[all new phil]

I think people are getting really quite carried away about this, certainly straying into melodramatics.

The reality is that the BBC has been incredibly privileged to have had the ability to fund its news operation in the way it has done, without being limited in the way that its commercial rivals have been. That now has to be done differently.

As for the quality of journalism dropping as a result of cuts, I simply don’t buy this argument. ITV News produces excellent coverage with a much, much, smaller budget and pool of resources. Channel 4 News and 5 News are also vastly smaller services. As noted in The Times, the BBC has already fallen behind somewhat in terms of its rivals at ITV and Sky in terms of finding exclusives. That certainly isn’t budget related. 

Most importantly, the vast majority of those who consume their news through the BBC do so by the traditional bulletins and through the website/app/social media. That isn’t changing.

The News Channel certainly is not this enormously watched service, therefore, and I would be willing to bet that most people don’t notice the merger has even taken place.

They will do when they notice the newsreader refer to - or caption - Rishi Sunak as the "British (or UK) Prime Minister", Jeremy Hunt as the "British Finance Minister" and Suella Braverman as the "British Interior Minister"!

They really won’t.