BBC NEWS CUTS

I noticed the discussions about BBC News (and general BBC) budget cuts are spilling onto a few different threads now. With a formal announcement expected from the BBC next week, maybe we can pull all the comments into one place.

It’s not without a degree of irony to note that the day after Victoria Derbyshire revealed her show is being axed and she learned of this from The Times, BBC World Service announces a collaboration with Angelina Jolie as a star “collaborator”.

Although the latter will be drawn from entirely different budgets from those being highlighted, it does give the wider media a bit of a stick with which to hit the BBC again.

I also believe it’s inevitable that closer collaboration between the Channel and World News will happen to enable some savings to be achieved.

Replacing Derbyshire with Lucy Hockings is kinda sensible. The former could be a contributor with special reports and could even be the Friday and stand-in presenter?

As a minimum, it would save on running two studios simultaneously for a couple of hours per day (B and C), and associated staffing and running costs.

Nope let's keep the scheduling simplistic shall we please! (i.e Newsroom Live 10:00-1:00) There's enough simulcasting between World and the NC going on in the evenings As it without more of it the mornings-as the saying goes less is more!

And i find it rather strange they maybe going after The World at One just as Sarah Montague gets her £400,000 payout over the unequal pay situation!

My idea would be
06:00-08:00 Breakfast (continues till 9am on BBC One)
08:00-08:30 BBC World News
08:30-09:00 Worklife
09:00-10:00 BBC News at Nine – Simulcast on BBC Two
10:00-12:00 Newsroom Live (Including WBR & Sportoday)
12:00-13:00 A GMT style programme – Simulcast on BBC Two and to allow rehearsal for News at One
13:00-14:00 BBC News at One
14:00-17:00 Afternoon Live
17:00-18:00 Global
18:00-18:30 BBC News at Six
18:30-18:45 World Business Report
18:00-19:00 Sportoday
19:00-20:00 World News Today (In the Beyond 100 Days Format) – Simulcast on BBC Four
20:00-21:00 Outside Source
21:00-22:00 The Nine – Simulcast from BBC Scotland
22:00-23:00 BBC News at Ten
23:00-02:00 Newsday
02:00-05:00 BBC World News
05:00-06:00 The Briefing

Weekends
06:00-08:00 Breakfast (continues till 9am on BBC One)
08:00-08:30 BBC World News
08:30-09:00 Recorded programmes
09:00-10:00 BBC News at Nine – Simulcast on BBC Two
10:00-12:00 Newsroom Live (3 x 30 mins)
12:00-13:00 A GMT style programme
13:00-14:00 BBC News at One
14:00-17:00 Afternoon Live (3 x 30 mins; 14:30 Click; 15:30 Reporters; 16:30 Brexitcast replacement)
17:00-18:00 BBC World News
18:00-18:30 BBC News at Six
18:30-19:00 Sportoday
19:00-19:30 World News Today (In the Beyond 100 Days Format) – Simulcast on BBC Four
20:00-20:30 World News Today (In the Beyond 100 Days Format)
20:30–21:00 Recorded Programmes
21:00-21:15 BBC News Summary
21:15-22:00 Seven Days (Simulcast from BBC Scotland)
22:00-23:00 BBC News at Ten
23:00-05:00 BBC World News
05:00-06:00 The Briefing

At the risk of expressing a provocative and highly controversial view... Given the budgetary environment, I think there is a case for closing the BBC News channel.

News is core to the BBC's identity and reputation. Amid belt tightening, I would argue it is more important to focus on quality rather than quantity of output. It is not rolling news bulletins that secure the BBC's prestige -- it is investigative journalism, well-informed analysis and the global reach of its reporting. Given that cuts need to be made, I would prefer that the BBC avoid paring back flagship programmes -- rather, the focus of cuts should be on functions that can be / are replicated elsewhere. Such as a rolling news channel.

I don't say this because I think it's a fantastic idea. But in a world of tradeoffs, dropping a news channel seems among the least unpalatable.

