[interestednovice]

Fundamentally, the expectation is that every edition of Newsnight carries a paper preview, but it exists as a 'buffer' feature whose length or appearance depends on how long is left on the programme - hence why it can vary from a short discussion to merely a hurried read out of a few headlines to not appearing at all. Often, whether there is time to include it is not decided until during the programme, so long after the trailer has aired anyway.

Also, there is an expectation with these kinds of things that the audience is well aware that news programming is subject to change at short notice. I don't view it as any more breaking a promise than when News 24 advertised Headlines, Business and Sport at certain times of the hour, yet often delayed or even dropped segments depending on developments.

They really need to re-evaluate this in my view.

Newsnight now airs on the BBC News channel, at the time when The Papers used to be on. The Papers did often get a decent audience, so people are clearly interested in (even a brief) paper reviews. It really ought to always get a quick 5 minutes at the end of Newsnight.

[DTV]

It feels very much as if it’s just accepted as one of those things whereas if people actually start complaining more and the bbc management actually grew a pair and stopped hiding behind this digital bbc nonsense and said we are making huge cuts due to the governments decision to freeze the license fee and this is what it means for you as the viewer people may start contacting their MP.
[...]
They also need to stop this cutting a bit at a time because it’ covers the severity as the publics memory is short. If they had some one announcement on the everything it would have a far bigger impact on the general population and more people would have noticed.

It's accepted because it has to be. The BBC can't become a political actor and start blaming the govt, even if that is who is responsible, because antagonising the govt isn't going to help its case, no matter how many people waste their time contacting their MP. And the Digital BBC approach isn't really nonsense - particularly not when it comes to News, where it makes sense to prioritise one of the two mass use parts of BBC News (the other being BBC One bulletins).

The reason that the cuts have been bit-by-bit is that BBC funding has fallen bit-by-bit, with BBC budgets falling in real terms basically every year, rather than one big drop. The two alternatives to this approach are both worse - holding back on cuts for one big reveal would be unaffordable, with deficit spending allowing its critics to portray the BBC as reckless and irresponsible; while cutting upfront and having large amounts of spare money for a few years would allow the govt to say that the BBC had more money than it needed and cut BBC income even more.

[interestednovice]

The way the Digital BBC stuff is presented as a panacea and/or used to justify things that are basically unrelated is nonsense though. The overall approach obviously isn’t - most would not disagree with investing in iPlayer and apps, but many wouldn’t be happy with cuts to Local Radio creating savings that are “reinvested” in BBC Sounds podcasts. So a lot of it is controversial, some aspects more than others.

One niche example of “Digital BBC” scapegoating would be the closure of the Oxford and Cambridge sub-regions. We realise it was basically to free up capacity to make regionalised BBC One HD work (without extra transponder space on satellite, extra coding and mux, etc) while the BBC spun it as “we don’t need sub-opt regions because people read their news on our website and app”. It’s sort of true, but not really the whole story. They would have fared better, PR-wise, if they’d just been honest.

[DTV]

They also need to stop this cutting a bit at a time because it’ covers the severity as the publics memory is short. If they had some one announcement on the everything it would have a far bigger impact on the general population and more people would have noticed.

The reason that the cuts have been bit-by-bit is that BBC funding has fallen bit-by-bit.

I should add, though, that I do agree that the BBC should stop 'skimming' when it comes to cuts. Personally, I feel there is too much sentimentality around individual brands and that a more radical approach of rationalising channels and stations should have been taken earlier - running fewer often merged services at the same funding level, rather than stretching the same services at a lower level. In particular, I've never understood why Local Radio is such a sacred cow - considering the other nations have no similar provision (as well as its fairly low reach), I don't see why England needs so many stations.

[i.h]

the other nations have no similar provision (as well as its fairly low reach), I don't see why England needs so many stations.

England has a few local radio stations, but Scotland/Wales/NI have much larger BBC organisations with a broader range of output. English regional TV production is largely non existent outside of news. NI gets a bit of both, as there's Radio Ulster and Radio Foyle

[DTV]

England has a few local radio stations, but Scotland/Wales/NI have much larger BBC organisations with a broader range of output. English regional TV production is largely non existent outside of news. NI gets a bit of both, as there's Radio Ulster and Radio Foyle

Sure, but there are various significant political and cultural reasons for that. With maybe a few exceptions, that isn't true for the patchwork of areas with very disparate population sizes that make up the BBC Local Radio network. Beyond petty rivalries, there isn't really much sociopolitical distinction between a lot of neighbouring Local Radio areas, creating arguably unnecessary duplication (even with increased simulcasting). 

