MB
🙄
I don't understand why the BBC News at Ten couldn't go out as normal on the News Channel with Huw - then just do it all again at 10.50pm for BBC One. Seems silly to have Clive present when Huw would have been fully prepared. It would mean those wanting their usual bulletin could have it at the usual time if they don't want to wait until the football finishes. Mission control would have known the Ten could play out in full on the News Channel with Extra Time lasting half an hour...
🙄
WW
But why not just show the game on BBC2 in the first place? That's what many European broadcasters do -- they show all sports events on their second (or third) channels so they don't interfere with the scheduled news programming on their first channel. After all, with digital TV, everyone who has access to BBC1 also has access to BBC2.
It's pretty simple really. BBC were never going to move the FA Cup conclusion to BBC2 and the news was always going to follow the conclusion of the football.
The news channel comes last in the BBC's list of priorities which is fair enough. BBC want their flagship news show on BBC1 and don't want to annoy people by moving the end of the football to another channel. Whereas in the grand scheme of things delaying the Papers by 45 minutes isn't the end of the world.
The news channel comes last in the BBC's list of priorities which is fair enough. BBC want their flagship news show on BBC1 and don't want to annoy people by moving the end of the football to another channel. Whereas in the grand scheme of things delaying the Papers by 45 minutes isn't the end of the world.
But why not just show the game on BBC2 in the first place? That's what many European broadcasters do -- they show all sports events on their second (or third) channels so they don't interfere with the scheduled news programming on their first channel. After all, with digital TV, everyone who has access to BBC1 also has access to BBC2.
CI
But why not just show the game on BBC2 in the first place? That's what many European broadcasters do -- they show all sports events on their second (or third) channels so they don't interfere with the scheduled news programming on their first channel. After all, with digital TV, everyone who has access to BBC1 also has access to BBC2.
Even when it was analogue, everybody had access to BBC2 as well as BBC1, but that's not the point.
It's all very well to say, why not put it on BBC2, because other European broadcasters put sport on their second channel, RTE for example, but again, that's not the point.
The point really is that we have people in this country, who are too dumb and too stupid to accept that their favourite programme might be delayed or not aired on a particular day, because of sports coverage, and that happens quite a bit on ITV, as well as BBC, and would happen whether it was BBC1 or BBC2. Only in this forum do we find people complaining that the news has been delayed by sport.
I find the idea of relegating sport to a secondary channel to be frankly offensive. Plus, live sport is still one of the things that people will tune in to watch live, in significant numbers, rather than recording for later viewing, or watching on demand afterwards. This kind of live programming will become the staple of live 'streaming' television in the near future.
I for one dislike the fact that the BBC News Channel right now is required to simulcast the BBC1 bulletins, and would much rather have the News Channel completely separate from the BBC1 output, but that's not the case, and as long as simulcasting is required, then these things will occasionally happen.
Had it gone onto BBC2 today, then Newsnight at 10.30pm would have been delayed as well, and then that would have affected the news channel as well with the inability to repeat the programme at 11.15.
Some would suggest creating a new BBC Sport channel just for sport, but again, why relegate sport off the main channel? That suggests that people feel Sport is too niche for a mainstream television, and that is plainly not the case.
It's pretty simple really. BBC were never going to move the FA Cup conclusion to BBC2 and the news was always going to follow the conclusion of the football.
The news channel comes last in the BBC's list of priorities which is fair enough. BBC want their flagship news show on BBC1 and don't want to annoy people by moving the end of the football to another channel. Whereas in the grand scheme of things delaying the Papers by 45 minutes isn't the end of the world.
The news channel comes last in the BBC's list of priorities which is fair enough. BBC want their flagship news show on BBC1 and don't want to annoy people by moving the end of the football to another channel. Whereas in the grand scheme of things delaying the Papers by 45 minutes isn't the end of the world.
But why not just show the game on BBC2 in the first place? That's what many European broadcasters do -- they show all sports events on their second (or third) channels so they don't interfere with the scheduled news programming on their first channel. After all, with digital TV, everyone who has access to BBC1 also has access to BBC2.
Even when it was analogue, everybody had access to BBC2 as well as BBC1, but that's not the point.
It's all very well to say, why not put it on BBC2, because other European broadcasters put sport on their second channel, RTE for example, but again, that's not the point.
The point really is that we have people in this country, who are too dumb and too stupid to accept that their favourite programme might be delayed or not aired on a particular day, because of sports coverage, and that happens quite a bit on ITV, as well as BBC, and would happen whether it was BBC1 or BBC2. Only in this forum do we find people complaining that the news has been delayed by sport.
I find the idea of relegating sport to a secondary channel to be frankly offensive. Plus, live sport is still one of the things that people will tune in to watch live, in significant numbers, rather than recording for later viewing, or watching on demand afterwards. This kind of live programming will become the staple of live 'streaming' television in the near future.
