[thomalex]

Given how Five Live is a shadow of its former self, I would be tempted to split it into a separate news and sports network.  Put the sports on Five Live's current frequencies, then merge Five Live News with local radio put resources into decent local opt outs.

Big fan of this idea and would draw more of an audience to Local Radio I feel.

Given the number of options available now you do wonder what audience local radio gets and what it's future is in the current model.

[Steve in Pudsey]

The problem is that once you cut everything away and simulcast a lot, do you have the resources to go live all night when your city floods?

[all new phil]

The problem is that once you cut everything away and simulcast a lot, do you have the resources to go live all night when your city floods?

But how many people do you keep on the payroll in case a city floods?

[Jon]

The problem is that once you cut everything away and simulcast a lot, do you have the resources to go live all night when your city floods?

But how many people do you keep on the payroll in case a city floods?

Exactly. With technology I’m sure they could develop the means so that local programmes could be presented remotely and go live at short notice in the event of a major breaking news story in one particular areas patch. I think the bigger issue is they probably wouldn’t have the desire to do so.

[Liam]

Given how Five Live is a shadow of its former self, I would be tempted to split it into a separate news and sports network.  Put the sports on Five Live's current frequencies, then merge Five Live News with local radio put resources into decent local opt outs.

This is such an exciting idea! Proper voice-of-the-nation vibes… “views from around the country & your local area!” Reaching/talking to audiences LBC & Times Radio could never

[Matrix]

Given how Five Live is a shadow of its former self, I would be tempted to split it into a separate news and sports network.  Put the sports on Five Live's current frequencies, then merge Five Live News with local radio put resources into decent local opt outs.

This is such an exciting idea! Proper voice-of-the-nation vibes… “views from around the country & your local area!” Reaching/talking to audiences LBC & Times Radio could never

In many ways, going back to the origins of FiveLive and ‘ScudFM’ as it was nicknamed during its coverage of the first Gulf War. 

I suspect, though, the idea of an LBC style phone in/discussion format is what we’re already heading to with the Nicky Campbell-News Channel suggestion. 

For me, one of the assumptions being made, that local areas are crying out for investigative journalism, is the one that needs evidencing. I’ve been struck by how many of the phone-in responses (and I appreciate it’s a self selecting pool) come from a group of listeners for whom BBC Sounds is an adjective, not a service. They’re — in the main — an older group and I’m really struggling to see them being the ones to want a ‘true crimes’ style 14 part podcast on Nuneaton and Bedworth’s Refuge Collection scandals, if they exist.

[thomalex]

It would be great if this was branded as one news service. In fact I'd just go for Radio 5 Live given it's a strong brand and move sport content to a dedicated Radio Sport, then scrap all the local radio stations. You then get your version of 5 Live where you live and can select on BBC Sounds which area you a listening from. Content is then split between national and local content. For FM/DAB where there are multiple stations available these are identified as 5 Live (Leeds), 5 Live (York) etc. This could also be replicated on Radio Sport with a local version available for local sport, a role for Sport Extra maybe?

I fail to see how this wouldn't draw a lot more listeners than the current set up with individual local radio stations. A national news/debate radio station with a strong regional element surely has to be a winner.

[Steve in Pudsey]

But how many people do you keep on the payroll in case a city floods?

Exactly. With technology I’m sure they could develop the means so that local programmes could be presented remotely and go live at short notice in the event of a major breaking news story in one particular areas patch. I think the bigger issue is they probably wouldn’t have the desire to do so.

Indeed that's what they did when York last flooded and it took out the BT exchange, they were able to get on air from Hull instead, but with a team of reporters on the ground.

The official report into that incident talks about Radio York's role in keeping people informed, particularly with phone lines and broadband down for many www.york.gov.uk -

I know these are only occasional events, but this kind of thing is public service broadcasting at its most fundamental, I just suggest that those who advocate cuts on this scale leave themselves open to being accused of knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

[Andrew]

Regarding Five Live, surely regular listeners can’t be a fan of the current set up - if they tune in to Drive every week, suddenly they’ll find themselves listening to tennis from Wimbledon, or a World Cup football match or something instead at various times of the year.

[Jon]

Regarding Five Live, surely regular listeners can’t be a fan of the current set up - if they tune in to Drive every week, suddenly they’ll find themselves listening to tennis from Wimbledon, or a World Cup football match or something instead at various times of the year.

I guess the argument would be it’s targeted at people who like following both news and sport, so if 5 Live is your listening choice in the first place you’re probably not going to mind when the coverage switches to live sport.

They could split the services but you’d then split the audience, and dedicated News and sport offerings are offered by commercial rivals.