[Independent]

This is quite different from what I'm expecting. My expectation is that the eight 'presenter-reporters' are more likely to be the 'headliners' (as per Hakim and Atkins at present) and the five just presenters are going to be the ones with more flexibile shifts. I also would be very surprised if they restricted London to just eight hours a day as 'from London' still has some draw for World and the level of investment talked about for Washington (I don't think Singapore is getting much more) wouldn't be enough to carry the channel for more than a couple of shifts per day.

On weekdays I'm expecting something more on the lines of four/five shifts from London from 05:/06:00 to between 19:00 and 21:00, then a shift from Washington, one from Singapore and then another from Washington. Even with five Mon-Thurs three-hour London shifts and four Fri-Sun four-hour London shifts, you'd only need nine of the London-based presenter pool on air per week.

Is there a reason they’re giving extra work to Washington instead of keeping it in London? Is it cheaper? Is it political?

It's disappointing to see Washington chosen over Singapore. It's commercial (ad revenues from the world's wealthiest country are bigger than those from the Asia-Pacific region) and the editors at the BBC seem obsessed with the drama US politics produces. The BBC's international coverage will probably be even more skewed towards over-coverage of the US. I highly doubt we'll be seeing more stories from Latin America (like the levels and type of stories seen on AJE) that would separate the BBC from CNN when the BBC decides to shift more production to Washington.

[Keith]

Is there a reason they’re giving extra work to Washington instead of keeping it in London? Is it cheaper? Is it political?

I seem to recall it being mentioned (either here or on TV Live forum) that staff working overnights get additional rest time and/or pay for working those hours. By using Washington and Singapore for (UK time) overnights with the time differences it presumably translates to normal working hours in those countries, which in turn presumably gives a reduction in staff costs.

[CF1]

Just a question - and I may have missed something in the original publicity blitz - but will the content of Breakfast, the News at 1, 6 and 10 change once the new channel launches, given the simulcasting? i.e. Will it be Breakfast made for international viewers rather than the UK audience with no more regional opt outs, for example?

[Stuart]

Just a question - and I may have missed something in the original publicity blitz - but will the content of Breakfast, the News at 1, 6 and 10 change once the new channel launches, given the simulcasting? i.e. Will it be Breakfast made for international viewers rather than the UK audience with no more regional opt outs, for example?

Those programmes are all made specifically for the BBC One domestic audience.  I always thought the simulcasting on the NC was as a finance saving and schedule filler more than anything else.

[DTV]

Those programmes are all made specifically for the BBC One domestic audience.  I always thought the simulcasting on the NC was as a finance saving and schedule filler more than anything else.

I think that simulcasting has definitely become cost-saving in recent years, but when it started I'm not sure that it was the only reason. Though the changes did coincide with a round of cuts, I think these were largely met by axing Business Today and the morning BBC World News bulletin. The wider 2006 News 24 schedule changes didn't involve any cuts to presenter numbers and saw the channel opting out of Breakfast at 08:30 rather than 09:00. Officially the changes were more about things like 'a greater integration of BBC News', etc.

One factor that definitely was key, though, was the duplication of resources by having two similar programmes on at once. When in standard 'extended bulletin' mode, News 24 at 13:00, 18:00 and 22:00 would often act like a tape delay for BBC One anyway. Arguably it would have made more sense to instead simulcast with BBC World at these points as it would be far less likely to cover the same stories (these were the days when only internationally important UK news found its way onto BBC World). But network bulletins were chosen instead.

Also worth remembering, IIRC, in the early days of the network simulcasts News 24 were fairly relaxed about dropping the simulcasts (particularly One and Six) if there was breaking news on.

[Newshound47]

How they going to get around the sport rights issue if domestic bulletins are going out internationally?

[Omnipresent]

I would have thought BBC World News will still run its own programming during Breakfast and the 1, 6 & 10 bulletins?

[DTV]

I would have thought BBC World News will still run its own programming during Breakfast and the 1, 6 & 10 bulletins?

Everything suggests that they will [take their own programmes] and I don't really think there is any reason to think otherwise. Some members really seem to be overthinking the depth of this merger.

Breakfast, in particular, would obviously never be broadcast on an international channel for the very obvious reasons that it has a strong domestic focus and the patent absurdity of broadcasting a programme called 'Breakfast' internationally.

[ginnyfan]

Which makes the decision to continue simulcasting Breakfast on the domestic version even harder to understand. I mean, now when they are supposed to become one channel, this was a unique chance to actually have proper news bulletins on the UK version in the early morning hours, something they never had. Same for national bulletins, why not just have the bulletin that's gonna air on the international version at those times?

[Chud]

My impression was that BBC News would have their own output 24/7 and then would simulcast Brekafast, 1/6/10 on the UK domestic feed only.