[Kojak]

Why can’t London do short sharp clean toth sequences like these three from Washington?

I say ditch the thunderclaps at every headline as they’re now just restarting the bed are they not? I prefer if they just let the bed play out.

Shame the titles are mess but these short sharp toths are perfect, nicer headline transition too.

youtu.be 

The thunderclaps never used to be at every headline - that was only a thing from (I think) 2008 onwards. I agree, it sounds terrible when they restart the headline bed. Get rid. Short sharp headlines are better (speaking of, I thought the plan was no headlines?).

[Frances]

Why can’t London do short sharp clean toth sequences like these three from Washington?

I say ditch the thunderclaps at every headline as they’re now just restarting the bed are they not? I prefer if they just let the bed play out.

Shame the titles are mess but these short sharp toths are perfect, nicer headline transition too.

youtu.be 

On Tuesday night there’re thunderclaps between every headline - and with the old red globe… But it’s the 1am hour, probably it came from the E gallery.

[Radio_man]

It seems that we've seen the last of the 'full-fat' breaking news lower-thirds, with two lines of text, and with the small, flashing white-backed 'BREAKING' tag to the right of the BBC News logo - i.e. this version: 

With the decision to ditch the second descriptive line of text on all lower-thirds, the breaking news version now just scrolls endlessly between all-caps large Reith Bold 'BREAKING' and the mixed-case Reith Serif headline.

I assume the decision to drop the second line of text is a consequence of the leaner staffing operation for the new combined channel............

None of this is an improvement, for anybody. All of this is worse than what came before.

See my post from earlier..........rather than ranting about how awful things are now, and about how deep the staff cuts have become - which is clearly now affecting on-screen presentation & output, people should be asking themselves why things have become this bad, and my post from earlier explains the why and how BBC News is now in the position it's in.

[ginnyfan]

Ranting about anything is quite useless now. Cost cutting measures always mean less people will do more work and BBC is no different.

[LDN]

It seems that we've seen the last of the 'full-fat' breaking news lower-thirds, with two lines of text, and with the small, flashing white-backed 'BREAKING' tag to the right of the BBC News logo - i.e. this version: 

With the decision to ditch the second descriptive line of text on all lower-thirds, the breaking news version now just scrolls endlessly between all-caps large Reith Bold 'BREAKING' and the mixed-case Reith Serif headline.

I assume the decision to drop the second line of text is a consequence of the leaner staffing operation for the new combined channel............

None of this is an improvement, for anybody. All of this is worse than what came before.

See my post from earlier..........rather than ranting about how awful things are now, and about how deep the staff cuts have become - which is clearly now affecting on-screen presentation & output, people should be asking themselves why things have become this bad, and my post from earlier explains the why and how BBC News is now in the position it's in.

I'm well aware of why things have become this bad, and why and how BBC News is now in the position it's in. Believe it or not, you are not the only person who understands the complexities of the situation. 

And this... this is going to blow your mind: it's entirely possible to be fully aware of all the hows and whys, and still be capable of ranting about how awful things are now, and about how deep the staff cuts have become, and about what a wretched mess all of that is translating to on screen. 

I did see your post earlier. I chose to add my own observations. 

Enjoy.

[itsrobert]

Why can’t London do short sharp clean toth sequences like these three from Washington?

I say ditch the thunderclaps at every headline as they’re now just restarting the bed are they not? I prefer if they just let the bed play out.

Shame the titles are mess but these short sharp toths are perfect, nicer headline transition too.

youtu.be 

The thunderclaps never used to be at every headline - that was only a thing from (I think) 2008 onwards. I agree, it sounds terrible when they restart the headline bed. Get rid. Short sharp headlines are better (speaking of, I thought the plan was no headlines?).

Only on News 24 - from when they were introduced by David Lowe in 1999, News 24 just had one thunderclap at the start but nothing in between the headlines until, like you say, the 2008 rebrand. BBC World, on the other hand, always had thunderclaps between headlines after the 2000 rebrand, but these were fixed as they were mixed into the headline bed. Eventually, I think World dropped them between headlines at some point after the 2008 rebrand but I can't remember when exactly.

