[chrisherald]

I mean, does news cost a million plus per episode? That's probably a stupid question, it probably does. I should just shut up

Per hour, news is actually cheap. According to the 2006/07 Annual Report (page 72 of the Executive Report), BBC News 24 cost £5,400 per hour to produce, with network news costing £25,900 per hour (current affairs is at a pricier £100,200 per hour). Obviously the prices will have inflated a bit over time, but it is still low compared to other genres. The problem, though, is that it is on all day, every day and you can't repeat it - so the prices do add up. 

It's also important to remember that a lot of the costs aren't necessarily involved in actually directly producing the programme (i.e., studios, presenters, etc.) but rather in newsgathering - lots of correspondents and support staff again add up. Guest contributor appearance fees are also a big chunk - I believe it's roughly £100 for a standard 3-minute interview, but how many of those are on air per hour, every day?

Ultimately, when you count up network bulletins, current affairs, news channels, local news, radio news, online, World Service, it's a lot!

Thank you for that info, I appreciate that more detailed financial info.

So isn't most of the underlying journalistic machine still going to be in operation (mindful of layoffs)? If there's cuts to the underlying news-gathering machine at the BBC, this is just further of my concern of institutional capacity destruction. Otherwise, those costs are shared among outlets.

With changes to presentation format, the bulk of every single hour of "news channel" output doesn't have to be 100% unique, so it perhaps doesn't have to cost £5,400 per hour with a different format/package style.

It is a lot all added up, but really nothing among the whole of the BBC, even if it out budgets BBC Two (it's one of those costs of "this thing, is a thing, it's real, the BBC is going to have news on it"). If it needs cutting, get the most bang for buck, more hours of useful output would be better than pretty looking network output. (That is, I'd rather network output look worse as a simulcast with news channel, than less overall hours of news channel, which matter more during breaking news.) "Choices" as someone here recently said, meh.

I guess I hope more than anything that they innovate with the storytelling format in the future, as that is likely what is needed to make a stronger connection with the audience and drive understanding and social impact in challenging times. Hopefully new formats can be cheap too.

And frankly, with entertainment content production budgets (and sports rights) skyrocketing globally, how long can the BBC reasonably compete with an offering on that front anyhow. Perhaps if News costs as much as BBC Two, then Two is actually the bigger problem going forward. Which channels costs have been growing out of hand? Granted, more public demand for Two I guess, but public service is about what people need not always what they're excited for. PSBs are part of a functional state/society democratic apparatus. Sorry then if we can't have Michael McIntyre's wheel or whatever. Or maybe all news content should somehow become entertainment budgeted; perhaps Have I Got News For You should always be live-to-air and cover breaking stories when they pop-up; forget the news channel opts, just make all entertainment live. (I am slightly joking)

Anyhow, I've about run out of budget things to complain about. So I guess back to normal topics here lol