I for one dislike the fact that the BBC News Channel right now is required to simulcast the BBC1 bulletins, and would much rather have the News Channel completely separate from the BBC1 output, but that's not the case, and as long as simulcasting is required, then these things will occasionally happen.
Had it gone onto BBC2 today, then Newsnight at 10.30pm would have been delayed as well, and then that would have affected the news channel as well with the inability to repeat the programme at 11.15.
Some would suggest creating a new BBC Sport channel just for sport, but again, why relegate sport off the main channel? That suggests that people feel Sport is too niche for a mainstream television, and that is plainly not the case.
BR
If people are that bothered they could actually buy the papers the following day. I don't get why the BBC and Sky spend so long promoting a rival media anyway - The Papers is little more than a Teleshopping window frankly.
I think BBC News should have at least stuck in a quick 1-minute review of tomorrow front pages at 10:45 (Similar as the segment during weekends 0500 simulcast), that way those who want to look at the papers on NC don't need to wait until 11...
If people are that bothered they could actually buy the papers the following day. I don't get why the BBC and Sky spend so long promoting a rival media anyway - The Papers is little more than a Teleshopping window frankly.
Last edited by Brekkie on 18 January 2018 7:50pm
RK
If people are that bothered they could actually by the papers the following day. I don't get why the BBC and Sky spend so long promoting a rival media anyway - The Papers is little more than a Teleshopping window frankly.
I understand your sentiments. The dedicated segment review seems odd to me. On US broadcast morning shows they’ll show papers and discuss when warranted. CBS This Morning is the closest as they have a dedicated segment but it’s more of big stories that caught there eye that won’t be reported with one of their anchors giving a 15 second summary with maybe four stories tops.
When watching cable I watch Morning Joe, they’d run through the different headlines in a Chyron as it relates to a story they’re discussing and if they’d have the reporter on. They used to have a segment of must read Op-Ed’s.
I think BBC News should have at least stuck in a quick 1-minute review of tomorrow front pages at 10:45 (Similar as the segment during weekends 0500 simulcast), that way those who want to look at the papers on NC don't need to wait until 11...
If people are that bothered they could actually by the papers the following day. I don't get why the BBC and Sky spend so long promoting a rival media anyway - The Papers is little more than a Teleshopping window frankly.
I understand your sentiments. The dedicated segment review seems odd to me. On US broadcast morning shows they’ll show papers and discuss when warranted. CBS This Morning is the closest as they have a dedicated segment but it’s more of big stories that caught there eye that won’t be reported with one of their anchors giving a 15 second summary with maybe four stories tops.
When watching cable I watch Morning Joe, they’d run through the different headlines in a Chyron as it relates to a story they’re discussing and if they’d have the reporter on. They used to have a segment of must read Op-Ed’s.
MA
That's sort of what happened, except it was presented by Clive. It seemed to me that 10:00 to 10:30 on the News Channel was probably (?) run with the 'BBC 1' News at Ten packages, but presented by Clive and not Huw ?
Might have been useful if at 10pm they had said on BBC 1 that anyone wishing to see today's news can do so now by switching over to The News Channel, but hey I'm guessing they didn't ?
I don't understand why the BBC News at Ten couldn't go out as normal on the News Channel with Huw - .
That's sort of what happened, except it was presented by Clive. It seemed to me that 10:00 to 10:30 on the News Channel was probably (?) run with the 'BBC 1' News at Ten packages, but presented by Clive and not Huw ?
Might have been useful if at 10pm they had said on BBC 1 that anyone wishing to see today's news can do so now by switching over to The News Channel, but hey I'm guessing they didn't ?
SJ
Well, heaven forfend!
I'm not especially bothered what BBC One was showing in that particular slot (I wouldn't be watching it anyway). Playing devil's advocate, I do wonder which of the BBC's public purposes - it's list of reasons for existing and being funded in the way it is - is better served by promoting a football match over a news programme.
I find the idea of relegating sport to a secondary channel to be frankly offensive.
Well, heaven forfend!
I'm not especially bothered what BBC One was showing in that particular slot (I wouldn't be watching it anyway). Playing devil's advocate, I do wonder which of the BBC's public purposes - it's list of reasons for existing and being funded in the way it is - is better served by promoting a football match over a news programme.
NG
But why not just show the game on BBC2 in the first place? That's what many European broadcasters do -- they show all sports events on their second (or third) channels so they don't interfere with the scheduled news programming on their first channel. After all, with digital TV, everyone who has access to BBC1 also has access to BBC2.
Different countries have different TV cultures. Lots of European PSBs only gained a second channel when they launched digital TV (or in some cases earlier than this, but few single PSBs gained a second channel as early as BBC Two arrived) - so they usually have far less history, and far less of a defined 'character' than BBC Two.
