[Happy2001]

Has the Nicky Campbell show been axed from BBC2 this morning? The Snooker started at 9.30am today, so either Nicky was on for 30 mins only, or not at all. Or are they catching up the order of play after the orange powder incident on Monday. Doesn't seem much point simulcasting a programme for 28 minutes if so.

Nicky Campbell's show was only on for 30 minutes on BBC Two.

[DTV]

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.

Well quite, but the way I see it there were basically three options for the News channel to meet cuts:

- Merger with World News: maintains a fully-fledged TV news channel, but with a more international focus.
- Merger with 5Live: maintains a UK rolling news service, but is more rudimentary presentationally (though, I would agree you'd need a more visual set-up than you've got with Campbell for it to work - but, as other broadcasters have demonstrated, that is possible).
- Stripped-back separate News channel (i.e., primarily linked reports, greater utilisation of network resources, far fewer external contributors, outside broadcasts, etc.): maintains a UK TV news channel, but more basic and less flexible.

Of course, you could 'pick and mix' and have a hybrid of the different options, but I guess which option you prefer depends on what you think the priority of the channel should be and all require a compromise on certain key functions. Content-wise, the merger with 5Live would probably be the closest to a continuity option - but it obviously requires sacrifices presentationally (though, as I say, there are certainly ways of doing it that would work).

How does closing linear channels like BBC Three and Four and moving them online save money?

Distribution, infrastructure and support costs are not insubstantial - taking a channel off air and moving their content online (even without any reductions) would save a good few £m. Plus, with linear broadcasting there is also the issue of repeat fees which do add up and, on channels like Three and Four that are almost entirely repeat based, that is likely a large chunk of the content budget. There are similar fees for streaming, but I believe not in the same league as linear repeat fees.

[FactorFiles]

New wipe design coming soon:

www.instagram.com 

Login • Instagram
Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & …
  Source: www.instagram.com

[harryb]

👀

[Moz]

Perhaps they should be concentrating on the titles, not the wipes?

[AaronLancs]

Perhaps they should be concentrating on the titles, not the wipes?

Unless the titles are to tie in with the wipe?

[ViridianFan]

I don’t think this has been posted already. 


https://rxtvinfo.com/2023/viewers-unhappy-at-bbc-news-channel-changes/

The part I found interesting was the last paragraph:
 


Do we know how true that is?  It would seem very wrong if UK license fee money was being spent to expand the North American news division especially as the UK is now getting much less UK focused content. 


There is a second article which seems to suggest that the BBC is focused on increasing in presence in the US. 

https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/broadcast/bbc-news-us-culture-wars/

It would explain why more and more it feels like the channels intended audience is a US audience and who so many of the talking heads are from the US. 

It feels very much like the UK viewer is going to be the one who looses out in this situation as we are told we want to access news via live pages and US audience have a channel more geared to them.

IF that is true, then I think it is appalling. I suppose the official line given would be something along the lines of 'increased funding for our US newsroom means better reporting on the US, which is particularly important in the run-up to the presidential election, and benefits our audiences in the UK'. I do kind of get their thinking - if this gamble works, it could turn out very lucrative, and may hopefully have the side-effect of giving the domestic news operation more money to play with. But - it looks tremendously bad for the BBC to be cutting jobs here and effectively giving them to a load of people Stateside. If the usual suspects get wind of this I can see it possibly becoming a minor scandal. It is a gamble - either it will work really well and make a lot of money, or it will backfire tremendously.

It could be lucrative but it does seem like a major gamble especially at a time when the voices of  those questioning the license fee seems to be getting louder each day. 

In the second article there is an interesting discussion on impartiality and being a trusted news source. It say whilst the BBC is still the most trusted news source in the UK it’s scored have dropped. It also scores well in the US, however the comment is made that it is only reaching a small amount of the population and they expect that as it reaches more there would be a rise in criticism levelled towards the BBC state side. It got me wondering whilst it could bring in additional revenue, could an increase in people questioning its impartiality state side give more weight to those questioning it here?

[bilky asko]

The flipper's showing the call in details for Nicky Campbell's show now...

I'm not sure that's really needed when the same details are also present on the right hand side quite a bit.  

Even less necessary at the start of Newsday at just gone midnight, when James2001 posted!

[House]

Perhaps they should be concentrating on the titles, not the wipes?

Or concentrating on providing a proper, substantive news service relevant to its audience?

[James2001]

I'm not sure that's really needed when the same details are also present on the right hand side quite a bit.  

Even less necessary at the start of Newsday at just gone midnight, when James2001 posted!

Get your comments in 9 hours early