[steve]

I can see why they have opted for this approach - a live team who go live on one story and roll with it either just on the live page or, where relevant (as yesterday) on the UK feed.

Like it or not, this is the way the majority consume news-as-it-happens is going - and, while much of the implementation has been questionable, I can’t disagree with the concept.

The 1,6 and 10 are the bulletins where the vast majority of the audience get their news. They are appointment to view and I’m sure will remain as a curated bulletin for many years.

The channel now adds value (it’s not for everyone but for some it adds value!) of having talking heads and not just intros and reports (which you can read or watch anytime you want).

But when there is breaking news, whereas in the past I’d have stuck on a news channel, now there are so many sources I can follow this myself. Now, I know it’s not for everyone and I know plenty who can’t do that, but I can see why the BBC see that having a curated but organic breaking news service is the way forward. A live stream combining text, video and analysis that you can trust makes sense. And, for the vast majority of the audience, that only needs to exist when there is a story they want to know about.

Clunky, definitely. Clumsily presented, 100%. But the rationale is obvious and I can see why they think it’s working okay - or (and this is key), exactly as it’s designed to.