(28-04-2024, 10:18 PM)interestednovice Wrote: I’ve been thinking this for a while; actually, since the launch itself!
Somebody commented here last April, on launch day if my memory serves correctly, that the launch had been messy (paraphrasing) but they understood the budgetary reasons meant it “had to be today” and I immediately thought when I read that: they could have prolonged the interim stage instead. They couldn’t even get the name “BBC News” cleared by Indian regulators before launch, so used a horrible overlay graphic to name the channel BBC World News for weeks (in one of the biggest markets for the channel). That sort of sloppiness shouldn’t have made it to air.
The overnight axing and then gradual and awkward reintroduction of branded programming was another symptom of the rush to air.
It made no sense.
Yes, the interim arrangements resulted in no opt-out facility for U.K. stories, but if a massive story broke I’m sure they could have got on air from Studio D or Studio B - and, let’s be honest, hardly anyone has been watching the few disorganised opts we have had over the past year anyway. So they would hardly have been much of a loss. On-location opts, such as Anna Foster covering the maternity scandal at Countess of Chester hospital, would also still have been possible.
Yes, a year is too long to set up a new channel, especially when it was supposed to be an amalgamation of two related but separately-successful predecessor services, but if they have finally got going now I am pleased! A shame they had to have so many mis-steps just to get here.
You sum it up perfectly; it was sloppy and things made it on air that never should have.
The more I reflect on it all, the more I come to the conclusion that actually there is no excuse for how badly the merger has gone.
I agree that it’s likely that the merger had to happen that day due to budgets but we all often talk as if it was last minute decision however they’d announced the merger was going to take place 8 months previously. I think it’s safe to assume that they didn’t make the decision the night before the announcement and one would hope there would have been discussions about what they wanted from the merge.
If it hadn’t been the first time the bbc were launching a news channel you could excuse errors in the early days but they’d run two separate news channels for years.
The BBC can make changes quickly; when you think about when Covid hit changes had to take place practically overnight and they managed it.
In this situation consultations and the correct process had to take place but that wouldn’t have stopped them planning and getting everything else decided. They could have been working on program ideas, structure of the programs, branding. In reality the presenters could be spotted in.
The biggest problem was they were telling everyone it was a merger when really it was the closer of the uk news channel. If they’d have been honest and up front the need to rebrand and create new programs as they would have been able to use the old names instead of renaming them to what they are now.
I still don’t think the channel works as it is as it’s not fully meeting the need of either audience. The opt outs just sit on one story. Do the opt outs save money? You’ve still got a presenter (Inguess on a lower wage) but do they have a gallery still? The studios are automated. If packages are coming in all the time for the 1, 6 and 10. The opt out still have interviews. You’ve also got news teams around the uk who are producing content. I seem to remember watching something where the reports are uploaded to a central server.
Even if you had a uk news channel from 10am till 6 which is structured like a bulletins. You don’t need all the fancy graphics or walking about. Yes it makes visually more interesting but in reality it’s not essential. You’re got people making the content as someone has to be collating it for the live pages and the opt outs.
![[-]](https://pres.cafe/images//collapse.png)
