DV
After the recent simulcasting of the BBC ONE bulletins on News 24, there's been time to reflect on it so
AN
In my mind it's a blatent attempt to copy Sky's appointment to view schedule. As is Huw's show.
SJ
I agree, there have been three incidents recently where this has not worked well. The Queens birthday celebrations last week where the coverrage was cut off for the one o clock news, today the prime ministers press confererence was cut short and no immediate follow up and, also today during the news with the breaking news about the child abuser, which was quickly picked up when the one o clock news had finished. I think news 24 is now a poorer channel with this in place.
As a collegue said to me at work "why is the one o clock news on news 24?" I had no answer.
As a collegue said to me at work "why is the one o clock news on news 24?" I had no answer.
BS
Seeing as the BBC is funded by a licence fee, it does seem a bit wasteful of licence payers money, for there to be three x 30-mins each weekday, during which the BBC is producing two lots of news with a "UK and international" flavour, at one-and-the-same time. (i.e. News24 presenting a similar news run-down to the One/Six/Ten, whilst the One/Six/Ten is going out on BBC1).
I accept that News24 has the ability to devote ages and ages to just one story (if a story warrants this), and that the simulcast One/Six/Ten impedes and interrupts this.
But I don't think that an "all or nothing" attitude (i.e. simulcast should always/never exist) is right. Surely the "default" arrangement should be to simulcast, but News24 should be free to drop it on any given day, if needs be.
I accept that News24 has the ability to devote ages and ages to just one story (if a story warrants this), and that the simulcast One/Six/Ten impedes and interrupts this.
But I don't think that an "all or nothing" attitude (i.e. simulcast should always/never exist) is right. Surely the "default" arrangement should be to simulcast, but News24 should be free to drop it on any given day, if needs be.
MO
While I originally was against simulcasts, I am now in favour, and Work of Artifice has taken the words from my mouth. Default should be simulcast with the ability to break away if needs be. It's a waste of money to do anything else.
The only problem is the way it's done.
If we were sitting down designing a news service for the BBC from scratch, we'd never have this silly arrangement where the BBC One broadcasts are paramount. We'd have a 24 hour news channel which gives occasional half-hour long summaries that BBC One dips in to.
This is how I'd like to see it. BBC One should just simulcast News 24 at breakfast, 1, 6 and 10 and there should be an area that News 24 could use should they need to cover breaking news during these simulcasts. I'd even go so far as to question why there should be special presenters for BBC One.
Whatever happens I just think it should all fit together a lot better than it does at the moment.
Work of Artifice posted:
Seeing as the BBC is funded by a licence fee, it does seem a bit wasteful of licence payers money, for there to be three x 30-mins each weekday, during which the BBC is producing two lots of news with a "UK and international" flavour, at one-and-the-same time. (i.e. News24 presenting a similar news run-down to the One/Six/Ten, whilst the One/Six/Ten is going out on BBC1).
I accept that News24 has the ability to devote ages and ages to just one story (if a story warrants this), and that the simulcast One/Six/Ten impedes and interrupts this.
But I don't think that an "all or nothing" attitude (i.e. simulcast should always/never exist) is right. Surely the "default" arrangement should be to simulcast, but News24 should be free to drop it on any given day, if needs be.
I accept that News24 has the ability to devote ages and ages to just one story (if a story warrants this), and that the simulcast One/Six/Ten impedes and interrupts this.
But I don't think that an "all or nothing" attitude (i.e. simulcast should always/never exist) is right. Surely the "default" arrangement should be to simulcast, but News24 should be free to drop it on any given day, if needs be.
While I originally was against simulcasts, I am now in favour, and Work of Artifice has taken the words from my mouth. Default should be simulcast with the ability to break away if needs be. It's a waste of money to do anything else.
The only problem is the way it's done.
If we were sitting down designing a news service for the BBC from scratch, we'd never have this silly arrangement where the BBC One broadcasts are paramount. We'd have a 24 hour news channel which gives occasional half-hour long summaries that BBC One dips in to.
This is how I'd like to see it. BBC One should just simulcast News 24 at breakfast, 1, 6 and 10 and there should be an area that News 24 could use should they need to cover breaking news during these simulcasts. I'd even go so far as to question why there should be special presenters for BBC One.
Whatever happens I just think it should all fit together a lot better than it does at the moment.
AN
Andrew
Founding member
I remember when the ITV News Channel was around, people used to go on and on and on criticising the simulcasting of ITV1 bulletins. The fact that it was run on a small budget wasn't seen as a valid reason.
Therefore I'd expect the same negative criticism with BBC News 24, regardless of any perceived waste of running 2 bulletins at the same time
Therefore I'd expect the same negative criticism with BBC News 24, regardless of any perceived waste of running 2 bulletins at the same time
PE
there's been quite a lot of criticism. However with ITV they did shove the NC into a cupboard while they used the studio for rehersals, this doesn't happen on the BBC version.
Pete
Founding member
Andrew posted:
I remember when the ITV News Channel was around, people used to go on and on and on criticising the simulcasting of ITV1 bulletins. The fact that it was run on a small budget wasn't seen as a valid reason.
