BBC News Channel: Presentation

I wonder whether sport, weather and business firstly cost much and secondly could be reduced. Business is only every hour and I'm sure there would be uproar if weather or sport were reduced to every hour. 'Discussion' based segments I would imagine are free surely? If the guest isn't paid or the journalist is working there anyway?

Film 24 and newspaper reviews? I can't see them costing that much - newspaper reviews are surely pretty much costless? And other than Newswatch, all the other programmes are shown on BBC World News as well, hence cost isn't a big issue there.

As people have said this is just more hot air but I can't see much scope for BBC News to reduce its output from what it is at the moment.




I don't think people should get their hopes up for a dramatic revamp despite the Broadcasting House move. My guess is the graphics will stay pretty much the same albeit with a few slight changes and a new set of titles which revolve around the same white, red, pulsating rings theme. After making a big deal of bringing BBC News together in 2008, I can't see them changing much and undo-ing the brand, whilst at the same time it would be too costly to completely revamp again. I also think there is no need to revamp majorly.

I agree - I'm simply trying to understand the money saving logic. My question with business and sport is whether there are separate producers and researchers for those segments, and whether there could be reductions in sports reports/ reporters should the segments be scaled back. Similarly, it takes people on phones to get guests and interviewees on, be that in studio or down the line.

That said, I too doubt there are any significant savings to be made in those areas, certainly compared to what they offer. And doesn't the news channel only cost around £25 million anyway? If I'm remembering that figure correctly, it's hard to see how reductions to the channel's spending would make any significant dent in the budget savings BBC News has to make.

Not that a mystery - it was Andrew Collins.

Part of the Collins and McConie double act for Radio 1 in the 90s. Think he is now editor of films in Radio Times

I hope it doesn't mean that we get Sky News style news wheels? That's what it seems to mean, shorter news wheels mean that less reporters are working at one time, feeding less stories to the Editor - thus a reduction in cost.

In reality, I expect - as posted above - it is just hot air. BBC World News' budget has been assured by the Foreign Office now...I expect that the normal shows we see on BBC News will just been shifted over to be BBC World productions. Means very little in terms of content and what they look like, but on the balance sheets the BBC News channel will be spending less.

I think BBC News could utilise the Nations and Regions a little more though. I wouldn't be surprised if, in typical BBC fashion, an editorial guideline is published that requires a certain % of news stories per hour to be sourced from the regions. The national journalists will hate it, and the regional BJs will bemoan the added strain on their deadlines and work loads.

There was a period when the news channel played out one or two of the best regional stories in the 7-10pm section. Does this still happen?

It certainly should be possible to use more of the regions output - without putting putting additional pressure on the regions. The same is true for the nations.

You still get a report with an occasional regional out cue left on.

Usually only attributed as a regional programme at the byline at the end, though. News 24 Tonight (not the best title) was launched specifically to add more regional content to the channel. It disappeared at the 08 relaunch when the BBC trust had forgotten it was an issue.

Similarly remember the BBC saying the Six O'Clock would lose 'standing presentation'? It lasted a few months before reverting back at that same relaunch. Seems to be they bow to pressure while that pressure is there,

I'm a little confused by this comment. The FCO has never had any involvement in funding the BBC World News channel (nor indeed in funding BBC World or BBC World Service Television before it). Funding for the global television news output has always come through Worldwide and commercial revenues.

The World Service is currently funded by the FCO through a grant-in-aid under an arrangement that will continue until 2014-15, when the BBC will take full responsibility for World Service funding through the licence fee. Although funding for the Arabic and Persian television services comes from the World Service budget, and is therefore funded by the FCO, none of the World Service budget goes to the BBC World News television channel.

The funding settlement to maintain the grant-in-aid to 2014-15 only affects World Service output, as it has always done, so none of the TV output on BBC News Channel or on BBC World News will be affected by it. I can certainly see production responsibilities being changed to alter budgetary accountability for certain productions on paper in the way that you described - BBC World News paying for these programmes from their budget rather than it coming from the domestic News Channel budget - but these budgetary changes occur regularly between NC and WN (just as they did between News 24 and World before that), and none of that has anything to do with the FCO.

Well I guess you're a little less 'confused by the comment', rather ready to correct it.

Thanks for the info. The FCO website does say



I now know that refers to Arabic and Persian TV only.

Even though that comment was incorrect, the fact remains I guess. BBC World News is financially assured from commercial income, and therefore we're more likely to get the shifting of production responsibilities to BBC WN to cut the spending on the NC.

Remember the BBC operates like a civil service dept or the NHS. Every department is its own little kingdom and you are not easily forgiven for sticking your nose (or anything else) in to someone elses area without good reason. Using regional crews and material got slightly better when News took over the various regional news depts (from English regions). Also if regional news started providing more input it might signal London overstaffing to the outsourced accountants. With such a large organisation, the implications to even the simplest or common sensical changes are complicated - stupid & annoying but true.

Yes, I should have been clearer there - I was confused as to why you would make that comment and draw further assumptions based upon it without first informing yourself of the facts.



You'd have known that sooner if only you'd read beyond the first paragraph on that very same page where, just a few sentences later, it adds:

which pretty unambiguously clarifies the full extent of the World Service's involvement in providing and funding television services, and doesn't mention anything about the World News channel.

Still, glad I could clear things up for you.

I think I pretty much pointed out that I read the full page in the post, and that I was it merely a misunderstanding.

But you know, BBC LDN, thanks for making TV Forum a wonderful place for the meeting of opinions, discussion and a forum for us all to find out more about the industry. And, of course, you do it with such aplomb and acerbic phraseology. It really is a pleasure to read.