[interestednovice]

a prolonging of the interim stage (as per March 2023) until the full plans had been finalised would have been superior to what came after.

I’ve been thinking this for a while; actually, since the launch itself!

Somebody commented here last April, on launch day if my memory serves correctly, that the launch had been messy (paraphrasing) but they understood the budgetary reasons meant it “had to be today” and I immediately thought when I read that: they could have prolonged the interim stage instead. They couldn’t even get the name “BBC News” cleared by Indian regulators before launch, so used a horrible overlay graphic to name the channel BBC World News for weeks (in one of the biggest markets for the channel). That sort of sloppiness shouldn’t have made it to air.

The overnight axing and then gradual and awkward reintroduction of branded programming was another symptom of the rush to air.

It made no sense.

Yes, the interim arrangements resulted in no opt-out facility for U.K. stories, but if a massive story broke I’m sure they could have got on air from Studio D or Studio B - and, let’s be honest, hardly anyone has been watching the few disorganised opts we have had over the past year anyway. So they would hardly have been much of a loss. On-location opts, such as Anna Foster covering the maternity scandal at Countess of Chester hospital, would also still have been possible.

Yes, a year is too long to set up a new channel, especially when it was supposed to be an amalgamation of two related but separately-successful predecessor services, but if they have finally got going now I am pleased! A shame they had to have so many mis-steps just to get here.