[all new phil]

As I said a few months back, I suspect the source of the overwhelming format of prolonged news discussion stems from a combination of a) Outside Source and 100 Days/Context rating relatively well, with the former a strong socials performer, and b) it being a general trend across news anyway. Wanting to emulate their successes is not a bad idea in theory and you don't want to seem oldhat, but I feel it ignores the context (ironically) of the evening shows' success - they worked as limited end of day programmes (plus higher viewing partially down to slot) - as well as failing to see that the BBC should really be doing what others aren't.

As I'm a bit of a broken record on this, I obviously agree with Mosey's comments (even if, yes, slowing story count started before merger) and have always thought it'd make more sense to go pacier, so as to include both more international and UK stories. I don't want to spark another round of fantasy formats, as it's a discussion had many times over, but more stories, actually doing clear, concise and visual news reporting (including packages), and UK in Brief/Around the World segments seem so obvious solutions to the current plodfest that it is infuriating that it continues.

I think an element of it is there’s no real clear indication of who the viewer is right now. I was never a fan of the format of old, where you had double headed presentation, business / sport presenter in the studio etc - but I understood who they were aiming at. It was quite broad in its appeal. Now I’ve no idea. What’s the audience for a cold single-headed plod through some seemingly unconnected mix of international and hyper local stories?

I got the rationale for the recent changes and thought they could be workable if done right. Despite what you see on screen though, I would still guess the channel is better resourced than Sky News. Their issues are completely down to a lack of vision and imagination rather than resources.