[chrisherald]

The thing is, it’s not a world news channel and never will be.

It’s very much NATO zone focussed with little from the rest of the world (from what I’ve seen). Despite being anchored from Singapore for overnight hours they cover very few Asian stories compared to Europe/US, and Africa and South America hardly feature.

If there was a train crash in Peru that killed 30 people I doubt it’d get the same coverage as the one in Greece.

You're right, it's not meeting the moment adequately. Ideally it would at least meet the needs of the commonwealth.

I care foremost of the BBC as a standards marker for balanced output (if not always broad output; balanced for the stories they do tell, though granted, which stores get told does matter) against a globally complex media environment.

But yes, this is where other outlets do come in handy, Al Jazeera, CNA, etc.

I do wish the Singapore hours would be revamped into something more worthwhile, and the Washington output isn't delivering anything that breaks through the noise floor either; I do want fresh formats and presentation! Too much actually rests on the "BBC" pillar, be bold (but honest)!

I don't think the recent and continued investments in Washington will pay off (it's just, yes probably, a UK staff overtime/overnight dodge), as it's not an investment towards actual journalistic/format leeway to tell deep stories in an expansive manner, or even utilize US airtime in a unique way.

Strands probably do need to go and the BBC probably should reconsider how it tells stories for a new age. It's getting to be, as issues globally become more intractable, a "news channel" maybe doesn't make sense in the old format (except when breaking news occurs!), but with the current trend of under-investment and outright resource starvation, how could anything good emerge. More of the Ross Atkins way may be needed, but many global audiences have short attention spans, so the visuals need to be richer, the stories (brought) "closer to home" in emotional impact, without losing truth or balance (how to depict the everyday world with "impartiality" when increasingly little of everyday reality is driven by any semblance of truth or balance, manipulation in everything). Telling stories to drive understanding and social impact isn't easy, and I'm not sure the news channel to date has actually been doing the most good. It's been fine for general awareness, but perhaps a new age demands more.

It may also be worth considering, how do you tell stories to a global audience when the lived experiences of people globally are so (always, but increasingly) varied by ever more struggle and tragedy? There is an editorial voice to the BBC, but who does that voice resonate with (worth asking that question, even in the UK domestic audience)? Can it reach beyond NATO countries? Stories get told by a voice, and the BBC does have work to do, and a real opportunity to evolve to actually reflect the full lives of everyone watching. Many people likely depend on the BBC's global services for base awareness are still not often represented in the depth of output.

Perhaps, to date, the BBC just can't tell stories from the global south, from Asia, even from America, in the same capacity as it speaks ordinarily to England (if the people in Scotland sometimes question if the BBC speaks to/for them, what must global audiences think, on occasion). Having a presence/bureau somewhere isn't the same as living it, or giving airtime to the voices of those who do live the story. It's challenging. I'm proud of what the BBC has been in past, and what it still could be, if the destruction was halted and new thought given to voice. It is time to meet the moment, which the BBC has a history of doing, but never in a world like this.