BBC News Channel & World News to merge?

And they appear to be based on what is currently simulcast on the NC, rather than a merged NC/World will output if the merger goes ahead.

Lets take Business Live for example, yes it's largely a World simulcast, but while World goes off for advertising and trailer filler, the presenters continue on the NC with UK centric business news, some of which is pretty substantial.

Despite cuts, the NC has opted out of Derbyshire (after early niggles) and other networked programmes from BBC1/2/World for domestic coverage and would continue to do so. I'm sure the new service licence would also ensure regular domestic coverage of news, weather, business and sport as part of the combined channel.

There is still a second domestic news channel, Sky News despite international distribution is UK centric for the majority of the day.

I think its a really interesting opportunity. Effectively starting with a blank sheet, rethinking how NBH resources are used and how services can be delivered in a really thought through way - not just smashing things together - which is what happens now.
Things can't stand still. Technology is changing, and News can change with it.
It will be different. It won't (and can't) be everything to everyone.
But it's got to be worth a look hasn't it?

^^^^ THIS

Journalism is journalism and should be at the heart of it. The News Channel vs World News vs News Stream vs BBC News Online vs Five Live vs Radio Four vs the BBC News App vs Twitter vs Facebook vs Local Radio vs Regional TV vs World Service Radio and TV are all just ways of getting the right journalism to the right audiences, and delivering public service value to the people who pay for it (or who it is being paid for). It's not about a TV Channel or a studio...

Having a new way of delivering TV News could be an opportunity to rethink how studios are used - how networks are scheduled and produced - how coverage and programmes can be shared more effectively etc.

We're all (mostly) here because we're geeky types who happened to stumble across those beeps during our formative years. From hearing that countdown as a 15 year old to somehow working in telly as a 30 year old, that initial fondness for the beeb has never left me and I still get a geeky giggle walking though those revolving doors.


It's given me a wider interest in the news, current and world events in general and whilst many here will bemoan decisions from a purely visual/branded atheistic, I do worry about the future of my beloved BBC. It seems our culture secretary has it in his sights that BBC = Anti Commercial = Bad which is a shame. Many here will perhaps miss the nuanced and sometimes blatant bigger issues that the corporation faces over stylistic choices, but I'm always amazed at the depth and variety of the contributors here, cast, crew, directors, performers, fans and more. Some whom I know in real life, or know of, and some I don't, we're a motley bunch!

Media Boy, your point is right and one that I'd not considered at all. And rather opened my eyes. Seeing this as a positive, as a way of making the most of the amazing resources that reside in W1A isn't something that had occurred, I'm not privy to some of the more intricate inner workings of newsgathering but my knowledge is advanced enough to know what an amazing thing the BBC News provides and that it is under threat, but that the reaction, the final outcome from this charter renewal process may well be positive.

Here's to the future, to the BBC!

If its a big rethink on how news is done for major savings etc... would it really matter if regional news was presented from a single camera studio? It's all nice having a big studio etc, but is it really needed?

Would you the viewer switch off regional news because there is no wide shot at the end of the show, and because the weather presenters isn't in the same shot for 5 seconds?

Any guests could sit in front of a camera in a newsroom.

Children's BBC doesn't sound "modern" any more (personally).

"Children's" anything is obscenely old fashioned. If there's one thing children don't want to be called, it's children.

BBC Kids. That's what it's called in Canada.

I don't think they'd be able to justify a channel for goats.

Is it just me or is this a thinly veiled suggestion of going back to calling it BBC World Service Television, to piggy back on the radio service's repution?

I certainly hope not. The name is archaic, and I suspect there is already enough resentment that the TV Licence is funding what is perceived to be a Foreign & Commonwealth Office propaganda exercise for World Service Radio.


If they're going to merge the TV news channels, then I think BBC World/World News would be the better name.

Furthermore, I don't see why the main domestic bulletins would need to be simulcast on the news channel. They wouldn't be of interest to an international audience, they already have seperate editorial teams (apart from the 1), and they would certainly have free studio space if there was only one BBC News channel.

I think that there is a political will to trim down the BBC and make it less competitive. As someone said last week who was supporting the BBC, it's been under attack before but never like this. It's getting disproportionate cuts so management are cutting services left, right and centre (including closing services which has meant the BBC has lost viewers it can't get back).

I think BBC News is adapting to modern technology, we've got Outside Source and Victoria Derbyshire, which is another way to allow viewers to air views about topics. I agree that the department needs to be modernised and maybe have a small cut in its budget but not to the extent it is.

My worry with merging the two channels is that stories that matter to parts of the world won't be covered in the same way as they have to cater for two audiences together. I wouldn't disagree though with redrawing the schedule from scratch in order to adapt more to the modern world.

I think it's good to have simulcasts as well as it allows the other channel to see stories they may not have known about.