[ViridianFan]

I know we have to avoid political discussion to stay within the remit of this site, and I respect that, so I will be careful that I’m not making a comment that goes over the line.

However, you make an interesting point. Politically, the BBC always comes in for criticism for domestic coverage from one side or the other (it simply always has done) but it’s best defence to that has always been to say that it is genuinely impartial in coverage and to demonstrate that on an ongoing basis through it’s output. Then nobody can really claim, genuinely, that its coverage is unfair.

As soon as you lose that objective high ground, either deliberately or “by accident” through poor editorial judgement, then the ability to make the impartiality argument goes away. This immediately then becomes a crisis because objectivity is the foundation of BBC News.

The merged channel should work, as you say. They have fewer people, and certainly fewer experienced people, but compared to other media outlets they have “enough” not to be making careless errors. So why these errors are mounting up is, really, inexcusable. It has got to the point where poor quality lower third captions, sloppy opt-outs and so on are impacting output quality so consistently that “the brand” (the level of viewer trust) of BBC News is being seriously eroded.

A BBC Manager out there somewhere really ought to do something about this, and fast.

But to finish on a positive note: still, despite all the issues, as others have said the BBC still thrives on reporting on a genuinely breaking international story. Their top quality reporters are excellent, and something of the DNA of old BBC World News and BBC NC is still there in the organisation. They can, when they pull out the stops, still cover rolling news exceptionally well. It’s a reminder of how valuable the service is.

Despite the mounting criticism that it’s received I am pleased they’re not giving in. It’s been more important than ever for news which is factual and impartial especially with the what seems constant flow of fake news and conspiracies. 

Without being political, I think many politicians and media groups going back at least the last 15/20 years have called into question the impartiality and accuracy of the BBC often for their own gain or to cover up own mistakes. In a world where conspiracy theories can cross the globe within minutes, having those in power publicly question the accuracy of the BBC has fuelled the voices who call out against it. 

In remember years back that there was a report which criticised how slow the bbc was at reporting breaking news to which the bbc explain it was due to the verification process. Has this been reduced? Is this why things like this slip through? 

I’ve alway felt that changing the ticket to a flipper was a bad move. The flipper has a limited space whilst the ticker had the flexibility to include more detail. Likewise the move to a single line lower third has removed the ability to add more context and has resulted in complicated events trying to be summarised in one line. 

I do think these cuts will have had a big impact on the reason we are seeing these careless mistakes slipping through. Whilst they may have enough staff when compared to others they will inevitably be taking on more roles and tasks which they’re not used to doing which could lead to them dropping the ball much more. Having said that some of the mistakes just aren’t good enough. 

In relation to the channel working. I agree, it should in principle work but I don’t think it ever well. If it was sky who had done this i think people would have been much more accepting. The problem is that people have a much higher level of expectation when it comes to the bbc. 

UK viewers expect a news channel which focuses on stories and events with a more UK focus. With the storm this week, people would have been tuning in to the BBC normally to get a constant rolling news update. With the cuts to local radios people have lost both of these important sources. People find reassurance from them. World viewers expect that high standard of BBC reporting on events from  across the world.  With expert analysis but also providing them with an unbiased overview. 

The problem is the available budgets don’t allow this to happen but that’s not going to change people’s expectations however much people might tell them that’s how its got to be. Ultimately because of how the bbc is funded and because of what people have gotten used to it feels like the channel is doomed to fail trying to please both audiences because as we’ve proved in this thread it’s never going to be able to. 

On a positive note to finish I still believe in the bbc and as interestednovice said when its at its best it’s untouchable