[Brekkie]

The problem is that the cuts to News could have been entirely avoidable. For example by all accounts the budget for Wimbledon is bigger than what the news channel had pre merger and alternative programmes for the slots filled by Wimbledon could be sourced at basically no cost (given a lot of coverage falls into slots typically occupied by low budget repeats).

That's a narrow minded view to take.  Basically "I don't care about Wimbledon so axe that instead".   Even on an average day Wimbledon is watched by 25 times the audience of the news channel and the final by 100 times the audience.   I suspect the Wimbledon coverage reaches more BBC licence fee payers over two weeks than the news channel does over a year.   It's PSB value is just as important too.

[agentsquash]

The News Channel isn’t sacred. We survived before it, and if it has to go global only because of budget cuts, we’ll survive without it.

The drop in quality will only kill it quicker, though.

[qwerty123]

That's a narrow minded view to take.  Basically "I don't care about Wimbledon so axe that instead".   Even on an average day Wimbledon is watched by 25 times the audience of the news channel and the final by 100 times the audience.   I suspect the Wimbledon coverage reaches more BBC licence fee payers over two weeks than the news channel does over a year.   It's PSB value is just as important too.

I think claiming public service value in the BBC sending a private members club tens of millions to broadcast an event that makes tens of millions in profit is highly dubious. Either the rights to the tournament or actually worth such a sum and another broadcaster would pick up the rights at a similar cost meaning viewers would still be able to watch the tournament (including the most important games free to air given they are included on the list of events that must be made available free to air) or the rights are not worth such a sum and the BBC are needlessly subsidising middle class Londoners.

[DTV]

I think claiming public service value in the BBC sending a private members club tens of millions to broadcast an event that makes tens of millions in profit is highly dubious. Either the rights to the tournament or actually worth such a sum and another broadcaster would pick up the rights at a similar cost meaning viewers would still be able to watch the tournament (including the most important games free to air given they are included on the list of events that must be made available free to air) or the rights are not worth such a sum and the BBC are needlessly subsidising middle class Londoners.

But there is public service value - it's BBC output that people watch and enjoy, making them more likely to feel the BBC is a worthwhile investment, enabling the BBC to continue to receive funding for the genuine PSB stuff. As I've said before, that is the PSB bargain. I'm also not sure that turning this into some class/populist matter is that great a path to tread down considering the demographics of the News channel audience and the 'BBC should only do the worthy stuff' stance being a bit of an elitist argument.

[Brekkie]

I think claiming public service value in the BBC sending a private members club tens of millions to broadcast an event that makes tens of millions in profit is highly dubious. Either the rights to the tournament or actually worth such a sum and another broadcaster would pick up the rights at a similar cost meaning viewers would still be able to watch the tournament (including the most important games free to air given they are included on the list of events that must be made available free to air) or the rights are not worth such a sum and the BBC are needlessly subsidising middle class Londoners.

I'm far from middle class and far from London but Wimbledon is one of the most important things the BBC do for me - and even more so now as one of the flagship sporting events where they still have full live rights.   

If you don't like tennis fair enough - just don't watch it.   I've no interest in the Proms or Radio 3, or Radio 4 for that matter - but doesn't mean they should be cut.   Indeed the role of a PSB should be to cater both to the masses but also to niche audiences too - and the BBC should be fully funded to enable that to be done effectively.

[oscillon]

Caitriona Perry is about to hit UK screens as well in her new role, in half an hour's time - she's just done WNA, and on a Friday this means she'll also do first two hours of the overnight DC coverage.

UPD. Also, 9pm hour of the Context suddenly had old-style between-headline stingers - no swipes, but globe stripes instead

[leewilliams]

Either the rights to the tournament or actually worth such a sum and another broadcaster would pick up the rights at a similar cost meaning viewers would still be able to watch the tournament (including the most important games free to air given they are included on the list of events that must be made available free to air)

Not to question your authority on this issue but the word you’re looking for is “matches”.

[bbctvtechop]

This may be a very simplistic suggestion but why they don't just close down the extremely little watched linear BBC Three - I will never understand why it was brought back to linear television - and divert the saved money into the merged BBC News channel?

Assuming that content for younger viewers is still produced for iPlayer in the event of the linear Three channel closing again, they'd still have probably 95%+ of the cost. The installation of a computer and software to play it out, plus a daily newsreader, would essentially be the only "true" cost, with scheduling/commissioning/engineering/etc being rolled into existing posts/departments which already exist to service other parts of the BBC. The live elements (the news) is covered by existing news directors who just have The Catch Up added to their existing day and uses an existing studio.

Currently even the satellite space is covered (until the closure of CBBC, whenever that will occurs) as it uses the same frequencies etc to uplink - if it didn't exist and CBBC didn't re-extend its hours, then the BBC would actually be wasting money by paying for unused satellite/EPG time. 

The linear channel bit of BBC3 is extremely efficient to run. It's the content which costs the money, and I would be extremely surprised if the BBC were to take a decision to stop making that kind of content.

[Spencer]

A minor thing, and I know this was almost certainly a mistake, but I think I prefer the location text in mixed case, as seen on Breakfast this morning, rather than full caps…

[Worzel]

A minor thing, and I know this was almost certainly a mistake, but I think I prefer the location text in mixed case, as seen on Breakfast this morning, rather than full caps…

The only problem with that is if they use letters which drop below the baseline, such as g, y, q etc as there's not enough black space to accommodate them. Central London doesn't have any descenders so looks OK.