While you might be sacrificing a degree of localness, a Regional Radio map that largely corresponds to the TV region map would not be losing much in terms of broader functionality - allowing for fewer, but better resourced stations with an overall lower pricetag. It would also allow for a noteworthy reduction in the BBC's property portfolio, a significant non-content related cost.

[i.h]

Sure, but there are various significant political and cultural reasons for that. With maybe a few exceptions, that isn't true for the patchwork of areas with very disparate population sizes that make up the BBC Local Radio network. Beyond petty rivalries, there isn't really much sociopolitical distinction between a lot of neighbouring Local Radio areas, creating arguably unnecessary duplication (even with increased simulcasting). 

While you might be sacrificing a degree of localness, a Regional Radio map that largely corresponds to the TV region map would not be losing much in terms of broader functionality - allowing for fewer, but better resourced stations with an overall lower pricetag. It would also allow for a noteworthy reduction in the BBC's property portfolio, a significant non-content related cost.

I don't think many in England would agree that it's one great big monolith, nor that things are suddenly drastically different once you cross the border into Scotland or Wales. Not enough to justify the already massive disparity in English local/regional output compared to the rest of the UK.

the BBC's "regional radio" plan only increases the disparity while putting it down the same path as the major commercial radio groups. If the BBC was going to embark on a plan to have fewer regions but with Scotland/Wales/NI style autonomy, that could potentially be welcomed, but clearly that's never happening.

It's certainly ridiculous to suggest that England should not have local radio because Scotland and Wales don't have it.

[Keith]

Sure, but there are various significant political and cultural reasons for that. With maybe a few exceptions, that isn't true for the patchwork of areas with very disparate population sizes that make up the BBC Local Radio network. Beyond petty rivalries, there isn't really much sociopolitical distinction between a lot of neighbouring Local Radio areas, creating arguably unnecessary duplication (even with increased simulcasting). 

While you might be sacrificing a degree of localness, a Regional Radio map that largely corresponds to the TV region map would not be losing much in terms of broader functionality - allowing for fewer, but better resourced stations with an overall lower pricetag. It would also allow for a noteworthy reduction in the BBC's property portfolio, a significant non-content related cost.

(I suspect that this subject might be better dealt with over in pres.cafe )

In general moving BBC Local radio in England from a countries to regions model wouldn't be a bad idea. There's already instances of counties sharing a single station, notably Three Counties Radio for Beds, Herts, and Bucks.

I dare say for example having a radio station that covered the whole Look East area (e.g. BBC Radio East) might even improve on the current situation. At least this might avoid the need for as many pan-England and larger regional programming, done under the guise of cost-cutting.

If county-linked BBC radio stations are to remain I think there's a reasonable case for the BBC to re-examine whether all the buildings are still needed. For example BBC Essex' is based in its own building at commons.wikimedia.org . Given local radio has fewer unique programmes arguably only one studio is needed these days. With modern technology programmes can even be presented remotely via an internet connection (from home if needed). Potentially rented office space may be more cost-efficient.

File:BBC Essex Radio Station, Chelmsford - geograph.org.uk - 65318.jpg - Wikimed…
File:BBC Essex Radio Station, Chelmsford - geograph.org.uk - 65318.jpg From Wiki…
  Source: commons.wikimedia.org

[DTV]

the BBC's "regional radio" plan only increases the disparity while putting it down the same path as the major commercial radio groups. If the BBC was going to embark on a plan to have fewer regions but with Scotland/Wales/NI style autonomy, that could potentially be welcomed, but clearly that's never happening.

But what possible need is there for the BBC English regions to have the same level of autonomy or resources as the three nations. Britain is not a symmetric federal state, the BBC's asymmetry reflects that. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland's news divisions require extra resources to cover the differing political systems and policies of those countries. Indeed, in terms of disparity, having to do both national and local news means the latter actually gets squeezed out of Scottish, Welsh and N Irish output.

English Local Radio is covering less (and less specialist) news to typically smaller populations. That is hard to justify at a time of deep financial cuts. Also, in terms of retaining localness, fewer stations would reduce non-editorial staffing costs, allowing you to keep more journalists covering smaller areas for the same price.

Though, as Keith says, this is possibly not the right thread for this discussion.

[Rolling News]

Does Lewis Vaughan Jones now have one of the presenter reporter roles? I’ve noticed he’s reporting on location quite frequently (he’s currently at Bletchley Park for the AI Summit) and has even made it into the countdown.