The Newsroom

BBC News 24

General day-to-day goings on (January 2005)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
CO
cortomaltese
Dunedin posted:
itsrobert posted:
OK, so if they ditch the weather forecasts, how do you propose staff change-overs?


We don't "ditch" forcasts...just reduce them to a proportionally acceptable time of about 2 minutes per hour split between xx:15 and xx:45.

I believe the top of the hour is the most crucial time in news broadcasting...one day Sky News will realise that NOT taking breaks when all the entertainment channels do (just before the TOTH) will allow them to inherit an audience from people flicking channels to avoid adverts. Anyway....

Back to News 24- without a weather forcast at the TOTH, the sequence would be continuous....i.e. news up to xx:59, straight into countdown and TOTH. Staff changeovers (if not possible within the countdown time, would be rolling (rolling news channel after all), occuring in the first few minutes of a new hour.

e.g. Woman A and Man A are coming to the end of their shift. They both do the TOTH at their changeover time. Whilst Woman A does the first story from the desk, there is plenty of time for Man B to join her...as Man B does his first story of the shift, so Woman B replaces Woman A. Simple really. And you're more likely to catch the audience of channel-hoppers at xx:57 who are trying to avoid ads after their programme has finished, but are currently greeted with the bloody weather and then trails AGAIN.

Presenter breaks occur at xx:30, where there should be a short 'break' for a advert/interactive trailer (especially for those missing their weather forcasts), coming back to the headlines as usual.

What happens to the changeover during breaking news I hear you cry? In situations like last night where there is a major news story ongoing, you DON'T have to changeover at 7pm on the dot...run over the TOTH and change at an appropriate time using the scheme outlined above.

I believe these changes would give a lot more flow to the channel, and make it more representative of the news of the day (the cut in weather allows an extra story to be covered per hour).


I definitely agree with you. In fact I think it's great when, during continuing coverage, the sequence at TOTH is continuous.
R2
r2ro
Dunedin posted:

Back to News 24- without a weather forcast at the TOTH, the sequence would be continuous....i.e. news up to xx:59, straight into countdown and TOTH. Staff changeovers (if not possible within the countdown time, would be rolling (rolling news channel after all), occuring in the first few minutes of a new hour.


So how do you expect the presenters to end baring in mind that the countdown is maximum 60 secs? 'And Jon and Louise are here in around twenty seconds'. Most countdowns would be this length baring in mind that the maximum it lasts is 60 seconds and people would get bored if this amount was shown constantly.

Dunedin posted:

I believe the top of the hour is the most crucial time in news broadcasting...one day Sky News will realise that NOT taking breaks when all the entertainment channels do (just before the TOTH) will allow them to inherit an audience from people flicking channels to avoid adverts.


Surely a countdown is just the same as an advert. I'd doubt many people would switch over during an advert to just watch a countdown; I think it is more productive having the weather which informs people as opposed to watching different reporters send bulletins via a red satelite beam (even though I personally like it) whilst counting down.

What they ought to do is keep the forecasts the same and perhaps cut some of the trailers at the TOTH, limiting it to either one or none, and having two or three on the half hour.

During Breaking News events I think perhaps it would be best if they still gave regular headlines but incorporate weather, sport and business all together in a one to two minute summary, read by the main presenters, which could be slotted in at any point. That way you get all of the news, sport, weather and business as well as continuing coverage of the breaking news.
MO
Moz
Dunedin posted:
It also breaks up the flow of the channel (helped by excessive trailers) because it's not delivered from within the studio.

This thing about flow is a load of rubbish. Anyone who knows anything about presenting (that's presenting, not presentation as we know it here) knows that the best way to keep people's attention is regular breaks, and lots of different types of presentation styles and areas.

The worst thing that rolling news channels do is to continue repeating the same information over and over and over again from the same desk (I think Dunedin would call this "flow"). If there's no more news, move on, but keep the ticker running.

The break at the TOTH is refreshing, both for the presenters and for us, and it's also a great way to brand the channel. ITV NC used to do that fantastic sequence during breaking news when they went to the break with a 'Breaking News for Britian' slogan, a view of the gallery and some almost chilling music.

The idea of presenters sloping off is an unattractive one. Far better to say, Jon & Jane will have more continuing coverage in a moment...

I just don't understand why leaving breaking news for a few moments is a problem, unless you actually have live pictures of a story unfolding.
TV
TV Boy
Moz posted:
Dunedin posted:
It also breaks up the flow of the channel (helped by excessive trailers) because it's not delivered from within the studio.

This thing about flow is a load of rubbish. Anyone who knows anything about presenting (that's presenting, not presentation as we know it here) knows that the best way to keep people's attention is regular breaks, and lots of different types of presentation styles and areas.