In many cases the second channels also don't really have many of their own 'popular' shows - and it's used for repeats of 1st channel shows, extended parliamentary and similar political coverage, repeats of regional news bulletins nationally etc.
BBC One and BBC Two have existed for far longer as a pair, and have very different audiences (and BBC Two has much higher audiences than some PSB second channels)
Big sporting events 'live' on BBC One, smaller sporting events 'live' on BBC Two. People may not see the logic in this, but it's a fact of life. It's nothing to do with universal access.
noggin
Founding member
It's pretty simple really. BBC were never going to move the FA Cup conclusion to BBC2 and the news was always going to follow the conclusion of the football.
The news channel comes last in the BBC's list of priorities which is fair enough. BBC want their flagship news show on BBC1 and don't want to annoy people by moving the end of the football to another channel. Whereas in the grand scheme of things delaying the Papers by 45 minutes isn't the end of the world.
The news channel comes last in the BBC's list of priorities which is fair enough. BBC want their flagship news show on BBC1 and don't want to annoy people by moving the end of the football to another channel. Whereas in the grand scheme of things delaying the Papers by 45 minutes isn't the end of the world.
But why not just show the game on BBC2 in the first place? That's what many European broadcasters do -- they show all sports events on their second (or third) channels so they don't interfere with the scheduled news programming on their first channel. After all, with digital TV, everyone who has access to BBC1 also has access to BBC2.
Different countries have different TV cultures. Lots of European PSBs only gained a second channel when they launched digital TV (or in some cases earlier than this, but few single PSBs gained a second channel as early as BBC Two arrived) - so they usually have far less history, and far less of a defined 'character' than BBC Two.
In many cases the second channels also don't really have many of their own 'popular' shows - and it's used for repeats of 1st channel shows, extended parliamentary and similar political coverage, repeats of regional news bulletins nationally etc.
BBC One and BBC Two have existed for far longer as a pair, and have very different audiences (and BBC Two has much higher audiences than some PSB second channels)
Big sporting events 'live' on BBC One, smaller sporting events 'live' on BBC Two. People may not see the logic in this, but it's a fact of life. It's nothing to do with universal access.
RK
I’m a bit confused as to what happened here based on what I’ve read on different threads. Based on what I’ve I read it sounds like the match was over (or close to it) and they still had the post game show to do? A lot of times when sports run late here in the US the post game show will be pushed to the channels associated sports network. NFL games on NBC generally never end on time but if the game runs 30 minutes late their post game report is drastically shortened to get off the air ASAP (so the affiliates can start their local news around midnight).
BR
No, the match went to extra to me and penalties so the live action continued past the scheduled finish time of the news.
People are making a bigger deal of it than necessary - most viewers just accept it and if that desperate for the news they didn't even need to find the news channel - News at Ten was on air on ITV.
People are making a bigger deal of it than necessary - most viewers just accept it and if that desperate for the news they didn't even need to find the news channel - News at Ten was on air on ITV.
NG
No - that's not the case. This was an FA Cup replay (i.e. a repeat of a match played earlier that ended in a draw). This match was still a draw at full time, so that meant the match went to extra time (but this didn't give either side a win either), and so it then went to penalties. This is the joy of an FA Cup replay match - you don't know how long it will last, only when it will start. TV schedulers have to cope with this, and everyone is on standby for the various options (Full Time finish, Extra Time finish, or Penalties finish)
A lot of times when sports run late here in the US the post game show will be pushed to the channels associated sports network.
None of the terrestrial broadcasters in the UK have sport channels or networks (either Free to air or pay-TV), so that wouldn't be an option. They all have secondary general networks, but messily shifting the post-match analysis across and displacing other shows on a different network wouldn't be seen as any better.
noggin
Founding member
I’m a bit confused as to what happened here based on what I’ve read on different threads. Based on what I’ve I read it sounds like the match was over (or close to it) and they still had the post game show to do?
No - that's not the case. This was an FA Cup replay (i.e. a repeat of a match played earlier that ended in a draw). This match was still a draw at full time, so that meant the match went to extra time (but this didn't give either side a win either), and so it then went to penalties. This is the joy of an FA Cup replay match - you don't know how long it will last, only when it will start. TV schedulers have to cope with this, and everyone is on standby for the various options (Full Time finish, Extra Time finish, or Penalties finish)
Quote:
A lot of times when sports run late here in the US the post game show will be pushed to the channels associated sports network.
None of the terrestrial broadcasters in the UK have sport channels or networks (either Free to air or pay-TV), so that wouldn't be an option. They all have secondary general networks, but messily shifting the post-match analysis across and displacing other shows on a different network wouldn't be seen as any better.