[DTV]

Sorry to go on about this but it’s happened AGAIN tonight. The promise of newspaper front pages but a failure to deliver. If we are supposed to trust or even just take seriously the BBC then surely the programme should contain what the trailer promises? Or even just, “we haven’t got time for the papers tonight.”

Fundamentally, the expectation is that every edition of Newsnight carries a paper preview, but it exists as a 'buffer' feature whose length or appearance depends on how long is left on the programme - hence why it can vary from a short discussion to merely a hurried read out of a few headlines to not appearing at all. Often, whether there is time to include it is not decided until during the programme, so long after the trailer has aired anyway.

Also, there is an expectation with these kinds of things that the audience is well aware that news programming is subject to change at short notice. I don't view it as any more breaking a promise than when News 24 advertised Headlines, Business and Sport at certain times of the hour, yet often delayed or even dropped segments depending on developments.

[ViridianFan]

What on earth is BBC News doing? UK Weather events used to be covered excellently with help from the nations and regions teams. Today it looks like a UK-opt-out, a package that was put together overnight (no pictures in daylight) and an as-live from Dan Johnson. Yet again, Sky News are showing up BBC News with 3 correspondents live in the affected areas. This is the type of thing where the BBC should excel, but it's just not happening.

This is a where the new channel really falls down. I get it wouldn’t be of interest to world viewers but this is one of the situations that larger numbers will turn to the bbc.  This is when you notice how bad the cuts have been. Like you said previously you’d have had reporters across the worst effect areas, especially as these are some of the strongest winds in decades. Back in the old News 24 days, i remember Chris Eakin in Tewkesbury presenting the show. 

With the cuts in local radio too, I think the gentle public are going to start to properly notice what’s gone on and I think you’ll find there will be more complaints

[DTV]

With the cuts in local radio too, I think the gentle public are going to start to properly notice what’s gone on and I think you’ll find there will be more complaints

And? There's still no more money (actually less next year), which is what the problem actually is. The power of the complaint can only go so far because it's circular - people complain about Local Radio cuts, so they won't take the cuts as far, but then they have to find cuts elsewhere (e.g., Newsnight), which people then also complain about...

[James2001]

And it will probably be the people who've complained for the licence fee to be frozen/cut/scrapped who'll complain the loudest.

[southern_boy]

And it will probably be the people who've complained for the licence fee to be frozen/cut/scrapped who'll complain the loudest.

I've been very critical on the new launch and the state of BBC News. However, I would happily pay double the license fee if it meant a properly funded and watchable BBC.

[all new phil]

I've been very critical on the new launch and the state of BBC News. However, I would happily pay double the license fee if it meant a properly funded and watchable BBC.

The BBC received over 5 and a half billion pounds in the last year. Hardly underfunded.

[DTV]

However, I would happily pay double the license fee if it meant a properly funded and watchable BBC.

This is, though, a very unusual position, which neither reflects public opinion or changes the fact that the licence is currently frozen at a time of significant inflation, with the BBC in no position to change that, meaning the BBC's real terms income is falling by £100ms every year and cuts do have to be and are being made.

The BBC received over 5 and a half billion pounds in the last year. Hardly underfunded.

Utterly meaningless. A context shorn datapoint tells you nothing and just because something is a big number has no bearing on whether something is underfunded or overfunded. The reality is, for the levels of services and original programming the BBC was providing in the mid-2000s, before the era of cuts, the BBC is objectively underfunded as it is no longer anywhere near financially able to provide those levels anymore. Now you can argue that it shouldn't provide those services or the public shouldn't expect them, but that isn't the same as saying 'they have £5bn, stop complaining' if the expected service provision would cost more than £5bn to do adequately.

[James2001]

The BBC received over 5 and a half billion pounds in the last year. Hardly underfunded.

Cos I'm sure you've worked out the finances and knows what costs what.

[ViridianFan]

And? There's still no more money (actually less next year), which is what the problem actually is. The power of the complaint can only go so far because it's circular - people complain about Local Radio cuts, so they won't take the cuts as far, but then they have to find cuts elsewhere (e.g., Newsnight), which people then also complain about...

I’m well aware the cuts need to be made but just accepting it means nothing changes. It feels very much as if it’s just accepted as one of those things whereas if people actually start complaining more and the bbc management actually grew a pair and stopped hiding behind this digital bbc nonsense and said we are making huge cuts due to the governments decision to freeze the license fee and this is what it means for you as the viewer people may start contacting their MP. 

Instead we have a situation where the bbc, too scared of the repercussions if it calls the government out, hides behind the “digital bbc” plan making it look like they’re choosing to make these unpopular cuts and therefore getting the blame for it. All its doing is turning more people against the organisation when they have no option. I sometimes think they need to go for a shock tactic and announce the cancellation of something popular and big saying that the governments freeze has led to it and unless funding is increased there could be more.  

They also need to stop this cutting a bit at a time because it’ covers the severity as the publics memory is short. If they had some one announcement on the everything it would have a far bigger impact on the general population and more people would have noticed.

[interestednovice]

Good point, this is where you get to the point where the argument about the LF is existential - there’s a legitimate point that you either have to increase it to “properly fund” (whatever that value is exactly) the BBC or rethink the funding entirely. The current situation, with a badly funded BBC, is self-defeating and plays into the hands of the defund the BBC brigade.

There’s no point paying even a relatively small amount if you feel you get nothing of value for it. If you need to watch Sky News to get the news, listen to commercial local radio because BBC Local Radio has been cut back to pan-regional irrelevant programming and 5 Live simulcasts, and hardly use the BBC as a result (but still, legally, have to pay for it regardless) resentment towards the LF will creep in. Many then stop paying as a result. This is becoming a huge problem for the BBC.

It does feel like we are now getting a bad deal, frankly, in news especially. The “new BBC News Channel” is free in the rest of the world at the cost of a few adverts. Meanwhile, we pay for it and simply get the adverts “covered up” by boring “Across the UK” human interest reports, in the style of clips from the One Show. We get less news than everyone else in the mornings as we are forced to endure a cheap webcam Nicky Campbell which is on 5Live anyway. Why?! Honestly, how is this a good deal?