[chris]

Does the BBC need a 24h rolling news channel, for its UK audiences, as news is available in many forms, platforms and services across the BBC.

Would it be worth spending the money they have and with the closure of the news channel, by improving its news coverage for the nations and regions across the various platforms.

if there is a need for a 24h news related UK channel, look at adopting and developing BBC radio 4 or 5 live as a TV channel on a full time basis, (radio on TV, similar to bloomberg, GBNews and talk TV radio) with a mixture of world programming throughout the evenings and weekends.

Rather than the current proposal, with limited UK news provision if the rumours are true.  That way there is content to cater for the domestic BBC audience.

In reality, news content provision doesn't need a 24h rolling news channel, given there are many ways of accessing news these days, even across the BBC.

Your examples are the wrong way round - they’re TV channels also broadcast on radio. 

Television is about pictures and just sticking R4 or 5Live on TV won’t work (what do you do when packages are run for example?)

Why do I want to sit and watch Nicky Campbell looking at a microphone? I don’t get it with the televised Newscast either.

[Andrew Wood]

I've seen the comments that the BBC News Channel feeds in to all aspects of the BBC's news output.

Is it really that way around?

Surely as a comprehensive news gathering organisation covering local, domestic and world news, that content is already being collected and the News Channel is just one of the outlets for it?

However, I do appreciate that that's just for news, and not feature programming.

[Apples]

I've seen the comments that the BBC News Channel feeds in to all aspects of the BBC's news output.

Is it really that way around?

Surely as a comprehensive news gathering organisation covering local, domestic and world news, that content is already being collected and the News Channel is just one of the outlets for it?

However, I do appreciate that that's just for news, and not feature programming.

Fair point. I guess that this will depend on how integrated the editorial decision making processes are for the different areas of news output. As it stands, the stories being covered by the News Channel feed in to the 1 - but you could argue that as a by-product of following developing stories for the 1, you can then provide material to the news channel?! It would be interesting to know if the editor for the news channel / 1 has oversight or influence on the stories featured on the app / website?

[Kojak]

Couldn’t disagree more. While the News Channel of late has become a shadow of its former News 24 self, it was once head and shoulders about BBC World.

One small example is the contrast in coverage of 9/11 where World was just woeful.

I agree. Stephen Cole, who used to present on World, once said that the Beeb never quite knew if it liked the idea of world news or not - hence the constant oscillation between giving it lots of resources (as it has now) and giving it very few (as was the case in the early 00s, when World was, as he put it, 'News 24 cast-offs').

[Moz]

Does the BBC need a 24h rolling news channel, for its UK audiences, as news is available in many forms, platforms and services across the BBC.

Would it be worth spending the money they have and with the closure of the news channel, by improving its news coverage for the nations and regions across the various platforms.

if there is a need for a 24h news related UK channel, look at adopting and developing BBC radio 4 or 5 live as a TV channel on a full time basis, (radio on TV, similar to bloomberg, GBNews and talk TV radio) with a mixture of world programming throughout the evenings and weekends.

Rather than the current proposal, with limited UK news provision if the rumours are true.  That way there is content to cater for the domestic BBC audience.

In reality, news content provision doesn't need a 24h rolling news channel, given there are many ways of accessing news these days, even across the BBC.

Again, couldn’t disagree more. What are these many ways of accessing news? The BBC News website? 5 Live?

I’m sorry, but if there’s a major breaking news story - a page of text and a few photos isn’t enough for me. I want rolling news on the telly. Whenever it happens. I don’t want to wait for 6pm.

Justifying what is just emergency cuts due to desperate cost saving as trimming away unnecessary services is massively insulting.

I can only think those who are justifying them are either from overseas or anti-BBC.

[all new phil]

I’m sorry, but if there’s a major breaking news story - a page of text and a few photos isn’t enough for me. I want rolling news on the telly. Whenever it happens. I don’t want to wait for 6pm.

Sky News has you covered then

[Clean Feed]

I’m sorry, but if there’s a major breaking news story - a page of text and a few photos isn’t enough for me. I want rolling news on the telly. Whenever it happens. I don’t want to wait for 6pm.

Sky News has you covered then

By that logic, should the BBC just stop producing any programmes, because other broadcasters/channels already have that programme thing all wrapped up?

