The Newsroom

Spotlight presenter Justin Leigh to leave the BBC

(October 2020)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
BA
Ballyboy
They wouldn’t merge Spotlight and Points west would they?
AS
AlexS
DTV posted:
The thing I don't understand about these regional cutbacks is they seem to be about taking things from every region when surely the more sensible thing (if cuts have to be made here) would be to reduce the number of English regions. That way you could maintain the same level of output across larger regions.

It's not like the BBC wouldn't have a strong case here. There is a huge population imbalance between the regions and the sub-opt subregions (other than Channel Islands) don't really have much justification - there are far more logical sub-regions (Merseyside) that don't have an opt-out.

With the standard government regions becoming more and more commonplace in everyday life and both main political parties pledging (if incredibly vaguely) to implement some form of regional devolution, it would be perfectly rational for the BBC to rejig the regions to better reflect the standard regions (although granted this isn't perfectly possible due to terrestrial transmitter patterns).

In my book, it would be better for the BBC to have nine fully-staffed regions rather than thirteen-and-a-half cut-back regions.

I think 9 cuts it back a bit too far. It would probably be possible for Oxford (share with Southampton), Hull (Leeds), London (Tunbridge Wells), Cambridge (Norwich) and Bristol (Plymouth) to go but I think Birmingham, Nottingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Tunbridge Wells, Salford, Plymouth, Norwich Southampton and CI is the bare minimum they could get away with.
Last edited by AlexS on 13 October 2020 9:06pm
MA
Markymark
AlexS posted:
DTV posted:
The thing I don't understand about these regional cutbacks is they seem to be about taking things from every region when surely the more sensible thing (if cuts have to be made here) would be to reduce the number of English regions. That way you could maintain the same level of output across larger regions.

It's not like the BBC wouldn't have a strong case here. There is a huge population imbalance between the regions and the sub-opt subregions (other than Channel Islands) don't really have much justification - there are far more logical sub-regions (Merseyside) that don't have an opt-out.

With the standard government regions becoming more and more commonplace in everyday life and both main political parties pledging (if incredibly vaguely) to implement some form of regional devolution, it would be perfectly rational for the BBC to rejig the regions to better reflect the standard regions (although granted this isn't perfectly possible due to terrestrial transmitter patterns).

In my book, it would be better for the BBC to have nine fully-staffed regions rather than thirteen-and-a-half cut-back regions.

I think 9 cuts it back a bit too far. It would probably be possible for Oxford, Hull, London, Cambridge and Bristol to go but I think Birmingham, Nottingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Tunbridge Wells, Salford, Plymouth, Norwich Southampton and CI is the bare minimum they could get away with.


CI could go, it's only there as a 'me too', to ITV Channel. What region would you carry in the capital to replace BBC London?
JA
JAS84
South, isn't that what it was part of before LDN launched?
MI
TheMike
JAS84 posted:
South, isn't that what it was part of before LDN launched?

No, it was part of a very large south east region. Basically draw a line from Oxford through London to Dover and that was the core area of the Newsroom South East region.
AS
AlexS
AlexS posted:
DTV posted:
The thing I don't understand about these regional cutbacks is they seem to be about taking things from every region when surely the more sensible thing (if cuts have to be made here) would be to reduce the number of English regions. That way you could maintain the same level of output across larger regions.

It's not like the BBC wouldn't have a strong case here. There is a huge population imbalance between the regions and the sub-opt subregions (other than Channel Islands) don't really have much justification - there are far more logical sub-regions (Merseyside) that don't have an opt-out.

With the standard government regions becoming more and more commonplace in everyday life and both main political parties pledging (if incredibly vaguely) to implement some form of regional devolution, it would be perfectly rational for the BBC to rejig the regions to better reflect the standard regions (although granted this isn't perfectly possible due to terrestrial transmitter patterns).

In my book, it would be better for the BBC to have nine fully-staffed regions rather than thirteen-and-a-half cut-back regions.

I think 9 cuts it back a bit too far. It would probably be possible for Oxford, Hull, London, Cambridge and Bristol to go but I think Birmingham, Nottingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Tunbridge Wells, Salford, Plymouth, Norwich Southampton and CI is the bare minimum they could get away with.


CI could go, it's only there as a 'me too', to ITV Channel. What region would you carry in the capital to replace BBC London?

Return it to SE as it was historically and has been at times over the past several months. London centric stories don't need much coverage in regional bulletins because they are overwhelmingly featured in UK wide bulletins in a way that stories from elsewhere are not.
DT
DTV
AlexS posted:

I think 9 cuts it back a bit too far. It would probably be possible for Oxford, Hull, London, Cambridge and Bristol to go but I think Birmingham, Nottingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Tunbridge Wells, Salford, Plymouth, Norwich Southampton and CI is the bare minimum they could get away with.