The worst thing that rolling news channels do is to continue repeating the same information over and over and over again from the same desk (I think Dunedin would call this "flow"). If there's no more news, move on, but keep the ticker running.

The break at the TOTH is refreshing, both for the presenters and for us, and it's also a great way to brand the channel. ITV NC used to do that fantastic sequence during breaking news when they went to the break with a 'Breaking News for Britian' slogan, a view of the gallery and some almost chilling music.

The idea of presenters sloping off is an unattractive one. Far better to say, Jon & Jane will have more continuing coverage in a moment...

I just don't understand why leaving breaking news for a few moments is a problem, unless you actually have live pictures of a story unfolding.


Finally, a bit of common sense in this thread. Viewers feel 'cheated' if they don't know what's going on. Best to explain 'Jon and Jane will have more...' or 'More on this at the top of the hour'. Best example has to be Simon's comment about the M4 (I think) closure in the snow... "There's only so much I can say about a road being closed... and I think we've said it"...

Great point Moz - move onto other news if there's nothing new to add.
R2
r2ro
You're right, I find it annoying when they continue to pursue with Breaking News that has broken ages ago and there's nothing new to add. Also some people don't want to sit down and watch the same story for half an hour or so, they'd rather have fifteen minutes or so on the story, unless it's a major event or there's been more developments, then a brief look at the rest of the news or weather and then get the rest in around five minutes.
CO
cortomaltese
r2ro posted:

During Breaking News events I think perhaps it would be best if they still gave regular headlines but incorporate weather, sport and business all together in a one to two minute summary, read by the main presenters, which could be slotted in at any point. That way you get all of the news, sport, weather and business as well as continuing coverage of the breaking news.


I've always found tasteless and annoying when, during a breaking news coverage, they switch to a minor story.
BB
BBC LDN
cortomaltese posted:
r2ro posted:

During Breaking News events I think perhaps it would be best if they still gave regular headlines but incorporate weather, sport and business all together in a one to two minute summary, read by the main presenters, which could be slotted in at any point. That way you get all of the news, sport, weather and business as well as continuing coverage of the breaking news.


I've always found tasteless and annoying when, during a breaking news coverage, they switch to a minor story.


You're absolutely right. They just stick with it, repeating the same stuff over and over again if there's nothing coming in for hours on end, and ignore the fact that at the same time as an earthquake, there's a political row going on in the UK, a bomb in the Middle East, and people dying in Iraq. How tasteless and annoying of them to give airtime to other stories. Let's stick with that big story until everyone's so sick of it that they've switched their TVs off.
CO
cortomaltese
BBC LDN posted:
cortomaltese posted:
r2ro posted:

During Breaking News events I think perhaps it would be best if they still gave regular headlines but incorporate weather, sport and business all together in a one to two minute summary, read by the main presenters, which could be slotted in at any point. That way you get all of the news, sport, weather and business as well as continuing coverage of the breaking news.


I've always found tasteless and annoying when, during a breaking news coverage, they switch to a minor story.


You're absolutely right. They just stick with it, repeating the same stuff over and over again if there's nothing coming in for hours on end, and ignore the fact that at the same time as an earthquake, there's a political row going on in the UK, a bomb in the Middle East, and people dying in Iraq. How tasteless and annoying of them to give airtime to other stories. Let's stick with that big story until everyone's so sick of it that they've switched their TVs off.


Come on, if during breaking news they switch to some minor stories it feels like these stories are breakfillers, shown just in order to gain time.
MO
Moz
cortomaltese posted:
BBC LDN posted:
cortomaltese posted:
r2ro posted:

During Breaking News events I think perhaps it would be best if they still gave regular headlines but incorporate weather, sport and business all together in a one to two minute summary, read by the main presenters, which could be slotted in at any point. That way you get all of the news, sport, weather and business as well as continuing coverage of the breaking news.


I've always found tasteless and annoying when, during a breaking news coverage, they switch to a minor story.


You're absolutely right. They just stick with it, repeating the same stuff over and over again if there's nothing coming in for hours on end, and ignore the fact that at the same time as an earthquake, there's a political row going on in the UK, a bomb in the Middle East, and people dying in Iraq. How tasteless and annoying of them to give airtime to other stories. Let's stick with that big story until everyone's so sick of it that they've switched their TVs off.


Come on, if during breaking news they switch to some minor stories it feels like these stories are breakfillers, shown just in order to gain time.

Yep, exactly right! Time in which to actually find out something new, rather than just repeating and umming & ahhhing! Also, just because a story is less important than the breaking news, it doesn't mean it is minor, just less major.
DU
Dunedin
Moz posted:
Dunedin posted:
It also breaks up the flow of the channel (helped by excessive trailers) because it's not delivered from within the studio.

