[chrisherald]

Well said. I actually like BBC world. It will be a shame to see it go as such, but it is that that is in reality carrying on. It's the UK who have lost their unique version and it has eroded away over the last few years, more so since last Christmas

It is sad but it seems the BBC can now only afford one news channel. That may seem harsh for some, but to be fair, if you watched news 24 in its get day and bbc1 domestic news bulletins - yes we have some international news - but that is the operative word - SOME.

In my opinion we do not get enough international news on domestic outlets. There is too much UK focussed news on the main bulletins anyway.

Given BBC worldwide as it was once called makes money from international audience and is more beneficial than domestic broadcasts as this is funded by licence fee. So it makes sense to keep BBC world as such to cater for the highest possible viewership.

When BBC world us separated from our domestic version sometimes you get stories on World that never appear on UK domestic news bulletins. As a result you actually know what is going on further afield than in your own back yard.

You could not close BBC World and give international audiences a UK centric news channel so it has to be the other way round. Sad though it may seem that is the reality it would seem. At least the BBC is still providing news. If they had more money yes they could probably carry two separate broadcasts but that is seemingly not possible at the moment.

Let's hope they can bring it all back to normal when resources permit. When that is is unfortunately anyone's guess.

Well that's the bigger knock-on trouble, World is changing, it's not "in reality carrying on". There is a license/regulatory obligation for the BBC to cover, to a regulated extent, domestic issues. That means world output will not exist unscathed, it must pick up the slack (to the extent of the layoffs and failure to provision adequate resources, staffing, and production tooling for the "stand-by domestic opt-out stream team"), altering World's output will occur to deal with this, and this has some potential to impact the commercial viability of the global output, brand/program sales, audience retention/growth abroad. Nothing happens in isolation, changes in the broadcaster, changes in the wider society, it all factors in to what type of institution the BBC is/becomes, what role it plays for audiences.

Further speaking to this change, when one component of the BBC is diminished, the entire thing is less capable because of it. I don't care if license fee payers don't care what's happening in Somalia, if the BBC has radio there or tells stories there, folks in Kent (or wherever) are all the better for it. Institutional, journalistic, and technical capacity are shared resources across the BBC, along with the overall "pulling power" of the organization to drive awareness and change. You get better stories on the news at one because of the capacities continually developed by a BBC that also serves audiences in Asia. That's what makes public service broadcasting so critical and difficult to evolve in this "new" digital age; this ain't Netflix, it's the NHS. It's a public social service, and it must be funded for the betterment of all, least we all suffer from a lesser product, as any output dropped is capacity, growth, and creative/production/story-telling opportunities (and jobs and economic and political impact) squandered. This is not just another broadcaster, after all.

Now, that said. I do hope a proper editorial balance can be struck between domestic and foreign issues. I think it's entirely possible on most days. This really is more about deeper issues of resources across the BBC and how things will evolve. Never mind the cost cutting goals, if the standby team has the right resources, domestic audiences don't have to suffer so much; but it's not looking that way. It really seems as though the news side of things is a drop in the ocean from a funding standpoint, and this is more about killing off something that many have wanted dead for a while. Which is not to say, changes aren't warranted; BBC news has needed an evolution for a little while now, this just ain't it. Budget priorities across the BBC are difficult, and remain so. Perhaps this disaster can still be a stepping stone to something better, but nothing in the current footwork makes it look good.