My thinking was actually the same as yours bar Tunbridge Wells (I wasn't including CI in the nine). I would keep London and merge South East with South (as SE is not large enough geographically or population wise to justify, IMO, a separate budget - I would keep Bristol before I kept Tunbridge Wells).

The problem with this idea though is the same one ITV faced back in 2009, how do you do that with the limitations of the transmitter network? In 2009, ITV combined Westcountry & West into one super region, and nowadays, we're back to having seperate programmes, albeit under the same ITV News West Country brand. Whilst prior to 2009, both shows would have been live at 6pm, now one is live and the other is recorded before hand, because they closed Plymouth. I don't think reducing the number of English regions is feasible or even desirable.


I wasn't saying that these cuts were desirable but if there is a choice between operating fewer regions at a higher level or the current regions at a lower level, it'd be better to choose higher-quality larger regions over threadbare smaller ones. In a world where the BBC has to make cuts, reducing unnecessary duplication and reducing the property portfolio are good places to start. In an austerity climate, it is not financially justifiable to have some regions (not based in natural or political geography) that have cover populations a quarter of the size of other regions.

I'm well aware of the limitations of the transmitter network, that was why I wasn't suggesting creating new regions from scratch. (Other than the East Midlands, the GORs can roughly be recreated by merging existing regions). Indeed, my comment about Merseyside being more deserving of an opt-out than Oxford or Cambridge was taking into account the limitations of the transmitter network - i.e. in an ideal world it would get one, but as it can't for technical reasons, there is no justification for other less clear subregions to have one.
LL
London Lite Founding member
DTV posted:
AlexS posted:

I think 9 cuts it back a bit too far. It would probably be possible for Oxford, Hull, London, Cambridge and Bristol to go but I think Birmingham, Nottingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Tunbridge Wells, Salford, Plymouth, Norwich Southampton and CI is the bare minimum they could get away with.


My thinking was actually the same as yours bar Tunbridge Wells (I wasn't including CI in the nine). I would keep London and merge South East with South (as SE is not large enough geographically or population wise to justify, IMO, a separate budget - I would keep Bristol before I kept Tunbridge Wells).


We've been here before when South Today replaced Newsroom South East in East Sussex and South Kent from Heathfield. It was very Solent centric even then.

I'd be happy with a TW based (with a newsroom at BH for the London area) BBC London & South East as what happened until September with lunchtime bulletins, it stopped inane padding on both regions, while allowing Freeview viewers covered by the Reigate transmitter access to their local news during that period as places such as Godstone, Redhill, Horley and Crawley are covered editorially by TW, yet have BBC London which pays tokenism to the area.

East Sussex would still have a better news service as part of a merged London & SE operation than if it rejoined South Today.
LV
LondonViewer
Interesting points re merging smaller regions, rather than cuts across the board. Still think they should be making cuts elsewhere though. Maybe they shouldn’t be launching new services *BBC Scotland* if current network is not affordable.
AS
AlexS
Interesting points re merging smaller regions, rather than cuts across the board. Still think they should be making cuts elsewhere though. Maybe they shouldn’t be launching new services *BBC Scotland* if current network is not affordable.

BBC Scotland should be funded by a Scottish only increase in the licence fee rather than scrapped. If the Scottish want more in the way of services that the rest of the UK they should be allowed them as long as they pay the additional cost.
WH
what
AlexS posted:
Interesting points re merging smaller regions, rather than cuts across the board. Still think they should be making cuts elsewhere though. Maybe they shouldn’t be launching new services *BBC Scotland* if current network is not affordable.

BBC Scotland should be funded by a Scottish only increase in the licence fee rather than scrapped. If the Scottish want more in the way of services that the rest of the UK they should be allowed them as long as they pay the additional cost.

BBC Scotland is the biggest waste of BBC money in a long time. The return on investment is atrocious. A lot of their shows don’t even break the 20,000 mark. Most digital channels manage more than that, and they don’t have even half the resources behind them that BBC Scotland have. Close it down, move the shows to opt outs on One/Two, and put the Nine’s resources into a Scottish Six as originally intended.
AN
Andrew Founding member
Interesting points re merging smaller regions, rather than cuts across the board. Still think they should be making cuts elsewhere though. Maybe they shouldn’t be launching new services *BBC Scotland* if current network is not affordable.


What’s the difference between reducing staff in all regions, or axing a region and expecting the other region to cover both patches? It’ll end up exactly the same with reporters spread more thinly

Newer posts