Closing BBC News channel would potentially weaken the BBC's ability to reach out to audiences (not everyone is sitting at their TV at 1/6/10pm) and react to breaking news. But these risks could be managed. One option could be to make more of BBC World News' content available to UK viewers. Another would be to emphasise the BBC's various online offerings, and provide more live online coverage as required. Where there are major events or breaking news of sufficient significance/relevance, BBC Two could interrupt its scheduled programming with coverage (especially in daytime hours). This would require that there are resources on standby to be able to go live (online/TV) as needed -- but this would not be as resource intensive as the current rolling TV coverage.

With all that said, the scale of the savings task is significant (£80m, from what I've seen reported). It may well be that closing the news channel wouldn't be sufficient to meet the required savings for the overall news division.

Better idea would be
BBC NC:
05:00-06:45 The Briefing (C)
06:45-08:30 Breakfast (Salford)
08:30-09:00 Worklife (C)
09:00-10:00 News at Nine (Salford, with one of the breakfast presenters)
10:00-13:00 Newsroom Live (E)
13:00-14:00 News at One (E)
14:00-17:00 Afternoon Live (E) including the film review at 16:45 on Fridays
17:00-17:30 Global (B)
17:30-18:00 Talking business with Aaron (prerecorded)
18:00-19:00 News at Six (E)
19:00-20:00 B100D (C+Washington or New York, from London only on Fridays)
20:00-22:00 BBC News (E)
22:00-22:30 BBC News at Ten (B)
22:30-23:00 The Papers (B)
23:00-23:30 BBC News (D)
23:30-23:45 The Papers (D)
23:45-0:00 Sportsday (prerecorded)
0:00-02:00 Newsday (C+Singapore)
02:00-05:00 New programme with Mike Embley (C)

BBC One
05:00-06:45 The Briefing
06:45-09:00 Breakfast
09:00-12:45 Current daytime schedule brought forward 15 minutes
12:45-13:00 Regional News
13:00-13:45 News at One (including Sport and weather for week ahead)
18:00-18:30 Six
18:30-19:00 Regional
22:00-22:35 Ten + Regional news

Two:
As NC 09:00-13:00
Newsnight 22:30 Monday-Wednesday in studio E

Does anybody really want to read these fantasy schedules?

I can definitely see the Five being axed with them simulcasting Global. I can also predict the rest of the evening which isn't currently a World simulcast becoming so. Probably why they've not been bothered about presenter consistency in these hours for the last couple of years.

As for the mornings, I can see the News at Nine being replaced with something like "Morning Live" and running from 0900-1100, with Newsroom Live carrying on as normal from 1100. It wouldn't be fair for one presenter just to do the Nine for 1 hour and then somebody else to do Newsroom Live for 3 hours.

Don't you find the potential twists and turns in this fascinating?

Couldn't the Nine be the same presenter as the one as it is with Five & Ten

Just scrap the News Channel, which has been on its last legs for years now, and have BBC World News available in the UK.

Invest the money in quality news programs like Newsnight and investigative work which BBC audiences need more than a washed out news channel.

Especially when chunks of it are beyond nonsensical.
The idea that the BBC ONE will make sacrifices to suit a news channel that all of the bosses wanted shut down is bewildering.
Rescheduling the regional news and cutting back Breakfast by a full hour....
Also the 5 with Huw is usually the NC's most popular weekday show!

Not being able to watch it in my location, I would ask: does Newsnight still have its own separate pool of staff, including Editors and Correspondents, or does it draw on the resources (apart from studios or galleries) of Channel and/or BBC World News?

I’m over simplifying this, and whilst at the same time agreeing with Rados’ point above, but does Newsnight need to have its own Political Editor? Is the workload* too much that LK can’t cover the portfolio along with her News remit?

* workload specifically, rather than possible questions someone might raise about “quality”.

If it’s true, £80M is a huge sum, and won’t be realizable from Television News alone. Radio and other corporation assets (non-human) will need to be reviewed as well.

I should rap myself on the knuckles for falling into the presenter trap in my original post, as this matter is clearly a lot more than just Presenter A being replaced by Presenter B. The sums mooted are huge.