[UTVLifer]

Newswatch will have a field day on Friday night - Samira Ahmed will be all over this shambles at 11.30pm!

There’s no Newswatch this week as it’s Good Friday on Friday

[News76]

Newswatch will have a field day on Friday night - Samira Ahmed will be all over this shambles at 11.30pm!

We will have to wait til Next Friday night for that-it isn't on this week due to it being Good Friday-going by the previous episode through expect the same non-response we got last week.

[Juicy Joe]

Newswatch will have a field day on Friday night - Samira Ahmed will be all over this shambles at 11.30pm!

There’s no Newswatch this week as it’s Good Friday on Friday

Fair point - next Friday then.

[Kojak]

Good Friday on Friday

Is it? I thought Good Friday was on Thursday this year? (Sorry - couldn't resist!)

[ALV]

The UK feed just aired a pre-recorded UK news pkg from Samantha Simmonds during the quarter break on Newsday... I can't tell if this is recorded in Studio C or the breaking news cupboard:

[TheJarv]

The UK feed just aired a pre-recorded UK news from Samantha Simmonds during the quarter break on Newsday... I can't tell if this is recorded in Studio C or the breaking news cupboard:

Suppose its better than seeing the Ukraine bus story again

[Rolling News]

REALLY dodgy opt into Newsnight tonight. As Louise Lear handed back to Huw Edwards, the channel faded to the filler countdown, then after about 30 seconds, into Newsnight.

I think I preferred it a week or so ago when they were showing guide dogs every night after the 10.

[Kojak]

Also, I'm not really sure that it's been the 'unified' element of the channels that has been the 'disaster'. While there are some editorial decisions that were questionable and somethings that I'd structure differently, it's been more justifiable than the interim period and none of it has really been wrong in a way wouldn't be fairly fixable and I expect emblematic of the fact it's early days. Most of the actual issues are presentational, with the serious faults being operational - though, in both cases, again fixable. Even if a full-scale reversal was possible, which it isn't, I don't thing calls of irredeemability are justified at this point - even if, yes, it is overall a weaker service (but, again, all options were).

I actually think much of the content over the past few days has been okay. Not fantastic, or even necessarily great, but certainly all right. It definitely needs work, but overall I don't think it's been that bad.

The presentation, on the other hand... ghastly. No other word for it. Absolutely atrocious. I certainly don't blame anyone at the coalface, because they're by and large just doing their jobs as best they can (in what I'd imagine is a very febrile atmopshere). The higher-ups, though... just who signed off on those titles? Who on Earth thought it would be a good idea to simulcast Newsnight, when they know that its timings never dovetail cleanly with what's on either side of it? Who decided to plonk 5 Live on for two hours in the morning?

I do still think - and I have said this time and again, as have you and others on this forum - that there could have been other ways. It's probably fair to say most of us here understand why the BBC has done what it did, as much as we largely dislike it. It was always going to be a difficult task to try and combine two very different news channels into one, and to equally satisfy international and domestic audiences. But... it was (and is) doable. Not that we've seen much evidence of that so far this week - in their traditional and inimitable way, the BBC seem to have come up with a fudge that has annoyed everyone.

[ALV]

I think I preferred it a week or so ago when they were showing guide dogs every night after the 10.

It's obvious Newsnight is just a tool used by the BBC to fill up the amount of "UK news hour" quota on the domestic feed, so to fulfill their narrative "The UK audience is still getting lots of UK news in the new service".

With Nicky Campbell Everyday launching on Apr 17, the UK-only hours on weekdays are as follows:

0600-1100 (5 hrs)
1155-1200 (5 mins)
1300-1400 (1 hr)
1355-1400 (5 mins)
1655-1700 (5 mins)
1730-1900 (1 hr 30 mins)
1955-2000 (5 mins)
2155-2310 (1 hr 15 mins)

That's a total of 9 hours of UK-only hours on the new BBC News channel. Impressive! Don't the numbers look very sexy to top management on paper? Next time when someone complains on Newswatch about the lack of UK news, they can just bring up this number to defend their narrative.

[Worzel]

Also, I'm not really sure that it's been the 'unified' element of the channels that has been the 'disaster'. While there are some editorial decisions that were questionable and somethings that I'd structure differently, it's been more justifiable than the interim period and none of it has really been wrong in a way wouldn't be fairly fixable and I expect emblematic of the fact it's early days. Most of the actual issues are presentational, with the serious faults being operational - though, in both cases, again fixable. Even if a full-scale reversal was possible, which it isn't, I don't thing calls of irredeemability are justified at this point - even if, yes, it is overall a weaker service (but, again, all options were).

I actually think much of the content over the past few days has been okay. Not fantastic, or even necessarily great, but certainly all right. It definitely needs work, but overall I don't think it's been that bad.

The presentation, on the other hand... ghastly. No other word for it. Absolutely atrocious. I certainly don't blame anyone at the coalface, because they're by and large just doing their jobs as best they can (in what I'd imagine is a very febrile atmopshere). The higher-ups, though... just who signed off on those titles? Who on Earth thought it would be a good idea to simulcast Newsnight, when they know that its timings never dovetail cleanly with what's on either side of it? Who decided to plonk 5 Live on for two hours in the morning?

I do still think - and I have said this time and again, as have you and others on this forum - that there could have been other ways. It's probably fair to say most of us here understand why the BBC has done what it did, as much as we largely dislike it. It was always going to be a difficult task to try and combine two very different news channels into one, and to equally satisfy international and domestic audiences. But... it was (and is) doable. Not that we've seen much evidence of that so far this week - in their traditional and inimitable way, the BBC seem to have come up with a fudge that has annoyed everyone.

But there has been some rather odd and iffy editorial calls as well.

Throughout the whole Paul Murrell story breaking this morning (and correct me if I'm wrong) not once did a Political Correspondent appear on air? It was largely handled by 2 general news reporters in the Glasgow newsroom, initially on the phone and then DTL. For example, previously we'd have seen Nick Eardley, Ione Wells, Vicki Young, Ian Watson or Alex Forsyth appear from Westminster. Yet no one from the Political team did, which even though it is Easter holidays, stuck out like a sore thumb.

Shoving that story way down the running order (which they did on the channel) in the afternoon is just the way of igniting the touchpaper on accusations of political cover-ups/bias etc by general viewers who haven't twigged the channel is World News in all but name. What happens if the next alleged scandal involves a member of the other main parties? It's just asking for trouble.