OM
The world has changed a lot since the late 1990s. It's much easier to report live from anywhere in the world and for images/video to be disseminated. It's a far cry from when the BBC, ITN etc had to fight over scare satellite capacity.
As for the possible closure of the channel,
once again the BBC is engaging in post-event rationalisation to justify budget cuts imposed by the Government. By all means have more simulcasting with BBC1, 2 and BBC World to save money, but no more service closures.
Someone remind me how we ever coped before the BBC had a rolling news channel.
The world has changed a lot since the late 1990s. It's much easier to report live from anywhere in the world and for images/video to be disseminated. It's a far cry from when the BBC, ITN etc had to fight over scare satellite capacity.
As for the possible closure of the channel,
once again the BBC is engaging in post-event rationalisation to justify budget cuts imposed by the Government. By all means have more simulcasting with BBC1, 2 and BBC World to save money, but no more service closures.
FL
Rolling radio news channel, and that's been there since the war.
Someone remind me how we ever coped before the BBC had a rolling news channel.
MA
Rolling radio news channel, and that's been there since the war.
Has it ? You mean The Gulf War Version 1, where there was 'Scud FM' using R4's FM network, the precursor to Radio 5 Mk 2, (what we have today)
Someone remind me how we ever coped before the BBC had a rolling news channel.
Has it ? You mean The Gulf War Version 1, where there was 'Scud FM' using R4's FM network, the precursor to Radio 5 Mk 2, (what we have today)
NE
One of the things that's been overlooked in our discussions is that there are going to be more smart-type TVs (or connected things like Roku/NowTV). A BBC NewsStream isn't just going to be on mobiles and tablets, or even on PCs, it will increasingly be easily accessible through the TV.
And I don't think that will be as difficult for the older generation to cope with. My in-laws (in their 70s) have no problems using NowTV plus the catch-up services on it (and incidentally, that manages to run on a paltry less-than-1Mb broadband connection in rural Devon).
And I don't think that will be as difficult for the older generation to cope with. My in-laws (in their 70s) have no problems using NowTV plus the catch-up services on it (and incidentally, that manages to run on a paltry less-than-1Mb broadband connection in rural Devon).
RW
A lot of this comes down to personal preference, though - you'd be happy to lose or cut back certain services to save the News Channel, whereas the only time I watch it these days is for Click, so I personally wouldn't mind losing it if meant saving BBC Four, 6 Music and my local radio station (which is about the smallest one there is) - all services that I use a lot more.
I don't know whether this 'newstream' would be an improvement on the News Channel, as I'm having some difficulty in trying to grasp just how it would actually work in practice - never mind some of these other concepts which I can't fathom like 'iPlay' and the 'Ideas Service'.
Robert Williams
Founding member
Sure BBC Four has launched many good shows (QI, Charlie Brooker) and had some great imports over the years (Parks and Rec, Curb) but they can fit in BBC Two's evening schedule and BBC Two's endless repeats could make way to accommodate their documentaries. I think the BBC needs to look at cutting services with the least effect on the overall service without becoming some wh*re for the commercial sector. Some plans of these are good - assisting in the maintenance of local news outlets and (for once) expanding the World Service. But I don't see sensible reductions in services (the 3 'extra' radio stations, number of costly programme promos every year, merging smaller local radio stations).
A lot of this comes down to personal preference, though - you'd be happy to lose or cut back certain services to save the News Channel, whereas the only time I watch it these days is for Click, so I personally wouldn't mind losing it if meant saving BBC Four, 6 Music and my local radio station (which is about the smallest one there is) - all services that I use a lot more.
I don't know whether this 'newstream' would be an improvement on the News Channel, as I'm having some difficulty in trying to grasp just how it would actually work in practice - never mind some of these other concepts which I can't fathom like 'iPlay' and the 'Ideas Service'.
HO
I wonder if there is an opportunity for sharing some production between the News Channel and radio - particularly R4, FiveLive and WS. When you look at the quality of both the cameras and lighting in Radio 4 studios these days, is there a good reason you couldn't simulcast programmes like WATO or PM?
DT
Though the thing with that is the Radio 4 bulletins are pretty much all broadcast at the same time that the News Channel is simulcasting with BBC One anyway. You could of course do it the other way around - do it from a TV studio and cut out the video for radio - they did it with The Bottom Line and WS does it with HARDtalk. But then I guess they are both discussion programmes rather than bulletins.