This thing about flow is a load of rubbish. Anyone who knows anything about presenting (that's presenting, not presentation as we know it here) knows that the best way to keep people's attention is regular breaks, and lots of different types of presentation styles and areas.

The worst thing that rolling news channels do is to continue repeating the same information over and over and over again from the same desk (I think Dunedin would call this "flow"). If there's no more news, move on, but keep the ticker running.

The break at the TOTH is refreshing, both for the presenters and for us, and it's also a great way to brand the channel. ITV NC used to do that fantastic sequence during breaking news when they went to the break with a 'Breaking News for Britian' slogan, a view of the gallery and some almost chilling music.

The idea of presenters sloping off is an unattractive one. Far better to say, Jon & Jane will have more continuing coverage in a moment...

I just don't understand why leaving breaking news for a few moments is a problem, unless you actually have live pictures of a story unfolding.


People are increasingly switching channels during ad breaks- this is a major problem for commercial TV and advertisers...on a rolling news channel interupting major breaking news (let's take an earthquake killing ONE THOUSAND people) for a weather forcast is absurd- akin to basically saying to your viewers- "switch to Sky News now for continuing coverage". I'm sorry Moz, but that just ain't flow.

I for one, switched straight over to Sky News who continued to cover the story in depth over the TOTH using their pool of correspondents who have been in the area since just after boxing day. The BBC actually has far more correspondents there- and did an excellent job with them when they bothered to cover the story.

News was CONSTANTLY coming in last night- from estimates of those affected to evacuation orders for parts of coastline. The absolute fact is that News 24 missed these additions to the story whilst replaying a weather forcast, and running trailers about how they break so much news.

Not good enough, regardless of whether they have to change presenters...the scheme outlined by cat (and repeated by myself) is absolutely simple an straightforward...and removes the "excuse" of lengthy weather forcasts to allow presenter switches. There is NO excuse for News 24 to break away from breaking news for anything....ITV regularly do so to meet the needs of their advertisers...the BBC has the luxury of not having to do this- so USE IT.
CO
cortomaltese
Moz posted:
cortomaltese posted:
BBC LDN posted:
cortomaltese posted:
r2ro posted:

During Breaking News events I think perhaps it would be best if they still gave regular headlines but incorporate weather, sport and business all together in a one to two minute summary, read by the main presenters, which could be slotted in at any point. That way you get all of the news, sport, weather and business as well as continuing coverage of the breaking news.


I've always found tasteless and annoying when, during a breaking news coverage, they switch to a minor story.


You're absolutely right. They just stick with it, repeating the same stuff over and over again if there's nothing coming in for hours on end, and ignore the fact that at the same time as an earthquake, there's a political row going on in the UK, a bomb in the Middle East, and people dying in Iraq. How tasteless and annoying of them to give airtime to other stories. Let's stick with that big story until everyone's so sick of it that they've switched their TVs off.


Come on, if during breaking news they switch to some minor stories it feels like these stories are breakfillers, shown just in order to gain time.

Yep, exactly right! Time in which to actually find out something new, rather than just repeating and umming & ahhhing! Also, just because a story is less important than the breaking news, it doesn't mean it is minor, just less major.


I see your point, but if BBC World announces a breaking news and then goes to another story (and it's often a story I have already heard about) I just switch to CNN, Skynews or whatever. A 24hours news channel should be able to grant a continuous coverage of a big story, without ummming & ahhhing.
DU
Dunedin
cortomaltese posted:
Moz posted:
Yep, exactly right! Time in which to actually find out something new, rather than just repeating and umming & ahhhing! Also, just because a story is less important than the breaking news, it doesn't mean it is minor, just less major.


I see your point, but if BBC World announces a breaking news and then goes to another story (and it's often a story I have already heard about) I just switch to CNN, Skynews or whatever. A 24hours news channel should be able to grant a continuous coverage of a big story, without ummming & ahhhing.


Spot on....you just need to look at the figures...the average person watches any of the 24 hour news channels for a stonking 2-3 minutes PER DAY. The hook to keep them their is to take a breaking news story and run with it.

I'm not saying repeat the same stuff endlessly- in these cases they should use the ticker. But when there is obviously loads of information coming in, and correspondents to talk to- RUN WITH IT and ignore TOTH, weather, sport, immediate presenter changeovers etc.

Yesterday's earthquake story is HUGE- probably a thousand people have died. It could have been another ENORMOUS story to the extent of the Boxing Day tragedy.

And yet within 45 minutes of breaking the news, they take the weather forcast.

Bye-bye viewers.

Newer posts