NG
Isn't the £70m also to cover the BBC Arabic TV service, which is due to launch sometime soon, running a 24 hour rather than the previously funded 12 hour service, the 8 hour Farsi service (primarily aimed at Iran) and other online ventures. I didn't think it was just funding the Farsi service.
noggin
Founding member
Brekkie Boy posted:
And now the BBC are being gifted £70m a year to provide an Iranian version of BBC World which will probably end up being censored from the people it's aiming to serve.
Isn't the £70m also to cover the BBC Arabic TV service, which is due to launch sometime soon, running a 24 hour rather than the previously funded 12 hour service, the 8 hour Farsi service (primarily aimed at Iran) and other online ventures. I didn't think it was just funding the Farsi service.
NG
That is a big conclusion to jump to in terms of all bulletins - even if News 24 does move studios...
noggin
Founding member
Dog posted:
The fanatics on here just don't see the big picture.
Come next April, News 24 will be coming from N6, which is where the 1/6/10 come from now. So it won't just the the One o Clock News that's 'cut', but the 6 and 10 aswell.
Come next April, News 24 will be coming from N6, which is where the 1/6/10 come from now. So it won't just the the One o Clock News that's 'cut', but the 6 and 10 aswell.
That is a big conclusion to jump to in terms of all bulletins - even if News 24 does move studios...
NG
Before it's even started?
Why do the BBC need to make cutbacks anyway? Where is all this saved money going to go?
The saved money is making up the shortfall between what the BBC has to spend to fund the services it wants to, and the reduced income that the significantly-lower-than-expected licence fee settlement will provide.
Make no mistake - the licence fee settlement this time round could conceivably severely damage the BBC, and will certainly change it massively, with a huge reduction in some in-house production departments. Halving the size of the BBC London factual department is a HUGE change...
noggin
Founding member
chris posted:
DVB Cornwall posted:
I really don't see any real demand for the BBC ONE 90 seconds 'nonsense', perhaps this should be the first casualty of these cutbacks.
Before it's even started?
Why do the BBC need to make cutbacks anyway? Where is all this saved money going to go?
The saved money is making up the shortfall between what the BBC has to spend to fund the services it wants to, and the reduced income that the significantly-lower-than-expected licence fee settlement will provide.
Make no mistake - the licence fee settlement this time round could conceivably severely damage the BBC, and will certainly change it massively, with a huge reduction in some in-house production departments. Halving the size of the BBC London factual department is a HUGE change...
CI
That's making it worse. As it stands, there are two operations until 0830 - Breakfast and BBC World. At 0830, the News 24 operation starts up. Under your proposal, the Breakfast and BBC World operations continue but News 24 starts half an hour earlier. That's actually adding expenditure, not cutting it back!
Actually, WBR now only airs at 2215 on BBC World.
You were not paying attention.
Currently, News 24 is live from 8.30am to 1am (I always thought 8.30 was an odd time to start.), which is a total of 16.5 hours. Under my proposal, the live time for News 24 would be 8am to 10pm, which is 14 hours, 2.5 hours less.
And as for the change of time, since the channel has commercial breaks, that edition of WBR can be aired on a 15 minute digital delay or similar.
itsrobert posted:
cityprod posted:
My suggestion for cutting spendings would be as follows.
Lose the 'Breakfast' simulcast as the programme fits BBC1 more than News 24. Replace it with a continuation of the BBC World simulcast until 8am, then begin the News 24 schedule here.
Lose the 'Breakfast' simulcast as the programme fits BBC1 more than News 24. Replace it with a continuation of the BBC World simulcast until 8am, then begin the News 24 schedule here.
That's making it worse. As it stands, there are two operations until 0830 - Breakfast and BBC World. At 0830, the News 24 operation starts up. Under your proposal, the Breakfast and BBC World operations continue but News 24 starts half an hour earlier. That's actually adding expenditure, not cutting it back!
cityprod posted:
The News 24 schedule ends at 10pm, with a simulcast of the Ten O'Clock News, followed by an airing of "World Business Report", which would have originally aired at 9.30pm UK on BBC World. Then the BBC World simulcast would begin with the 11pm UK airing of World News America.
