[Newshound47]

Indeed, they should have been honest with viewers from the start. Autocue operators and behind the scenes technical staff and journalists should not have been axed.

If they couldn’t afford a proper UK opt, then they shouldn’t have done it. They should have admitted to Ofcom that they were closing the BBC News Channel, kept BBC World News pretty much as it was and broadcast that in the UK. The “World News” name would be a clear differentiator signalling that the channel was a global feed. In quarter-past-the-hour breaks, they could have done “UK News in Brief” headlines much as Newsday used to do. This would be infinitely more useful to viewers than the “Across the UK” repackaged local reports - valuable naturally UK-only time should cover the top UK stories of the day and not random regional human interest stories.

Separately, basic feeds covering UK rolling stories could have been made available via iPlayer, the BBC News website and app. I would call this channel “BBC News Breaking” and this would basically be equivalent to opts now but using a real studio.

I would have kept radio and any NBH newsroom revamps away from the plans. No “visualised radio”, no non-news content aside from established weekend Click, Travel Show, Hardtalk, etc factual programmes. No simulcast domestic bulletins - straight World feed instead.

If budgets couldn’t cover this, cut elsewhere. It’s often brought up that there’s some kind of “compact” with viewers that they get “stuff they want to see” (entertainment; Eastenders etc) and also “stuff they should be shown”. I reject that thinking entirely. Just go like PBS and refocus on true exclusively “nobody else will do it” PSB content and leave entertainment for others. That would preserve news at the cost of things like Match of the Day. You could get the same programme elsewhere (probably ITV) and it would make no difference. No other broadcaster will step in to provide news in an equivalent way.

PBS doesn’t have to persuade people to pay for a license fee through.

[Independent]

Would a CBSN-like format or even euronews-like format replacing the UK channel be better for UK viewers? And then simulcast World News at other times. Would that even be within budget?

[Brekkie]

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.

This is why it is so frustrating they axed the dedicated BBC News Smart TV app.   That really was excellent with on demand reports and headlines and could have been a place where in lieu of a news channel you could include the BBC World stream, BBC Parliament and then pop up streams for live breaking news events and visualisation of some Radio content.


As things stand though with a linear channel in operation although on paper viewers may be better served by a live feed of the international channel I personally think a UK focused news wheel format would serve the audience better, though they'd have to lift restrictions on pre-recorded bulletins to make that work.   Like CBSN they can crash into it for breaking news and could dip into the World channel at key points in the schedule too.


Ultimately here though the big issue is how the supposed "merger" was handled.   It wasn't a merger, it was a takeover by BBC World with an effective closure of UK operations and the presenter choices back that up, along with the channel only opting out for UK stories rather than sometimes it being World opting out for international stories which may not be top of the UK news agenda.

If it had been World's operations folded into those of the UK they would have got away with it, in the UK at least.   Really though the concession here is that daytime hours should have always been given a stronger UK focus and as posted previously in theory that should really be possible and is a question of will as much as it is finances.

[all new phil]

This is why it is so frustrating they axed the dedicated BBC News Smart TV app.   That really was excellent with on demand reports and headlines and could have been a place where in lieu of a news channel you could include the BBC World stream, BBC Parliament and then pop up streams for live breaking news events and visualisation of some Radio content.

A million percent this. This is what “BBC News” on tv should look like. ITVX have this idea but the implementation isn’t quite there. It surprises me that a lot of ‘interactive’ stuff has been rolled back in recent years, I fully expect it to come back into fashion now connected tvs are pretty much the norm. 

For what it’s worth the BBC News Digest on BBC Sounds is excellent. Starts cycling through the top stories, before going into longer listen stuff that’s topical.

[Radio_man]

Ultimately here though the big issue is how the supposed "merger" was handled.   It wasn't a merger, it was a takeover by BBC World with an effective closure of UK operations and the presenter choices back that up, along with the channel only opting out for UK stories rather than sometimes it being World opting out for international stories which may not be top of the UK news agenda.

If it had been World's operations folded into those of the UK they would have got away with it, in the UK at least.   Really though the concession here is that daytime hours should have always been given a stronger UK focus and as posted previously in theory that should really be possible and is a question of will as much as it is finances.

