the main bulletins have done in the past. Many OBs are obviously required when the reporter can't get to a studio or wants to interview local guests.

My post was simply about how unfortunate the circumstances were when it started pouring before the Ten. It clearly affected the coverage of one of the biggest stories of the year, and I don't think the rain noise and background traffic added any context to the story of the guilty verdicts being revealed.

I hadn't seen any coverage of this story all day, and it was a mighty complex one with so many charges in one case. I was really interested in the detail, and thankfully that was provided in the packaged reports.

[Independent]

If I was a former BBC World News viewer I'd now be looking for my TV World news bulletins elsewhere. 
I don't think anyone can complain that this new channel is World heavy, quite the opposite.

As a former regular BBC World News viewer I have already done that. I check in from time to time. The big strap being red all the time is very unpleasant. There's a reason why teachers prefer students write in black and blue ink and not red!
The pace is terrible as DTV has mentioned many times and I like the quotation around "analysis" in DTV's reply in the last page. Doing a number of "news in briefs" would make it more tolerable. They could be an opportunity to promote their app and website (though I'm not a fan of the tabloidy style). You would think having to handle more news due to the need to accommodate two different audiences would result in a faster pace approach but instead they just cover a few stories relying mostly on interviewing guests for 10 minutes each. You don't feel less informed with those interviews compared to a 2 minute package. The awfulness is simply down to poor management, leadership and decision-making.

[xlalonce]

I think that, for many people, the 'texture and reality' that background noise brings to news presentation generally ends up being an unnecessary distraction. In the middle of trying to listen to and understand the details of a potentially complex story -- about a serial murderer, a terrorist attack, a plane crash -- that kind of background noise serves no useful purpose other than to draw attention to itself, and draw attention away from the news topic being covered. 

In my opinion, most viewers watching a news bulletin are not seeking the kind of 'connection' to a location that you allude to; in the example you cited, most viewers watching were not just down the road as you were, and would therefore surely have been less forgiving of background noise pulling focus from the story being discussed. 

I recall watching various OBs over the years where the gentle patter of rain in the background has suddenly become a MASSIVE RELENTLESS DOWNPOUR -- and in the middle of a correspondent trying to do their bit to camera, as a viewer, one's attention immediately becomes distracted by the monsoon conditions that have suddenly appeared, and you're no longer paying attention to the story. 

Similarly, it might add some 'buzz' to be watching a BBC Verify slot, for example, in the newsroom and to randomly hear someone in the background shouting "Can you send that to me?" or to suddenly hear a loud bang or thud off-camera, but if that happens in the middle of a report, I find myself no longer paying attention that report -- all my attention is now on who's emailing what to whom; or wtf that loud bang was. Perhaps that's just me. 

Indeed, I can only speak for myself, but I don't get those who are so in favour of embracing background noise to add some kind of 'ambience' or 'buzz' to news presentation -- for the simple reason that, all too often, it ends up doing nothing but drawing attention away from the content, and distracting from the actual news.

The focus on that issue should be on how the sound is being managed by the gallery. A good example of that is ABC News (US) circa 2000-2004 when the studio was in the newsroom. You can notice how, during coverages like 911, the sounds of phones ringing were there, but not to the point of distracting. In fact, they added to the sense of urgency of the news covered. But they managed to arrange the studio so the sounds of the newsroom were controlled properly by the gallery. Again, that require capable and experienced people. People that probably were let go by the BBC. People with little time to explain young coworkers who took several tasks that were the job of just one individual prior to the merger. So that would explain (in a nutshell) why this constant track of problems (Sound and other areas)

[KatsKaravan]

I understand the newsroom noise was a big reason Sky chose to move away from newsroom sets some time ago. The background noise in the old Sky Centre was very much noticeable (but not distracting) if you listened through headphones. I know some presenters welcomed the glass box because it's much quieter.

[Stuart]

I just don't get the persistent 'anti-background sounds' lobby that seems to exist here. Not saying they're wrong - everyone is entitled to their opinion of course - just that I don't get it.

I think these things *add to* the broadcast and bring texture and reality.

It was raining in Manchester, and it was raining where I am just down the road, so it brought a connection and underlined that it was live coverage from location.

I agree, Moz. It didn't detract from anything during that OB.

Having been brought up in Manchester, I wouldn't have believed she was actually there unless it was raining.

[IanJRedman]

Well, that was odd. While Dan Roan was speaking live on the News at Ten just now, a female whisper could be clearly heard on the audio. Seemed to say "I really have been avoiding it"?!

[Marcell]

It’s a difficult balance as upsetting the Government and the British press is arguably just as important for the future funding of the BBC.

Absolutely agree, their funding should be completely separate from whether their coverage is favourable to the government.

---

I think broadly, this is it. Beyond any format or editorial considerations, it's the fact that things are just so slow that it magnifies the other issues. I feel you could even keep the rather UK-heavy editorial split, but it'd be less noticeable if more stories from around the world were getting covered.

Especially these days where content for younger people has been getting shorter & snappier due to diminishing attention span (including myself at 24), I think it would be good to speed up the glacial pace.