[Kojak]

I agree that bringing back BBC Three as a linear channel wasn't a great idea, but I don't think spending more on content for its target audience is and wouldn't support siphoning money away from content for that audience towards a channel whose viewer profile is pretty much the complete opposite. As I've said elsewhere on here, I think that the BBC should actually be going harder on consolidating their linear services and their inability to actually commit to closing channels is just wasting a ton of money on zombie channels that rack up 10s of £m in broadcasting costs. While actually closing a pair of channels would free up some extra money purely on such costs, I'd need convincing that the News channel was a deserving recipient.

I agree that the BBC would probably do well to close a few more of their linear channels - just not the news channel. Ideally, it would have stayed until the bitter end. Unbiased, accurate, quality broadcast journalism is an important public service. As excellent as Sky News is - and it truly is a very good news channel - there really ought to be more than one UK-focussed news channel (no, I don't count GBN or Talk TV - they are opinion channels - and very slanted towards certain opinions - with brief news updates). I'm not sure Nail Bar Boys or Drag Race UK are really as important as a British news channel, to be quite honest.

I do see the attraction in wanting to keep the weekday daytime service, but evenings and weekends do rate better - if there was to be some UK-only content, wouldn't it make more sense to spread it more evenly and more towards the viewer? Ultimately, I'm increasingly of the view that the better option would've been a partial (or even full) consolidation of 5 Live and the News channel into a single bi-modal channel (with radio opt outs for sport) focussed on UK news. Obviously, that would have been a more radical route (and I have no doubt that this forum would have equally hated it), but it would've been doable and would have solved the financial issue of two hard-to-trim UK news services.

My thinking is that most breaking news, particularly that which is important but not 'BBC World' important, generally happens during the daytime on weekdays. That content can then be repackaged later on, for network bulletins, online, and even evening World bulletins (which may also report on these stories, but with less priority than the erstwhile News 24). Plus I'd have thought it would be cheaper and easier to employ the people to produce the news channel during standard office hours, rather than evenings and weekends. And don't underestimate the number of offices, banks, pubs/restaurants and other public spaces that have BBC News on during the day. It all adds up to the public perception of the BBC, and if that continues to fall, we might end up with fewer people paying the all-important licence fee. I know that last point is a reach, but with an incredibly hostile press ready to whip up a fuss in a second, it's not impossible.

That being said, maybe you're right about the hours. Perhaps afternoons and early evenings would be better? The One team could carry on until, say, 5pm, then another team could come in and do, say 5-9? The rest could then stay as is.

Your 5 Live idea is certainly interesting. It's not without potential, but then if BBC World is continuing as a proper news channel whilst News 24 had to close, it obviously makes sense to expand World's availability to the UK, rather than introducing some radio-TV hybrid. I think there's also the issue of it perhaps being seen (perhaps unfairly) as cheap and nasty. Just sticking a bunch of cameras in a radio studio and televising the result doesn't really work. It won't be lost on you that even TalkTV has moved towards producing more shows as TV, rather than radio. As you say, it certainly is doable, but it would have to be radically different to either current 5 Live or the erstwhile News Channel.