The Newsroom

BBC News Channel & World News - merger speculation

Split from BBC News Channel General Discussion (January 2016)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
RK
Rkolsen
noggin posted:
Rkolsen posted:
noggin posted:

As others have said though, presentation costs are likely to be on the margins. They are a cost that can be reduced - as the News Channel has by reducing the number of strands that are double-headed - but they are not the bulk of costs.


Thanks. I was wondering if it was akin to the US type of broadcasting where the higher the audience figures the better the pay. I imagine it would be fair to say that a BBC presenter say for the Channel Islands opt out would make significantly less than a presenter for London?


That wasn't your original question though. You asked specifically about News channel vs World News.

You weren't asking about regional presentation - where things are often different. There were a number of 'big name, big money' signings to BBC regional TV in the 90s and 00s (Leeds, Tunbridge Wells), but a number of these contracts have not been renewed, often - it is suggested - to cut costs.

You would not be surprised if the BBC One Ten O'Clock News presenter earned more than the Look East Breakfast presenter... But some regions use regional reporters (who may well be staff) as presenters and may well pay them 'acting up' pay to do so, when they do so.


Sorry, I was using regions as an example of what I meant that audience figures/reach would equal higher pay.
NG
noggin Founding member
Rkolsen posted:
noggin posted:
Rkolsen posted:

Thanks. I was wondering if it was akin to the US type of broadcasting where the higher the audience figures the better the pay. I imagine it would be fair to say that a BBC presenter say for the Channel Islands opt out would make significantly less than a presenter for London?


That wasn't your original question though. You asked specifically about News channel vs World News.

You weren't asking about regional presentation - where things are often different. There were a number of 'big name, big money' signings to BBC regional TV in the 90s and 00s (Leeds, Tunbridge Wells), but a number of these contracts have not been renewed, often - it is suggested - to cut costs.

You would not be surprised if the BBC One Ten O'Clock News presenter earned more than the Look East Breakfast presenter... But some regions use regional reporters (who may well be staff) as presenters and may well pay them 'acting up' pay to do so, when they do so.


Sorry, I was using regions as an example of what I meant that audience figures/reach would equal higher pay.


It's not as simple as that. You can't directly compare audiences between Network, News Channel, Regional News and Global News and expect to scale salaries based on audience numbers. I suspect you are more likely to find salary based on 'perceived value to the corporation'.
CH
chris
It is difficult to see how they could serve both audiences adequately. The sensible thing to do would be to just admit closing News 24 but make World available in its current form in the UK, albeit without the adverts. Use some of the - no doubt minimal - cost savings to increase online content. Perhaps retain the hour of national news on BBC Two after VD and add another in the afternoon too?
CW
Charlie Wells Moderator
I still can't help wondering how much of this is just The Times stirring the rumour mill in the interest of Mr Murdock's other ventures (e.g. Sky News). Would a complete merger raise issues with the BBC Trust or similar?

If they are reviewing the cost of running the news channel then it wouldn't hurt looking at the cost of producing Victoria Derbyshire (the programme) versus two hours of traditional rolling news. At risk of straying into fantasy scheduling I think there's a case for 6am to 9am on the News Channel to simulcast World News, as Breakfast is on BBC One and Business Live is already shown. If they wanted at midday they could simulcast an hour of World News' GMT, with the 11am hour being shown on BBC Two. The rest of the time at least up until 6pm weekdays should in my opinion remain as non-simulcast rolling news.
OM
Omnipresent
Whatever the motives of The Times in running the story, it's clear from recent announcements including abolishing the role of BBC2 Controller that the BBC is looking at very radical changes to how it operates and this is bound to affect News as well as other divisions.
tmorgan96, London Lite and Custard56 gave kudos
EX
excel99
Charlie Wells posted:
At risk of straying into fantasy scheduling I think there's a case for 6am to 9am on the News Channel to simulcast World News, as Breakfast is on BBC One

Is weekday Breakfast on the NC shown with sign language? If so that could be an argument for keeping the Breakfast simulcast, at least for an hour
LL
London Lite Founding member
excel99 posted:
Charlie Wells posted:
At risk of straying into fantasy scheduling I think there's a case for 6am to 9am on the News Channel to simulcast World News, as Breakfast is on BBC One

Is weekday Breakfast on the NC shown with sign language? If so that could be an argument for keeping the Breakfast simulcast, at least for an hour


Yes and the BBC News at One.
NE
News96
Charlie Wells posted:
I still can't help wondering how much of this is just The Times stirring the rumour mill in the interest of Mr Murdock's other ventures (e.g. Sky News). Would a complete merger raise issues with the BBC Trust or similar?

If they are reviewing the cost of running the news channel then it wouldn't hurt looking at the cost of producing Victoria Derbyshire (the programme) versus two hours of traditional rolling news. At risk of straying into fantasy scheduling I think there's a case for 6am to 9am on the News Channel to simulcast World News, as Breakfast is on BBC One and Business Live is already shown. If they wanted at midday they could simulcast an hour of World News' GMT, with the 11am hour being shown on BBC Two. The rest of the time at least up until 6pm weekdays should in my opinion remain as non-simulcast rolling news.


I'd Personally go the other way have The News Channel go back to rolling News from 9am (10am Saturdays) til Midnight and getting rid of the simulcasts baring Breakfast Business Live and the BBC1 bulletins (which means leaving Victoria Derbyshire as a BBC2 Only show, Having a 9-11 shift on the News Channel Outside Source would go back to being World only and The News at Nine would be reinstated on the NC-) -I'm of the opinion that if it isn't broke don't fix it-Yes budgets did need to be slashed but i think they have gone about it the wrong way by doing what they have done already and surely it costs more to produce the Victoria Derbyshire program than it does have Rolling News in the morning defeating the entire point of saving money in the first place.

Anyway People will probably disagree with me on this which is your right-i'm just laying my cards on the Budgets cuts to The News Channel since last April when Victoria Derbyshire first started (June for the World News Simulcasts.)
TM
tmorgan96
This is such a depressing thing to see happen to the BBC.
Independent and harshy gave kudos
CH
chris
The sad news of Terry Wogan's death shows how combining the channels wouldn't suit the audience. I hear of the news when I wake up - what do I do? Turn to News 24. It wouldn't be right for World News to air such coverage.
News96, JamesTV and Steve in Pudsey gave kudos
LL
London Lite Founding member
chris posted:
The sad news of Terry Wogan's death shows how combining the channels wouldn't suit the audience. I hear of the news when I wake up - what do I do? Turn to News 24. It wouldn't be right for World News to air such coverage.


Which is why there needs to be a stipulation in the service licence that the UK can opt-out for major domestic breaking news.
SP
Steve in Pudsey
But if you have the resources available to opt out, you might as well stay separate rather than having people sitting around in case something happens.

Newer posts