[KatsKaravan]

I'm not sure I see the relevance of this to what I wrote. I was just trying to counter this bizarre NC vs World narrative that some people seem interested in drumming up, when a) I don't see why it's hard to believe that Amroliwala, Fraser, Hakim and Hockings were, at least on paper, the most suitable candidates for a job that was basically more like their job than anybody else's, b) most of the forgotten five are ex-World presenters and c) more News channel presenters got promotions this year than demotions.

With respect you seem to be moving the goalposts. You say 'more News channel presenters got promotions this year than demotions'. Yes, moving to Network full-time is a promotion, but is it really when Ben Brown, Jane Hill and others presented probably just as many network bulletins as NC slots? All that happened was those NC slots dried up for obvious reasons, so they're full-time Network by default. This is all semantics anyway, I guess. My point was they weren't pure News Channel presenters like Martine and Annita.

[News76]

The whole channel is a mess - presentation, presenters, general lack of direction and purpose. It's just a shame that this inquiry is only looking at one angle of the mess.

But the correct one that needs looking at before we can look at the other aspects of this mess.

[Rolling News]

The whole channel is a mess - presentation, presenters, general lack of direction and editorial purpose. It's just a shame that this inquiry is only looking at one angle of the mess.

The whole thing just feels so “temporary”. Like we should be expecting some massive relaunch at some point, since April 3rd was only described as a soft relaunch. But is it temporary? Or are we stuck with this botched together rubbish for eternity?

[ginnyfan]

If only they had decent presentation again. Using E, more than one camera shot, newswall etc. Mixing it up would make the channel come alive instead of the one shot/one giant red strap borefest we have.

[Radio_man]

With respect you seem to be moving the goalposts. You say 'more News channel presenters got promotions this year than demotions'. Yes, moving to Network full-time is a promotion, but is it really when Ben Brown, Jane Hill and others presented probably just as many network bulletins as NC slots? All that happened was those NC slots dried up for obvious reasons, so they're full-time Network by default. This is all semantics anyway, I guess. My point was they weren't pure News Channel presenters like Martine and Annita.

Before her 'incident' on The Papers and subsequent suspension last autumn, Martine was also a semi-regular presenter on BBC 1, doing the 1 and weekend bulletins after Simon McCoy's departure.

[DTV]

With respect you seem to be moving the goalposts. You say 'more News channel presenters got promotions this year than demotions'. Yes, moving to Network full-time is a promotion, but is it really when Ben Brown, Jane Hill and others presented probably just as many network bulletins as NC slots? All that happened was those NC slots dried up for obvious reasons, so they're full-time Network by default. This is all semantics anyway, I guess. My point was they weren't pure News Channel presenters like Martine and Annita.

How is that moving the goalposts? It's just pointing out that, regardless of attempts to portray the News channel as unfairly victimised or snubbed throughout the process, the BBC hardly cleanhoused News channel talent. From what we know, you had two NC presenters going up against about a dozen-or-so WN presenters for five jobs which were quite similar to those of four of the WN presenters (one of whom was, let's not forget, also a primetime NC presenter). I don't get why everybody keeps acting like the only way that Amroliwala, Fraser, Hakim or Hockings could have got the gig was through some nefarious favouritist plot to screw over the News channel.

Because the whole process of how we got to the merger was flawed/a farce and you know it is/was!

What? I've always been clear that I feel that merging the news channels was not ideal (though, unlike some on this thread, I do recognise the financial realities of the situation) and that the end product could easily be better (though, again unlike others, my concerns are mainly content based, rather than on what colours the astons are). But, quite frankly, who is presenting is fairly low down on the list of issues I have with the merged channel.

[Newsroom]

How is that moving the goalposts? It's just pointing out that, regardless of attempts to portray the News channel as unfairly victimised or snubbed throughout the process, the BBC hardly cleanhoused News channel talent. From what we know, you had two NC presenters going up against about a dozen-or-so WN presenters for five jobs which were quite similar to those of four of the WN presenters (one of whom was, let's not forget, also a primetime NC presenter). I don't get why everybody keeps acting like the only way that Amroliwala, Fraser, Hakim or Hockings could have got the gig was through some nefarious favouritist plot to screw over the News channel.

