The BBC World News Thread

I disagree. It only seems like simulcasting is a good thing from a UK perspective because UK stories have generally taken precedence due to the fact that it would be politically unacceptable for the BBC News channel to downgrade UK stories in a climate like this. From an international news channel perspective, such levels of simulcasting would be a disaster in the long run - the BBC does not want to go down the CNN International route of needlessly prioritising home nation stories.

You talk about simulcasting shows like Impact - a programme that airs mid-afternoon (key breaking news time) in the UK and prime time in Asia. What would it look like for British audiences if the BBC News channel ignored developing stories in the UK to show a programme that is primarily aimed at an Asian market? Or if Impact started including more UK stories - what would it look like for Asian audiences if, during winter, BBC World News gives the same precedence to (comparatively mild) UK flooding stories as it would to monsoon floodings. It would be patently ridiculous - no matter how much you tried to contextualise it. International stories can be of interest to a domestic audience, but domestic stories are rarely of interest to international audiences. Domestic and international news are completely different beasts.

And that is without getting in to the fact that BBC News and BBC World News are generally of completely different character. BBC News is a rolling news channel that can devote 15 minutes or so to one item or can cover one story all afternoon. Unless it is a major story, BBC World News rarely enters rolling news mode and is primarily a series of bulletins (more akin to BBC One bulletins) tailored to different audiences. The pace and objective of the programming are different. While there may be an argument for the BBC News channel taking structured BBC World News programmes in the evening, I think that the core 0900-1800 daytime period should be kept as rolling news (ideally losing the idiotic brands they've been given).

If anything, the last few weeks have shown that BBC News are simulcasting the wrong bits of World News. The decision to take BBC World News over the late national news has, IMO, been smart. There is no actual reason to simulcast the national bulletins on the news channel (other than the News at One which is signed) - these could easily be replaced by World programmes with no additional cost and would offer a choice between the typically UK dominated BBC One bulletins and an international bulletin. The News Channel could even forsake Breakfast and carry on the simulcast until 0900.

Ultimately, when things return to normal, BBC News would not be improved by taking BBC World News programmes during the day and BBC World News would definitely not benefit from adding more UK stories to the running order.

The only exception to the general rule that world is currently weaker than before the virus would be the hours that were previously occupied by Newsday. The current programming fits much better with the hours either side of it and provides a much more balanced set of stories from across the world rather than the previous focus on Asia that saw pretty major international stories from other parts of the world omitted (whilst the other world strands may have spent more time discussing stories from certain parts of the world they did at least typically include the major stories from other parts in a way that Newsday often failed) and is generally a better watch for viewers anywhere in the world except for the small number of Asian countries that previously dominated the agenda.

Bizarrely, I was just thinking about the weirdness of Newsday. While it was created as an Asian breakfast programme, it also sits in the middle of US primetime - even more so than WNA. As you say, it had a strong Asian focus to the detriment of other regions - particularly odd given the scheduling and BBC World News' known desire to further break into the US market. If they do end up bringing it back, it could make more sense to double head from Washington and Singapore than London.

You make good points. I suggested Impact only because it was one of the few named programmes that World News makes that I was aware of. I did not mean to imply that it "should" be simulcasted, if it even returns. And it may be that such programmes which only focus on a specific region are a positive for the News Channel, because the domestic channel rarely covers those topics that Impact would cover?

I should point out that I refer to more of the "branding" and certain elements of the presentation of these programmes and not necessarily the content of the programme itself. A programme can have a name and discuss many things, but as long as the programme appears unique from a generic news bulletin, it could be presented in any way and cover any kind of news topics as long as it follows the standards of that brand name.

I kudos'd your post because, like I said, you make good points to counter my own and I agree with them.

I think that Afternoon Live and News at Nine work well as brands and programmes. Newsroom live was weaker and could do with a revamp when (or if) it returns. Although a morning simulcast with 'Live' could work.

Also News at Five was a strong brand

I'm not sure I'd agree. The strongest brand that BBC News has is 'BBC News'. Compared to it, Afernoon Live and Newsroom Live are incredibly generic and not particularly distinct from the titles of programmes that you have on Sky News. I've always felt that replacing BBC News with them was a retrograde step and one that I'd personally reverse.

The reason you give a programme on a news channel a unique brand is to make it 'appointment to view'. I've never understood why three hour blocks of rolling news would be something that people would specially tune in for. Also Newsroom Live and Afternoon Live are not really distinct from the standard rolling news that preceeded it and their graphics and music packages are not exactly the best work of the graphics team or David Lowe.

But the reason that those programmes already have a distinct brand is because they already cover distinct topics. Many of the BBC World News strands focus on a particular region of the world - widening that focus is weakening the brand to the point that it becomes indistinct from a general white and red bulletin, just with different lighting and title sequences.

And as I previously mentioned, the problem with simulcasting domestic and international news channels are that domestic and international news are fundamentally different things. International news is the most important stories from nearly 200 countries, where as domestic news is the most important stories from 1 country + an even smaller selection of the most important international stories. BBC News takes BBC World News programmes because some UK viewers have an appetite for international news, very few BBC World News viewers want programming that is equal parts UK and international news.

I really don't think that it would be appropriate for the BBC to be airing a news bulletin without UK presentation on the NC (and often BBC One) on a regular basis, unless a UK based alternative is being aired at the same time (I would have no issue with the NC showing WNA during the Ten for example as this would give viewers more choice with no loss to domestic news), so unless they can find a way to keep the news channel separate until 2am I think it would be non-starter to drop the London presenter on Newsday in favour of a Washington presenter. Given that these hours should be catering for the Asian breakfast; US prime time; and UK late evening audiences I honestly think maintaining generic London led bulletins is the best approach, as removing the gimmicks gives the most possible time to feature stories from across the globe as well as making it easier for a short UK opt to be produced during the time currently filled by 'this week in history'.

While I would agree with you when it comes to Newsroom and Afternoon live being pointless brands that add absolutely nothing and in some ways detract from the overall brand, I think there is room for the News at Nine to return as a branded bulletin as that hour is largely formatted as more of an appointment to view bulletin than as a traditional hour on a rolling news channel. Given that most people in the UK are unlikely to be awake for the 5am hour and that breakfast is usually a mix of straight news and lighter stories (especially later in the morning) having more of an appointment to view bulletin in 9am hour during which there is usually little in the way of breaking news makes a lot of sense and if the hour is going to follow a slightly different format than the rest of the working day it does make sense to highlight that with slightly different branding and by labelling it differently in the EPG.

Why do they not use the short titles with the trundle camera when the overnight simulcast is coming from studio E like it is tonight?

Probably because is a World News produced bulletin like always on overnights and therefore they are using the same templates as in Studio C (including a proper close at the end).

(Besides i don´t think that a largely empty newsroom intro would make a lot of sense).