[DTV]

The thing I find most interesting about this whole merger discussion is that, three months after the initial plans were unveiled, I still haven't seen a credible alternative proposal from those who are blanket opposed to the change - just a complete failure to engage with the reality of the situation. (Let alone the listing of a breaking news event that wouldn't be covered on the new channel).

Don't get me wrong, it would be preferable if this wasn't happening. But it is and these proposals are the version that require the least cuts to the rest of BBC News. And, as I've previously outlined on TVLF, it would be beyond surprising if the final plans did not involve some degree of separate output greater than what was initially announced (for instance, the One presenter and gallery team staying on to produce a few hours of afternoon coverage would require no additional staffing costs, so would be utterly bizarre if it wasn't taken).

Members are, of course, entitled to disagree with the decision, but you have to at least demonstrate what you would do instead, including accepting that losing BBC World News or putting it in a situation where it wasn't financially viable would require further cuts to BBC News.

[Chud]

For me BBC News is what the BBC is all about. I know it all comes down to money but I would have expected the BBC to have kept the new channel as a priority. When you look at how money is spent in other areas, eg BBC Scotland channel serves such a small % of the UK population I would have thought a channel that serves the whole country would have been a bigger priority.

[ALV]

deadline.com 

BBC News Journalists Consider Strike Over Plans To Axe 70 Jobs – Deadline
BBC News journalists are considering striking over the merger of the domestic an…
  Source: deadline.com

Some media have reported earlier this week that NUJ members are considering industrial actions in response to the proposed merger.

[Steve in Pudsey]

The BBC Scotland Channel is a strange one. If you consider that viewers in Scotland of pay the same licence fee as those in England it does seem that Scots are getting more services for their money. And when you consider that several English regions serve more viewers you have to question the mathematics.

Yes, Scotland has a very different political situation and culture, but is it fair for licence payers in England to effectively subsidise a dedicated channel while we get the odd token opt out?

You could make a good argument for the Scottish government to provide a subsidy or a precept on the license fee, like there is on the Council Tax for those areas that choose to have a Parish Council.

Of course I'd prefer it not up be a race to the bottom and the English Regions to all have the funding that he Nations do to provide local opt outs reflecting the region.

[itsrobert]

Members are, of course, entitled to disagree with the decision, but you have to at least demonstrate what you would do instead, including accepting that losing BBC World News or putting it in a situation where it wasn't financially viable would require further cuts to BBC News.

To require members to provide an alternative solution is absurd. I would imagine that very few of us have access to BBC financial accounts or inside knowledge of the services provided. I think it's perfectly reasonable for members to voice concern over these proposals. Time will tell if it's the only credible solution, but I think it's fine to disagree in terms of the principle of the changes to BBC News without having to work out alternative cost savings.

[DTV]

Yes, Scotland has a very different political situation and culture, but is it fair for licence payers in England to effectively subsidise a dedicated channel while we get the odd token opt out?

Of course I'd prefer it not up be a race to the bottom and the English Regions to all have the funding that he Nations do to provide local opt outs reflecting the region.

I think the different levels of funding and service are fair, because of the political differences. Indeed, I would say that it would be fundamentally inappropriate to fund English regions to the same level as the nations owing to the completely different political contexts. The nations, and Scotland in particular, have to cover governments with significant powers. They therefore need their own specialist policy correspondents and the ability to provide more coverage. Other than a handful of glorified transport executives, there is no regional government in England. The levels of hard news between the nations and the regions is simply not comparable.

To require members to provide an alternative solution is absurd. I would imagine that very few of us have access to BBC financial accounts or inside knowledge of the services provided. I think it's perfectly reasonable for members to voice concern over these proposals. Time will tell if it's the only credible solution, but I think it's fine to disagree in terms of the principle of the changes to BBC News without having to work out alternative cost savings.

If people were purely 'voicing concerns' then it might be absurd, but several members have suggested things that amount to sacrificing BBC World News to save the BBC News channel with little regard to the realities of the situation. It is obviously fine for members to post it, but I don't think it is unreasonable to ask those members which parts of the rest of BBC News' output would they be willing to sacrifice in the resultant further round of cuts.

[itsrobert]

If people were purely 'voicing concerns' then it might be absurd, but several members have suggested things that amount to sacrificing BBC World News to save the BBC News channel with little regard to the realities of the situation. It is obviously fine for members to post it, but I don't think it is unreasonable to ask those members which parts of the rest of BBC News' output would they be willing to sacrifice in the resultant further round of cuts.

Well, here's a genuine question. Why can't the BBC's single news channel be primarily editorially UK-centric and designed to serve the licence fee payers first and foremost, but still marketed to the rest of the world with opt outs for world news? That's the type of offering other international broadcasters do and they could still make some money out of it. I just disagree with the principle that the only editorial focus for the channel can be international news with some occasional UK opt outs. I bet no other broadcaster in the world would sacrifice domestic content in favour of providing overseas viewers with what is effectively a luxury channel.

[DTV]

Well, here's a genuine question. Why can't the BBC's single news channel be primarily editorially UK-centric and designed to serve the licence fee payers first and foremost, but still marketed to the rest of the world with opt outs for world news? That's the type of offering other international broadcasters do and they could still make some money out of it. I just disagree with the principle that the only editorial focus for the channel can be international news with some occasional UK opt outs. I bet no other broadcaster in the world would sacrifice domestic content in favour of providing overseas viewers with what is effectively a luxury channel.

Because there is no market for a UK-centric news channel internationally. People keep comparing BBC World News to CNNi or France 24 or DW, but they are completely different beasts. CNN can afford to be US-centric because of the unique status of the US and the fact that US news tends to be of interest/fascination to many non-US viewers. France 24 or DW have a domestic skew out of a mistaken view that they are copying the BBC and consequently have very limited reach. BBC World News is an international news channel with a significant reach. For tens of millions of viewers it is the go-to English-language news source, because of its far better news balance. Because of this, it is commercially successful.

You shift BBC World News into being a UK-focussed channel and it becomes financially unviable very quickly. No matter what some might think, there really is no commercially-viable market for such a channel. The minute it ceases to make a profit, it has to go - after all, it can't be subsidised by licence payers. If it goes, you lose the profit it brings into BBC News and you lose the hours of output that it produces for BBC News (requiring the money to come out of UK news budgets to make up the shortfall). In all, you are looking at 10s of £m in additional cost to the domestic BBC News operation, almost certainly requiring further cuts to domestic output (on a scale of entire programmes like Newsnight being axed).

Far from BBC World News being a luxury for the BBC, it helps cross-subsidise the BBC's domestic news output as well as producing a significant chunk of the BBC News channel's output. The BBC News channel simply couldn't survive without BBC World News. You are right that no other broadcaster would sacrifice domestic content for the international market, simply because no other broadcaster has a domestic news operation so tied up with a commercially successful international news operation.

[Newsroom]

Well after all the apparent furore of ‘Martine’s tweets - she’ll get her turn in Studio B this eve. She’s presenting the Sunday 10.

[Steve in Pudsey]

I think the different levels of funding and service are fair, because of the political differences. Indeed, I would say that it would be fundamentally inappropriate to fund English regions to the same level as the nations owing to the completely different political contexts. The nations, and Scotland in particular, have to cover governments with significant powers. They therefore need their own specialist policy correspondents and the ability to provide more coverage. Other than a handful of glorified transport executives, there is no regional government in England. The levels of hard news between the nations and the regions is simply not comparable.

That's fair justification for having a bigger newsgathering operation and a few extra news/politics opt outs. But a whole extra channel?