Random observations, with apologies...
Does BBC One still need to show thirty minutes of news? Considering almost 99% of the UK will have access to the BBC News Channel on some digital platform, BBC One could concentrate o 9n building up its audiences that may not necessarily want news.
Also, what is the point of BBC One showing a ten- or fifteen-minute bulletin at, say, 5.20pm and 10.10pm on Saturdays and Sundays and for the BBC News Channel to temporarily shove its duty presenter out the way, e.g. Annita McVeigh or Lukwesa Burak, for an overpaid presenter to come in just for BBC One viewers, e.g. Kate Silverton or Fiona Bruce. Again, why not ditch the bulletins altogether.
Because BBC1 and 2 like ITV, C4 and 5 are full service PSB channels with a range of programming including news. Yes the audience can watch a 24 hour news channel but they don't. Look at the ratings
There is still the need for a crafted curated half hour news that sums up the news and isn't just a sausage factory of rolling news.
It's the same situation in the US where 24 hour news is a lot more established. The networks have news bulletins in prime time despite having their own channels for it
And finally, should BBC Breakfast be reformatted into a serious news programme from 7 til 9, and brought back to London. It was a PR stunt to ship everything oop north to Manchester (sorry, Salford)
This had been discussed many times before
It wasn't just PR, not having everything come from London is a good thing, it adds plurality and different voices into the output. The old days when all Vox pops came from Shepherds Bush Market are long gone thankfully.
Breakfast is just fine, it gets good figures and certainly doesn't need to be made serious. They tried that in the 80s
There's probably no room for it in London, BH is rammed as it is. Part of the reason for relocating stuff to Salford was because there is more and cheaper space there.
Steve Williams gave kudos