Therefore I'd expect the same negative criticism with BBC News 24, regardless of any perceived waste of running 2 bulletins at the same time
Therefore I'd expect the same negative criticism with BBC News 24, regardless of any perceived waste of running 2 bulletins at the same time
there's been quite a lot of criticism. However with ITV they did shove the NC into a cupboard while they used the studio for rehersals, this doesn't happen on the BBC version.
DV
there's been quite a lot of criticism. However with ITV they did shove the NC into a cupboard while they used the studio for rehersals, this doesn't happen on the BBC version.
We are also paying directly for BBC News 24 through the licence fee, so it is not that easy to compare News 24 and the ITV NC when you have to consider that one of the channels is funded by viewers so their say is more important, whereas the other was also influenced by commercial interests.
Hymagumba posted:
Andrew posted:
I remember when the ITV News Channel was around, people used to go on and on and on criticising the simulcasting of ITV1 bulletins. The fact that it was run on a small budget wasn't seen as a valid reason.
Therefore I'd expect the same negative criticism with BBC News 24, regardless of any perceived waste of running 2 bulletins at the same time
Therefore I'd expect the same negative criticism with BBC News 24, regardless of any perceived waste of running 2 bulletins at the same time
there's been quite a lot of criticism. However with ITV they did shove the NC into a cupboard while they used the studio for rehersals, this doesn't happen on the BBC version.
We are also paying directly for BBC News 24 through the licence fee, so it is not that easy to compare News 24 and the ITV NC when you have to consider that one of the channels is funded by viewers so their say is more important, whereas the other was also influenced by commercial interests.
SP
While I originally was against simulcasts, I am now in favour, and Work of Artifice has taken the words from my mouth. Default should be simulcast with the ability to break away if needs be. It's a waste of money to do anything else.
Presumably though if the News 24 studio is fully manned, just in case they need to break away from the national bulletin, presenters and crew will still need to be paid as they would if they were on air. So I don't quite see how they're saving money by simulcasting.
Moz posted:
Work of Artifice posted:
Seeing as the BBC is funded by a licence fee, it does seem a bit wasteful of licence payers money, for there to be three x 30-mins each weekday, during which the BBC is producing two lots of news with a "UK and international" flavour, at one-and-the-same time. (i.e. News24 presenting a similar news run-down to the One/Six/Ten, whilst the One/Six/Ten is going out on BBC1).
I accept that News24 has the ability to devote ages and ages to just one story (if a story warrants this), and that the simulcast One/Six/Ten impedes and interrupts this.
But I don't think that an "all or nothing" attitude (i.e. simulcast should always/never exist) is right. Surely the "default" arrangement should be to simulcast, but News24 should be free to drop it on any given day, if needs be.
I accept that News24 has the ability to devote ages and ages to just one story (if a story warrants this), and that the simulcast One/Six/Ten impedes and interrupts this.
But I don't think that an "all or nothing" attitude (i.e. simulcast should always/never exist) is right. Surely the "default" arrangement should be to simulcast, but News24 should be free to drop it on any given day, if needs be.
While I originally was against simulcasts, I am now in favour, and Work of Artifice has taken the words from my mouth. Default should be simulcast with the ability to break away if needs be. It's a waste of money to do anything else.
Presumably though if the News 24 studio is fully manned, just in case they need to break away from the national bulletin, presenters and crew will still need to be paid as they would if they were on air. So I don't quite see how they're saving money by simulcasting.
MO
While I originally was against simulcasts, I am now in favour, and Work of Artifice has taken the words from my mouth. Default should be simulcast with the ability to break away if needs be. It's a waste of money to do anything else.
Presumably though if the News 24 studio is fully manned, just in case they need to break away from the national bulletin, presenters and crew will still need to be paid as they would if they were on air. So I don't quite see how they're saving money by simulcasting.
If you read my post I said that the News 24 studio should be used for the so-called national bulletin*. A small area with one camera and a PC should be available for breaking news. Surely this would be more effective than a separate studio being powered up three times a day, every day. As for gallery staff, you'd just make sure that change-overs of News 24 staff coincided with the 1/6/10 so that those coming on duty at 1.30/6.30/10.30 would be around to cover breaking news.
*National bulletin! This backs up what I was saying about these bulletins having some sort of higher importance. Why are they any more 'national' than News 24's output? To me News 24 is the 'national' BBC news provider.
Spencer For Hire posted:
Moz posted:
Work of Artifice posted:
Seeing as the BBC is funded by a licence fee, it does seem a bit wasteful of licence payers money, for there to be three x 30-mins each weekday, during which the BBC is producing two lots of news with a "UK and international" flavour, at one-and-the-same time. (i.e. News24 presenting a similar news run-down to the One/Six/Ten, whilst the One/Six/Ten is going out on BBC1).
I accept that News24 has the ability to devote ages and ages to just one story (if a story warrants this), and that the simulcast One/Six/Ten impedes and interrupts this.
But I don't think that an "all or nothing" attitude (i.e. simulcast should always/never exist) is right. Surely the "default" arrangement should be to simulcast, but News24 should be free to drop it on any given day, if needs be.
