News Channel to move online (speculation)

In terms of gallery staff my understanding is that staff do a number stints of probably an hour generally (but sometimes more or less) in the gallery over a shift. Clearly when they are not in the gallery they might be preparing for other programmes or network bulletins, Something makes me think that at one point the news channel editor shift was a more continuous arrangement but I might be wrong providing continuity over say the morning.

This is purely from observation though so might be incorrect.

And there's no certainty that Sky News will continue in perpetuity in its current form. Sky is bound to come under a lot of commercial pressure from the rise of streaming services. I would also imagine that Sky News is very close to Rupert Murdoch's heart (not that he controls Sky of course) but much less so for James Murdoch.

...has one.

Roger Mosey has written in support of keeping the News Channel:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/09/the-bbc-news-channel-must-be-saved

I was just wondering if it would be worth having a specialized team to cover arts and religion. They could become regular journalist capable of covering most stories but when there's a religion or art story they would take precedence to go cover the beats. I used them as an example because aside from some monthly art shows I can't think of the last art story here on World News.

Here in the US journalists are trained to cover all the news but as a way to show versatility they focus on a specific sector of reporting whether it be investigative, consumer and health oriented news. The journalists develop these beat through years of coverage of hard work and research to get a strong understanding of the subject.

That frequently happens, Nick Witchell is Royal Correspondent but will frequently cover non-royal stories.

Happens less with entertainment journos, it has to be said.

BBC shelves plans to shut news channel
Corporation review into cost benefits of making channel online-only understood to show savings would only have been around £16m a year
Full article: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/06/bbc-shelves-plans-to-shut-news-channel

Whilst it's good that plans have apparently been shelved I suspect there may still be further integration with BBC World News. I also wonder if/when they'll simulcast the Andrew Marr show and Newsnight the channel to save costs.

That does sound likely. Maybe they'll start off small, simulcasting at weekends and possibly over holiday periods (i.e. Christmas, Easter, etc.)



I've always wondered why they don't do that with all the cut-backs, especially now. I wouldn't be surprised to see programmes like The Daily/Sunday Politics, Question Time and This Week going that way too.

I'd doubt there would be so much integration to include the politics shows, This Week and QT.

One of the reasons why the News Channel isn't being culled is because closing it won't provide as much cost savings as bosses thought.

Adding an extra 12+ hours of output a week means news gathering resources (plus paid newsreaders, reporters, correspondents, floor managers and the like) are put to waste - and that is already the case with Victoria Derbyshire's programme taking up about nine hours' air.

Not only would it turn it into a duplicate of BBC Parliament, weakening that channel, it would also turn the NC more into BBC Current Affairs.

I work for Sky News, but I still think it's healthy and important for there to be a strong BBC NC.

There is some certainty in Sky News' future in the fact that the whole building is moving to a new berth in the next year or two - with a strong emphasis continuing to be placed on TV output, as well as online.