There are plenty of ways the News Channel can save money, just choose not to - why for instance does the News at One need a separate presenter?
I wonder if there is an opportunity for sharing some production between the News Channel and radio - particularly R4, FiveLive and WS. When you look at the quality of both the cameras and lighting in Radio 4 studios these days, is there a good reason you couldn't simulcast programmes like WATO or PM?
Though the thing with that is the Radio 4 bulletins are pretty much all broadcast at the same time that the News Channel is simulcasting with BBC One anyway. You could of course do it the other way around - do it from a TV studio and cut out the video for radio - they did it with The Bottom Line and WS does it with HARDtalk. But then I guess they are both discussion programmes rather than bulletins.
There are plenty of ways the News Channel can save money, just choose not to - why for instance does the News at One need a separate presenter?
Last edited by DTV on 8 September 2015 11:23am
NG
That is exactly what NRK does in Norway. They simulcast the 1800 radio bulletin on the TV. And it gets a decent audience. Their TV news is scheduled around it. HOWEVER - it's not a replacement for the TV bulletin, it's an addition.
TV/Radio production IS different. You can't do graphics on the radio, yet they are a valuable visual guide on TV for instance. When you produce TV and Radio simulcasts, the TV gets duller. (You can't have a studio presenter live voice over VTs with effects - as this makes no sense on the radio for instance)
noggin
Founding member
I wonder if there is an opportunity for sharing some production between the News Channel and radio - particularly R4, FiveLive and WS. When you look at the quality of both the cameras and lighting in Radio 4 studios these days, is there a good reason you couldn't simulcast programmes like WATO or PM?
That is exactly what NRK does in Norway. They simulcast the 1800 radio bulletin on the TV. And it gets a decent audience. Their TV news is scheduled around it. HOWEVER - it's not a replacement for the TV bulletin, it's an addition.
TV/Radio production IS different. You can't do graphics on the radio, yet they are a valuable visual guide on TV for instance. When you produce TV and Radio simulcasts, the TV gets duller. (You can't have a studio presenter live voice over VTs with effects - as this makes no sense on the radio for instance)
MA
Sharing radio and TV reports is the last resort in my view. I often hear reports simply lifted from
the TV sound track, and it's just wrong to hear street noise etc on the radio. It's bad enough lifting one side of a journo-journo interview (from TV or radio), under the guise of the into; ' Reporter xx says....'
TV can't seem to present any audio only content these days, without some inane faux oscilloscope
trace across the screen, and/or audio level meters twitching.
Keep the two mediums apart as far as possible please
the TV sound track, and it's just wrong to hear street noise etc on the radio. It's bad enough lifting one side of a journo-journo interview (from TV or radio), under the guise of the into; ' Reporter xx says....'
TV can't seem to present any audio only content these days, without some inane faux oscilloscope
trace across the screen, and/or audio level meters twitching.
Keep the two mediums apart as far as possible please
FL
Has it ? You mean The Gulf War Version 1, where there was 'Scud FM' using R4's FM network, the precursor to Radio 5 Mk 2, (what we have today)
I was more thinking about the BBC World Service which launched in 1932.
Has it ? You mean The Gulf War Version 1, where there was 'Scud FM' using R4's FM network, the precursor to Radio 5 Mk 2, (what we have today)
MA
Has it ? You mean The Gulf War Version 1, where there was 'Scud FM' using R4's FM network, the precursor to Radio 5 Mk 2, (what we have today)
I was more thinking about the BBC World Service which launched in 1932.
BBC World Service radio, has never been a rolling news station, at least not in the last three or four decades, it has on the hour news bulletins, but so does Radio 2, Capital, Heart FM, etc etc. That doesn't make them rolling news stations, any more than World Service Radio
Has it ? You mean The Gulf War Version 1, where there was 'Scud FM' using R4's FM network, the precursor to Radio 5 Mk 2, (what we have today)
BBC World Service radio, has never been a rolling news station, at least not in the last three or four decades, it has on the hour news bulletins, but so does Radio 2, Capital, Heart FM, etc etc. That doesn't make them rolling news stations, any more than World Service Radio