I accept that News24 has the ability to devote ages and ages to just one story (if a story warrants this), and that the simulcast One/Six/Ten impedes and interrupts this.
But I don't think that an "all or nothing" attitude (i.e. simulcast should always/never exist) is right. Surely the "default" arrangement should be to simulcast, but News24 should be free to drop it on any given day, if needs be.
While I originally was against simulcasts, I am now in favour, and Work of Artifice has taken the words from my mouth. Default should be simulcast with the ability to break away if needs be. It's a waste of money to do anything else.
Presumably though if the News 24 studio is fully manned, just in case they need to break away from the national bulletin, presenters and crew will still need to be paid as they would if they were on air. So I don't quite see how they're saving money by simulcasting.
If you read my post I said that the News 24 studio should be used for the so-called national bulletin*. A small area with one camera and a PC should be available for breaking news. Surely this would be more effective than a separate studio being powered up three times a day, every day. As for gallery staff, you'd just make sure that change-overs of News 24 staff coincided with the 1/6/10 so that those coming on duty at 1.30/6.30/10.30 would be around to cover breaking news.
*National bulletin! This backs up what I was saying about these bulletins having some sort of higher importance. Why are they any more 'national' than News 24's output? To me News 24 is the 'national' BBC news provider.
SP
While I originally was against simulcasts, I am now in favour, and Work of Artifice has taken the words from my mouth. Default should be simulcast with the ability to break away if needs be. It's a waste of money to do anything else.
Presumably though if the News 24 studio is fully manned, just in case they need to break away from the national bulletin, presenters and crew will still need to be paid as they would if they were on air. So I don't quite see how they're saving money by simulcasting.
If you read my post I said that the News 24 studio should be used for the so-called national bulletin*. A small area with one camera and a PC should be available for breaking news. Surely this would be more effective than a separate studio being powered up three times a day, every day. As for gallery staff, you'd just make sure that change-overs of News 24 staff coincided with the 1/6/10 so that those coming on duty at 1.30/6.30/10.30 would be around to cover breaking news.
Fair point, which I wasn't arguing against - hence why I didn't quote that part of your original comment. I was just pointing out how the current situation is something of a false economy. So it looks like we agree.
Agreed, nowadays it's a nonsensical term, but rightly or wrongly it's still short-hand (in these parts at least) for the 1, 6 and 10 O' Clock bulletins. It clearly harks back to the days when there was only 'the national news' and 'the regional news'. News 24 has come along and the terminology has remained. As you say, if News 24 was established first, it'd probably be a different matter.
Moz posted:
Spencer For Hire posted:
Moz posted:
Work of Artifice posted:
Seeing as the BBC is funded by a licence fee, it does seem a bit wasteful of licence payers money, for there to be three x 30-mins each weekday, during which the BBC is producing two lots of news with a "UK and international" flavour, at one-and-the-same time. (i.e. News24 presenting a similar news run-down to the One/Six/Ten, whilst the One/Six/Ten is going out on BBC1).
I accept that News24 has the ability to devote ages and ages to just one story (if a story warrants this), and that the simulcast One/Six/Ten impedes and interrupts this.
But I don't think that an "all or nothing" attitude (i.e. simulcast should always/never exist) is right. Surely the "default" arrangement should be to simulcast, but News24 should be free to drop it on any given day, if needs be.
I accept that News24 has the ability to devote ages and ages to just one story (if a story warrants this), and that the simulcast One/Six/Ten impedes and interrupts this.
But I don't think that an "all or nothing" attitude (i.e. simulcast should always/never exist) is right. Surely the "default" arrangement should be to simulcast, but News24 should be free to drop it on any given day, if needs be.
While I originally was against simulcasts, I am now in favour, and Work of Artifice has taken the words from my mouth. Default should be simulcast with the ability to break away if needs be. It's a waste of money to do anything else.
Presumably though if the News 24 studio is fully manned, just in case they need to break away from the national bulletin, presenters and crew will still need to be paid as they would if they were on air. So I don't quite see how they're saving money by simulcasting.
If you read my post I said that the News 24 studio should be used for the so-called national bulletin*. A small area with one camera and a PC should be available for breaking news. Surely this would be more effective than a separate studio being powered up three times a day, every day. As for gallery staff, you'd just make sure that change-overs of News 24 staff coincided with the 1/6/10 so that those coming on duty at 1.30/6.30/10.30 would be around to cover breaking news.
Fair point, which I wasn't arguing against - hence why I didn't quote that part of your original comment. I was just pointing out how the current situation is something of a false economy. So it looks like we agree.
Quote:
*National bulletin! This backs up what I was saying about these bulletins having some sort of higher importance. Why are they any more 'national' than News 24's output? To me News 24 is the 'national' BBC news provider.
Agreed, nowadays it's a nonsensical term, but rightly or wrongly it's still short-hand (in these parts at least) for the 1, 6 and 10 O' Clock bulletins. It clearly harks back to the days when there was only 'the national news' and 'the regional news'. News 24 has come along and the terminology has remained. As you say, if News 24 was established first, it'd probably be a different matter.