BBC News 8pm 90 seconds slot

The national segment wouldn't cost much, but the 15 or so regional versions probably cost alot more than they're worth.


I'm not sure it's fair to say that BBC News are haemorrhaging - the Ten o'clock News seems to be going from strength to strength, while in the last few years News 24 has over taken Sky as the number one news channel.

I wouldn't argue against producing programmes to the highest quality - however ALL of the audience that pays for the BBC deserves to be served by the BBC. The BBC has to provide a range of output to appeal to a range of audiences. Quality judgements are in the eye of the viewer as well as the eye of the producer as well.

If the BBC loses focus on its entire audience and instead narrows down to just trying to serve part of its audience - which is, let's face it, the easy way out - it is doomed. To deserve a universal licence fee - which is vital to ensure the BBC remains a strong and well funded public service broadcaster - the BBC has to be universal. It can't niche itself. To do that is to admit that it can't serve its audience - all of its audience.



But many people of your age range DON'T... Empirical evidence - what you and your friends do - is not the same as statistical evidence - which lets us know much more about the country as a whole, across social groups, geographical regions and income levels.

The BBC knew that a large, and increasing chunk, of the audience were no longer getting BBC News from ANY BBC outlet - whether radio, TV, online or other... Just because you and your friends still consume BBC News content in one form or another doesn't mean everyone your age is. It is clear that they aren't from research. This is clearly a problem for the BBC - more so than for commercial broadcasters who may just decide not to appeal to a difficult and potentially expensive to reach demographic.

There is a VERY strong argument that the BBC has been super-serving a section of its audience with lots of news content, whilst under-serving other sections with little that is presented in a manner relevant to them.



That isn't the problem - the problem is those who aren't getting their News from ANY BBC outlet - including online.



They don't - but lots of people who don't consume BBC News were not consuming it because it didn't appeal in presentation and time-slot terms. The 8pm summary is a way of delivering something in a format that may appeal to these guys.

BBC News is deemed a corner stone of the BBC - and one of the most valued parts. If it becomes less valued because it is less relevant to a section of its audience - that is dangerous for the BBC, and it is part of the Beeb's public service remit to inform its audience...

Not hugely - most of the bulletins are produced and broadcast by the late team waiting to do the 2225 bulletin.

Yes - there is more work - but equally that doesn't mean it costs more.



Yep - I think that was a bit of overstatement. However there is an increasing section of the younger audience who are not consuming News - whether from the BBC or other outlets - and it is important that they are provided with a service that they are paying for...

Not really - they may be paying for the service but it doesn't mean they have to use it. Once again it's the BBC trying to be all things to all people, something it can never achieve.

If people choose to get news from elsewhere, then that's their choice. The BBC isn't supposed to be a monopoly after all.

A number of regions hired people just to do the 8pm bulletins. I remember seeing the adverts go out.

Yep - but News is a very core service. If increasing sections of the audience are getting no news from the BBC, or even more worrying, no news at all, then the BBC has to examine why, and if there is a solution it can't ignore it.

Universality is an important factor in the BBC's existence in its current form - and the Beeb has to consider this when deciding what to do with the licence fee.



Yep - though a lot of these people aren't - they are not consuming news at all - because "it's boring" or "it's too long" or "it's not on when I want to watch" or "it's not relevant"



You are confusing a monopoly with universality. The Beeb don't want to stop people consuming news from other sources - but they DO want as many people who have paid for it to consume their news services, particularly those who don't consume any news.

If the Beeb were trying to stop people watching Sky or ITN then THAT is a monopoly. Getting those who don't watch currently to watch is not.

But that's what Brekkie and myself are trying to say. Those people who don't want to watch news because it's 'boring' are not watching it THROUGH CHOICE. I don't particularly enjoy watching films - I don't watch them through my own choice. Why is the BBC trying to get these people to watch something they are clearly not interested in, no matter how it is presented by any organisation?

I'd be more accepting of the 8pm summary if there was evidence of the BBC making the One, Six and Ten more high-brow. Those bulletins (not so much the Ten, but the other two definitely) have clearly been watered down over the last few years. It seems as though every news bulletin these days is trying to pander to these people who are not capable of digesting serious news in a formal manner. Those of us who want serious news and analysis are being forced to watch Newsnight and Channel 4 News.

because the simple fact is there are a load of idiots out there who couldn't tell you jack sh it about what is going on in the world. These people NEED to know what is happening otherwise they are voting blind, they're going around the world blind and no doubt they're blaming those damn arabs for it at the same time.

News isn't editorial decisions, special reports or glamorous newsreaders - it just means what's happened/ happening around the world.

The News on television, radio, print and [to a lesser extent] internet has chosen to report it generally in a detailed, sophisticated style. That doesn't mean it has to be broadcast that way.

The concept of 'news' isn't 'man-made' - events happening is just part of the way the world works. How we interpret, report and take in the news has all been decided by humans.

So why does all news broadcasting, as someone like itsrobert is suggesting, be 'presented' in this same manner? People who don't watch the news may still want to, just not in the structure used.

News broadcast this way has been around for hundreds of years (i.e. via newspapers), but there is no reason for it to stay soley that way.


And if everyone who owns and watches a TV has to pay the TV lisence, yes I believe the BBC has a responsiblity to fulfill the needs and wants of as many of its viewers as it wants. There is no reason news can't be broadcast in this 'informal' way just as much as it can be broadcast in the 'proper' way...



P.S. What does this have to do with astons and DOGs???

At the end of the day - we will all dislike the 8pm bulletin. It's not aimed at us.

it's 90 seconds of our daily lives which we can afford to ignore.

The bigger question is - as has been said - if a few thousand / hundred thousand people suddenly have a better grasp of what's happening then the BBC has succeeded, if it actually makes a few more of them watch the news at 10pm, then even better.

The BBC is not just for us, it's for everybody, it's public service duty is to communicate educate and entertain.

I think earlier on this thread the point was made about young people getting their news from the BBC. Well 10 million people listen to Radio 1 in a week for a an hour or two at least, so BBC News IS reaching the younger generation via Newsbeat. Lunchtime Newsbeat is ( or certainly was not that long ago) THE most listened to news programme.

The fact remains that there are some people in this country who do not watch the news because they are not interested in it and nothing the BBC does is going to change that. I agree wholeheartedly that everyone should watch the news in an ideal world but clearly there is a section of society that just isn't bothered. My question is why the BBC feels as though it needs to target these people via the news? These people are probably already getting their money's worth out of the BBC via other genres of programming, like soaps or dramas. Why must they be forced to watch BBC News if they don't want to?

You're not really hearing what is being said, Rob.

No one is suggesting that eyes are held open with matchsticks with people being "forced", but if news is made more accessible to (or in tune with) those who don't know very much about the world they live in, there is just a chance that they will take it in.

It is a worthy cause, bringing news to the "innit" generation.

I applaud it.