[southern_boy]

Interesting. I would've assumed Sky would have the same number of staff as the BBC pre-merger or more post-merger because Sky was always seemed to be more "dynamic" and "flexible" (for a lack of better words) presentation-wise than the BBC. Is it the type of jobs that the BBC decided to eliminate or how the tasks were reorganized with fewer staff that would create the problems seen on the BBC?

It's difficult to comment exactly as to why, but a major part will be that Sky News runs as it was designed. Since the move into Sky Studios, the automation systems along with editorial/technical staffing levels are running to design specifications. BBC News has gone from two distinct channels with staffing designed for that, to what seems like 1.5-ish channels with far less staffing. This isn't what NBH was designed for and budgets haven't allowed for proper technical changes for this new way of working. Yes, it is 'technically' feasible with the systems in-place, but not being designed from the-ground-up in this way, we see an awful lot of mistakes. 

Staff churn will also be a big cause. Publicly, most people are only aware of the journalist leaving. However, this level of turnover and redundancies has been seen across operational and engineering departments. I know a couple of departments where literally hundreds of years of experience was lost over a few months. This was always going to have an adverse affect on the output.

I hope the above makes some sense.