The restarting of the headline bed after each headline actually came from the BBC1 National News. Between 1999 and 2004 they had been - like World - mixed into the music. But, with the introduction of SpotOn in 2004, they started lengthening the headlines and chose to restart the bed after each headline.

[i.h]

So I've been watching on and off over the week. This is the "world" version due to being out of the UK and in a hotel where there's limited English language choice - BBC/Sky/F24/NHK (currently in Belgium, so they're clearly taking Astra 1/Astra 2/Hotbird and offering a range of channels from the neighbouring countries. Sadly they haven't retuned following the BBC One HD changes!)

It definitely doesn't feel as polished as the old service was. So many weird gaps and general awkwardness. I don't think much of the segments where there's someone sat right up against a load of TVs. It feels cheap.

I'm used to having the multiple lines in the graphics so the one big line is jarring, though a subjective opinion

[LDN]

Ranting about anything is quite useless now. Cost cutting measures always mean less people will do more work and BBC is no different.

Futile ranting about things we can never change is a bedrock upon which this forum and its noble predecessors were founded.

If I can't rant on here about things that almost no-one else cares about, I'll end up back in the park shouting at the ducks about countdowns and title sequences in my dressing gown.

[Newsroom]

I think the following stats explain how we got to the current situation fairly well.
- (Colour) Licence fee in 2010: £145.50
- Inflation adjusted 2010 fee today: £207.38 (according to Bank of England calculator, rounded down to £145.)
- Current (colour) licence fee: £159
- Difference: 26% (rounded to nearest whole number)

So whilst the license fee has only risen by £13.50 in 13 years, not only are the BBC's budgets impacted by the massive real terms cuts of that tiny rise, the BBC must also now fund:
Free TV licenses for over 75s, and funding of the BBC World Service, that it was not responsible for funding from the license fee in 2010. Money from the license fee has also been taken to support the digital TV switchover and broadband rollout since 2010.
So the BBC has had its funding cut whilst at the same time it has been made responsible for funding more services from a smaller funding pot. These are government decisions.

So it's easy to bash the BBC management for the closure of the UK News Channel, but it would not have happened if the BBC had not been cut to the bone for 13 years by consecutive Conservative governments.

Anyone who is upset and angry by what the BBC has become needs to seriously consider which political party they vote for next year, as the party currently in charge has made no attempt to hide the fact that if it wins the next election, the license fee will be abolished altogether.
(It's no coincidence that BBC News 24 / News Channel and the BBC in general, was at its best and most well resourced between 1997 - 2010)

Respectfully, you are missing my point. The entire process has been executed with extraordinary chaos and mismanagement. 

I am fully aware of the figures outlined by Keith and and I am also fully aware of the feelings of the current govt, however, the current people (plural) running the show are not fit for purpose! 

For the record, hell would freeze over before I ever vote for the party currently in charge!

[itsrobert]

See my post from earlier..........rather than ranting about how awful things are now, and about how deep the staff cuts have become - which is clearly now affecting on-screen presentation & output, people should be asking themselves why things have become this bad, and my post from earlier explains the why and how BBC News is now in the position it's in.

I'm well aware of why things have become this bad, and why and how BBC News is now in the position it's in. Believe it or not, you are not the only person who understands the complexities of the situation. 

And this... this is going to blow your mind: it's entirely possible to be fully aware of all the hows and whys, and still be capable of ranting about how awful things are now, and about how deep the staff cuts have become, and about what a wretched mess all of that is translating to on screen. 

I did see your post earlier. I chose to add my own observations. 

Enjoy.

I agree - this constant 'we are where we are' attitude is one of the main problems in society these days. People are too eager to roll over and let the government do what it wants. You have to stand up for your beliefs and if you believe something isn't good enough, say so. Just because this particular government has chosen to cut the BBC's funding doesn't mean we as a society have to accept the outcome. That's why elections are so important and it absolutely infuriates me when people don't bother to vote but then moan when everything they care about gets worse. The only way to make governments realise their mistakes is in the ballot box.