What? I've always been clear that I feel that merging the news channels was not ideal (though, unlike some on this thread, I do recognise the financial realities of the situation) and that the end product could easily be better (though, again unlike others, my concerns are mainly content based, rather than on what colours the astons are). But, quite frankly, who is presenting is fairly low down on the list of issues I have with the merged channel.

But that's your point of view and perspective. If some users on here feel so passionately about what happened that they've chosen to be all conspiracy about it, let them be just that.

Going back to my own input - I'm just very happy to find out that concerns were noticed internally about the farcical recruitment process, which at the time of course many of us here felt exactly the same. 

I really didn't want to go down the road of who has what experience and from what channel (NC or World).

Croxall has presented overnights possibly longer than any of the chosen or those sat in holding. She was as frequent as Susan Osman back in the day. Annita McVeigh was a Special Correspondent in the field before hitting the desk, much the same as Amroliwala was a Foreign and Westminster Correspondent. Gianone's experience of covering South Africas affairs is renowned and so on..

With all that said and in returning briefly to the Time article yesterday, it is surely clear that this investigation is the reason why some talent have remained on payroll and have not chosen any other route and not because the BBC don't know what to do with them.

Am sure there's speedy conclusion to this and it can't come soon enough for all concerned.

[Robert Williams]

I'm not someone who is a habitual viewer of news channels, so I hope my criticisms are still valid!

I don't watch enough to really be able to comment on the content, but in terms of graphics, I was never a fan of the 2019 lower thirds, with the large expanse of white across the bottom of the screen - 2013-19 had a much tidier solution with channel name, ticker and clock all on a single strip across the screen.  But my main bugbear is the way they seem to have a large aston remaining on screen all the way through a report - it gives the impression they are catering for an audience with an attention span of a gnat.  It may have been just about passable when the astons were transparent, but now they are changed to solid red they cover up too much of the screen, and just seems unnecessary.

Plus the much-criticised retention and, worse, botching of a title sequence that was already 15 years old, helps to lend the channel that 'temporary' feel that has already been mentioned.

But on the upside, I do like the Chameleon-style countdown!

[Keith]

Am I correct in thinking at that away from the 5 presenter roles hardly any (or possibly none) of the additional presenter-reporter roles have still yet to be announced?

At risk of wild speculation I wouldn't be too surprised if they try to resolve the dispute with the other 5 presenters by opting for 9 presenter roles and fewer presenter-reporter roles. (9 rather than 10, due to Yalda's departure reducing the original 5 presenter total.) This wouldn't resolve the internal review into the selection process but would allow those 5 presenters to return to onscreen roles.

I'd still like to think that the News channel could provide more of a UK service on weekdays between 9am to 5pm. This could be through a combination of BBC One simulcasts, putting programmes in some back-half hours for non-UK viewers to enable UK focused half hours, and full opt-out bulletins with separate presenters. If the 5 presenters currently off-air returned to screen then potentially one of those could even be used for a UK-opt out bulletin(s).

[DTV]

But that's your point of view and perspective. If some users on here feel so passionately about what happened that they've chosen to be all conspiracy about it, let them be just that.

To be fair, can you point to any opinions I have expressed which I didn't state were my personal view.

And, no, I won't let users be when it comes to having takes that are detached from reality. Somebody has to provide a counterbalance to certain members in this thread, otherwise it just ends up with pages of people agreeing that viewing figures have substantially decreased or that the new channel is basically World News in everything but name or that the old BBC News channel was disproportionately hit in budget cuts over the last decade or that there's a financially viable international market for a UK domestic news channel or that everything bad started on the 3rd April or any of the many other nonsense arguments that have cropped up in the last few months.