22-07-2023, 09:36 PM
I don’t mean any offence when I say this, so please don’t think I’m directing my comments as a personal critique, but so often we hear this and it “seems like” the right answer/correct line of thinking. I am imagining the “very good”, “very strong”, “legacy service, bravo” W1A comments in my head already.
People who are saying this, in my view, fundamentally misunderstand what the news channel is for. It is the place to go to immediately understand breaking news. When a story breaks, the webpage article is a simple stub and social media is full of rampant “unverified” (did you see what I did there?!) speculation. Neither are good sources for explaining the story. Whereas the news channel, at least in theory, immediately picks up the story - and puts it in context, explains what we know, covers the reaction and provides you with a simple way to find out what you want to know. The rest of the time, it is a basic “low effort” affair of rolling news, live interviews and reports. This shouldn’t cost too much for a broadcaster the size of the BBC, frankly.
It’s good, even if news is not breaking, as a way to watch up-to-date news at any time of day and as an easy way to hear about a range of major stories. It’s very passive and simple for the viewer. This means the channel is ideal for public displays, which further helps the BBC provide the essential PSB service of informative journalism to all.
The BBC NC also provides a ready feed for BBC One to crash into at short notice for very serious breaking news.
Other supposed “legacy” services have a direct replacement - the BBC Red Button has ad hoc drop-in iPlayer live streams for events, etc. The BBC News Channel has no equivalent or equal. As I say, social media is a very poor equivalent. The BBC’s own website is fine but cannot be updated quicker than people can speak (the speed of the channel, which normally goes live to breaking news if it can). A video carousel of reports is no replacement for the channel.
People high up in the BBC basically don’t realise why viewers want a news channel, and that’s where the difficulty lies.
People who are saying this, in my view, fundamentally misunderstand what the news channel is for. It is the place to go to immediately understand breaking news. When a story breaks, the webpage article is a simple stub and social media is full of rampant “unverified” (did you see what I did there?!) speculation. Neither are good sources for explaining the story. Whereas the news channel, at least in theory, immediately picks up the story - and puts it in context, explains what we know, covers the reaction and provides you with a simple way to find out what you want to know. The rest of the time, it is a basic “low effort” affair of rolling news, live interviews and reports. This shouldn’t cost too much for a broadcaster the size of the BBC, frankly.
It’s good, even if news is not breaking, as a way to watch up-to-date news at any time of day and as an easy way to hear about a range of major stories. It’s very passive and simple for the viewer. This means the channel is ideal for public displays, which further helps the BBC provide the essential PSB service of informative journalism to all.
The BBC NC also provides a ready feed for BBC One to crash into at short notice for very serious breaking news.
Other supposed “legacy” services have a direct replacement - the BBC Red Button has ad hoc drop-in iPlayer live streams for events, etc. The BBC News Channel has no equivalent or equal. As I say, social media is a very poor equivalent. The BBC’s own website is fine but cannot be updated quicker than people can speak (the speed of the channel, which normally goes live to breaking news if it can). A video carousel of reports is no replacement for the channel.
People high up in the BBC basically don’t realise why viewers want a news channel, and that’s where the difficulty lies.
![[-]](https://pres.cafe/images//collapse.png)