On your first paragraph here - Martine made this point on twitter last autumn when the plans were first announced - of course managers and the official press releases disputed it was a closure of the UK News Channel and a World takeover, but Martine was ultimately right.

Evenings and overnights are US and Asia focussed, there's no reason why mornings cannot be explicitly UK focussed, even if they keep the rotating cast of presenters for the morning shifts.  Broadcasting an opinionated radio phone-in on a rolling news channel is not providing UK focussed news coverage, however it is spun by managers.

[Former Member 237]

@interestednovice
If the technology is there to allow staff to be axed, then unfortunately it is logical said staff are axed. Just because there are a few hiccups does not justify spending salaries on redundant roles, many of which are freelance anyway.

Separate steams for iPlayer I would imagine can easily be done if the demand is there.

There as been no newsroom revamp yet.

[interestednovice]

The technology is not “there” for staff to be axed. Now that presenters have to operate their own autocue, the visual variety of the channel is sorely lacking as they cannot easily move around nor can they switch between cameras in the way they used to.

Other cutbacks have also had an impact, with stories repeated more due to fewer reports being produced and gallery staff cut so presentation has become more basic (compounding the autocue issue) leading to problems such as a restricted ability to accommodate in-studio guests.

Very simple iPlayer streams (live press conferences, etc, perhaps not covered directly on the merged channel) would be virtually free as they should only need one producer to put to air, which is why I suggested it.

When I said “newsroom revamp”, I meant the needless extra screens and adaptations to the weather balcony - it’s not a full revamp, I agree, but it’s money spent on alterations that didn’t have to be and hasn’t improved content for the viewer at all. Everything they do out there could be done more professional on existing in-studio screens or packaged as part of a proper report.

[qwerty123]

The technology is not “there” for staff to be axed. Now that presenters have to operate their own autocue, the visual variety of the channel is sorely lacking as they cannot easily move around nor can they switch between cameras in the way they used to.

Other cutbacks have also had an impact, with stories repeated more due to fewer reports being produced and gallery staff cut so presentation has become more basic (compounding the autocue issue) leading to problems such as a restricted ability to accommodate in-studio guests.

Very simple iPlayer streams (live press conferences, etc, perhaps not covered directly on the merged channel) would be virtually free as they should only need one producer to put to air, which is why a I suggested it.

When I said “newsroom revamp”, I meant the needless extra screens and adaptations to the weather balcony - it’s not a full revamp, I agree, but it’s money spent on alterations that didn’t have to be and hasn’t improved content for the viewer.

To put it bluntly news channels don’t need visual variety within the studio and there has never been much variety at times of major breaking news. The new presentation point in the newsroom may have had a slight cost to get to air (although I’m not convinced those screens aren’t repurposed screens that have seen previous use) but almost certainly saves money in the long run by reducing the need to go on location or produce full packaged reports on elements of a story.

[DTV]

On your first paragraph here - Martine made this point on twitter last autumn when the plans were first announced - of course managers and the official press releases disputed it was a closure of the UK News Channel and a World takeover, but Martine was ultimately right.

Honestly, the persistence of this 'it's a rebadged World News' view is just so bizarre. Sure, it's formatted more as per World News, but, during 'core' UK hours, it is far closer in terms of editorial lean to the old News channel than World News - UK news, including some incredibly parochial stories, lead about 50% of the time, with UK politics in particular adequately covered.

Other cutbacks have also had an impact, with stories repeated more due to fewer reports being produced

I would be surprised if the hour-to-hour repeating of reports has gone up - I suspect it's just more noticeable due to the slower pace. The News channel was always fairly similar one hour to the next, it was only ever World News during its stranded heyday (2007-15) when you really saw particularly changing news agendas hour-to-hour.

[LondonViewer]

If they couldn’t afford a proper UK opt, then they shouldn’t have done it. They should have admitted to Ofcom that they were closing the BBC News Channel, kept BBC World News pretty much as it was and broadcast that in the UK. The “World News” name would be a clear differentiator signalling that the channel was a global feed. In quarter-past-the-hour breaks, they could have done “UK News in Brief” headlines much as Newsday used to do. 

This would have been fantastic. We would be spared endless political drivel & rolling coverage of the antics of UK celebs/newsreaders. Such a missed opportunity to raise the bar.