[harshy]

It’s such a bad idea, I just hope it dosent happen, the two services both serve their respective audiences it’s intended for, changing it will will not benefit anyone.

[itsrobert]

Does the BBC need a 24h rolling news channel, for its UK audiences, as news is available in many forms, platforms and services across the BBC.

Would it be worth spending the money they have and with the closure of the news channel, by improving its news coverage for the nations and regions across the various platforms.

if there is a need for a 24h news related UK channel, look at adopting and developing BBC radio 4 or 5 live as a TV channel on a full time basis, (radio on TV, similar to bloomberg, GBNews and talk TV radio) with a mixture of world programming throughout the evenings and weekends.

Rather than the current proposal, with limited UK news provision if the rumours are true.  That way there is content to cater for the domestic BBC audience.

In reality, news content provision doesn't need a 24h rolling news channel, given there are many ways of accessing news these days, even across the BBC.

Again, couldn’t disagree more. What are these many ways of accessing news? The BBC News website? 5 Live?

I’m sorry, but if there’s a major breaking news story - a page of text and a few photos isn’t enough for me. I want rolling news on the telly. Whenever it happens. I don’t want to wait for 6pm.

Justifying what is just emergency cuts due to desperate cost saving as trimming away unnecessary services is massively insulting.

I can only think those who are justifying them are either from overseas or anti-BBC.

Well said, Moz. This is exactly how I feel about the situation, too. Sometimes static information and pictures or short video clips are just not enough. Take for instance the Paris terrorist attacks in 2019. Watching that unfold as it happened was surreal. As was 9/11. I also remember watching the fire at Notre Dame as it unfolded. Granted those are overseas stories and would be covered by the new channel anyway, but the point is if such events occurred in the UK (or even overseas), I would want rolling coverage from a UK editorial perspective. I don't think that is much to ask from our national broadcaster. As I said on TV Live Forum, the BBC is a British institution and should be serving the needs of the UK audience above everything else. I understand that it makes more commercial sense for them to run the international channel, but in terms of principle, it ought to be the opposite outcome. Sadly, only money talks in this day and age and this is the result. Principle and 'doing the right thing' are, by and large, ancient history in most walks of life.

[Roger Darthwell]

Does the BBC need a 24h rolling news channel, for its UK audiences, as news is available in many forms, platforms and services across the BBC.

Would it be worth spending the money they have and with the closure of the news channel, by improving its news coverage for the nations and regions across the various platforms.

if there is a need for a 24h news related UK channel, look at adopting and developing BBC radio 4 or 5 live as a TV channel on a full time basis, (radio on TV, similar to bloomberg, GBNews and talk TV radio) with a mixture of world programming throughout the evenings and weekends.

Rather than the current proposal, with limited UK news provision if the rumours are true.  That way there is content to cater for the domestic BBC audience.

In reality, news content provision doesn't need a 24h rolling news channel, given there are many ways of accessing news these days, even across the BBC.

Again, couldn’t disagree more. What are these many ways of accessing news? The BBC News website? 5 Live?

I’m sorry, but if there’s a major breaking news story - a page of text and a few photos isn’t enough for me. I want rolling news on the telly. Whenever it happens. I don’t want to wait for 6pm.

Justifying what is just emergency cuts due to desperate cost saving as trimming away unnecessary services is massively insulting.

I can only think those who are justifying them are either from overseas or anti-BBC.

Well said, Moz. This is exactly how I feel about the situation, too. Sometimes static information and pictures or short video clips are just not enough. Take for instance the Paris terrorist attacks in 2019. Watching that unfold as it happened was surreal. As was 9/11. I also remember watching the fire at Notre Dame as it unfolded. Granted those are overseas stories and would be covered by the new channel anyway, but the point is if such events occurred in the UK (or even overseas), I would want rolling coverage from a UK editorial perspective. I don't think that is much to ask from our national broadcaster. As I said on TV Live Forum, the BBC is a British institution and should be serving the needs of the UK audience above everything else. I understand that it makes more commercial sense for them to run the international channel, but in terms of principle, it ought to be the opposite outcome. Sadly, only money talks in this day and age and this is the result. Principle and 'doing the right thing' are, by and large, ancient history in most walks of life.

Apologies if I am correcting you itsrobert, but do you mean the Paris attacks of 2015?