[DTV]

It was 45 minutes of already produced content aired on Friday night in what is a low key slot for News channels with a 15 minute follow up.

If they'd edited it down to 30 minutes and filled a back half hours with it, probably more than once, would we even be having this conversation?

You're right, we wouldn't be having this conversation if the circumstances were completely different. It would definitely have fit better as a back-half programme - but only because it's about as newsworthy as a lot of what else goes in those slots. Fundamentally, if people really want to see the full length interview, they could be pointed towards iPlayer.

Also, as a correction, 19:00 is not a low key slot, evenings are generally when News channel viewership is at its highest.

A bit of news snobbery going on here I think. The general viewer will be far more interested in it than an extended interview with a foreign president or UK government minister.

Again, you're right, this is largely news snobbery - but quite rightly. The BBC isn't a tabloid, it's not supposed to determine its news agenda - particularly the front-end - based on the stories that they think people are interested in.

It'd be one thing if we were talking about the most popular programme on TV, but what this story ultimately boils down to is one of the presenters of not even the most popular morning magazine, which only gets slightly more viewers than the main edition of BBC London news, getting fired for doing something dodgy, but not illegal. The rest is gossip. This is not a story that materially affects the average viewer, it is not a story that actually matters in any political, geopolitical, economic, scientific or human catastrophic sense. At best, it is a story deserving of a two-minute VT second-to-last in the running order of the BBC News at Six on maybe two key days in the story's development. That's it.

I feel some on this forum are letting their interest in media stories cloud their judgement here, as I doubt we'd be hearing these kinds of excuses for other celebrity gossip stories leading the News at Ten and Newsnight.

[ginnyfan]

There seems to be a new position for the ''hostage'' newsroom shot. Much better, with a nice view behind, not slapped against the wall of screens.

[DTV]

There seems to be a new position for the ''hostage'' newsroom shot. Much better, with a nice view behind, not slapped against the wall of screens.

Definitely better - after all, makes more sense for your 'live in the newsroom' shots to actually clearly be in the newsroom, rather than just against a red wall and monitor.

[oscillon]

If anybody thought that airings of the Schofield interview are over - well, now the UK feed has opted out from the ongoing bulletin at 15:13 UKT to re-run the interview in full. Only a few months ago it was vice versa, with World regularly opting out on weekends to show pre-recorded stuff.

[harshy]

Definitely better - after all, makes more sense for your 'live in the newsroom' shots to actually clearly be in the newsroom, rather than just against a red wall and monitor.

Aah I admit I did like the shot of screens so I could see the feeds :-)

[TVenthusiasm]

I prefer the new shot to the one previously used. Nice to see a live newsroom shot, rather than the bank of screens in the old shot. This is what they should have been using from the start of the relaunch back in April.

[Brekkie]

Again, you're right, this is largely news snobbery - but quite rightly. The BBC isn't a tabloid, it's not supposed to determine its news agenda - particularly the front-end - based on the stories that they think people are interested in.

The point here is though the BBC had a first hand interview with the person at the centre of the story - it showed a bit of classic actual journalism rather than creating headlines from the views of bystanders and commentators.


We are where we are though and suspect we'll be hear tomorrow as well.   Monday 10am is like the new PMQs - or TMQs if you like.

[Radio_man]

Again, you're right, this is largely news snobbery - but quite rightly. The BBC isn't a tabloid, it's not supposed to determine its news agenda - particularly the front-end - based on the stories that they think people are interested in.

It'd be one thing if we were talking about the most popular programme on TV, but what this story ultimately boils down to is one of the presenters of not even the most popular morning magazine, which only gets slightly more viewers than the main edition of BBC London news, getting fired for doing something dodgy, but not illegal. The rest is gossip. This is not a story that materially affects the average viewer, it is not a story that actually matters in any political, geopolitical, economic, scientific or human catastrophic sense. At best, it is a story deserving of a two-minute VT second-to-last in the running order of the BBC News at Six on maybe two key days in the story's development. That's it.

I feel some on this forum are letting their interest in media stories cloud their judgement here, as I doubt we'd be hearing these kinds of excuses for other celebrity gossip stories leading the News at Ten and Newsnight.

Surely what we've seen with the Schofield story is the BBC letting the tabloids drive their editorial decisions?
I don't read any of the tabloids and I haven't seen any of the wild gossip about the Schofield story online. The story has only really come to my attention through the BBC and I'm pretty sure BBC news shouldn't be pandering the the hyperbolic coverage of this story that there's been in the tabloids, and basing their editorial decisions on that. There was much bigger and more important UK & international news than Schofield around in Friday, and there's no way his interview should've been leading their domestic bulletins and certainly not their international news channel.

[Stuart]

There seems to be a new position for the ''hostage'' newsroom shot. Much better, with a nice view behind, not slapped against the wall of screens.

That's much better. We knew there would have to be tinkering post-merger, but such basic things like this seem to be taking longer than necessary.

However, he still looks like an unwitting pizza delivery driver who was handcuffed to a chair and forced to read an autocue before they would let him go.

[mouseboy33]

I actually LOL'd when I read that. I dont understand why somethings were allowed to go to air especially since it was a such a hyped change that was taking place and clearly little effort was put into the presenation. We know the content is good. But it still has to look professional . Im sure there must be a storehouse somewhere that holds some unused set pieces. They coulda cobbled together a decent set. Creating a half-decent newsroom set.

Maybe one of those circular internally lit platforms, thrown in 3-4 simple red internally lit columns and have the tv screens mounted between each column. But you can still see the newsroom in the background. 2 cameras. One need for a wide-ish establishing shot show a decent amount of the set and then one that is zoomed in on the correspondent. its not like the Jago sets today are that massively different from the ones they had 10-15 years ago. Basically they same design.

Its not unprecedented to re-use set pieces. CNN is moving their CNNI set from CNN Center to Techwood. Im sure it will get some upgrades as well.