[Former Member 237]

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.

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.

Well just because the presentation has changed does not mean the technology is not there. It clearly is as it is in use and works to achieve its function. If there are limitations to that, it means you have to find better technology, but that doesn't mean we should not remove outdated setups. 

I can't say I have noticed much difference in regards to repeats or on air guests. Many changes were made in covid which were not changed back, as in many other places.

I don't disagree with the iPlayer idea.

Yes but the newsroom, will actually be re-vamped. So let us wait and see with it before we assume what we have now is the finished product.