Actually, WBR now only airs at 2215 on BBC World.
You were not paying attention.
Currently, News 24 is live from 8.30am to 1am (I always thought 8.30 was an odd time to start.), which is a total of 16.5 hours. Under my proposal, the live time for News 24 would be 8am to 10pm, which is 14 hours, 2.5 hours less.
And as for the change of time, since the channel has commercial breaks, that edition of WBR can be aired on a 15 minute digital delay or similar.
NG
Currently, News 24 is live from 8.30am to 1am (I always thought 8.30 was an odd time to start.),
News 24 leaves the joint Breakfast BBC One/News 24 simulcast (it isn't a BBC One programme shown on News 24 - it is the result of the merger between News 24's Breakfast service and the old Breakfast News teams and systems) at 0830 because after this the content becomes far more entertainment-led, and is used to bridge BBC One from a predominantly news service to a daytime schedule. This is specific to BBC One and would not work on BBC News 24.
News 24 could leave at 0800 - but that would mean an even longer shift for the early N24 presenters.
noggin
Founding member
cityprod posted:
Currently, News 24 is live from 8.30am to 1am (I always thought 8.30 was an odd time to start.),
News 24 leaves the joint Breakfast BBC One/News 24 simulcast (it isn't a BBC One programme shown on News 24 - it is the result of the merger between News 24's Breakfast service and the old Breakfast News teams and systems) at 0830 because after this the content becomes far more entertainment-led, and is used to bridge BBC One from a predominantly news service to a daytime schedule. This is specific to BBC One and would not work on BBC News 24.
News 24 could leave at 0800 - but that would mean an even longer shift for the early N24 presenters.
TV
So the British Empire is dead - yet nobody remembered to tell the BBC!
And Burma is still oppressed, isn't it?
Yes, and the BBC is doing valuable work bringing news to those who otherwise don't know that their plight is being reported around the world. Why else is Burmese TV reporting that the BBC is a "Sky full of liers" every night.
Brekkie Boy posted:
archiveTV posted:
The BBC has a long tradition of bringing hope and truth to peoples of the world. From war torn Europe in the 1940's, through Soviet Russia, to the oppressed people of Burma today.
So the British Empire is dead - yet nobody remembered to tell the BBC!
And Burma is still oppressed, isn't it?
Yes, and the BBC is doing valuable work bringing news to those who otherwise don't know that their plight is being reported around the world. Why else is Burmese TV reporting that the BBC is a "Sky full of liers" every night.
IT
That's making it worse. As it stands, there are two operations until 0830 - Breakfast and BBC World. At 0830, the News 24 operation starts up. Under your proposal, the Breakfast and BBC World operations continue but News 24 starts half an hour earlier. That's actually adding expenditure, not cutting it back!
Actually, WBR now only airs at 2215 on BBC World.
You were not paying attention.
Currently, News 24 is live from 8.30am to 1am (I always thought 8.30 was an odd time to start.), which is a total of 16.5 hours. Under my proposal, the live time for News 24 would be 8am to 10pm, which is 14 hours, 2.5 hours less.
And as for the change of time, since the channel has commercial breaks, that edition of WBR can be aired on a 15 minute digital delay or similar.
OK, so under your proposal, News 24 is finishing earlier. However, the BBC World crew would have to work all night. You're just shifting around responsibility without saving much at all.
itsrobert
Founding member
cityprod posted:
itsrobert posted:
cityprod posted:
My suggestion for cutting spendings would be as follows.
Lose the 'Breakfast' simulcast as the programme fits BBC1 more than News 24. Replace it with a continuation of the BBC World simulcast until 8am, then begin the News 24 schedule here.
Lose the 'Breakfast' simulcast as the programme fits BBC1 more than News 24. Replace it with a continuation of the BBC World simulcast until 8am, then begin the News 24 schedule here.
That's making it worse. As it stands, there are two operations until 0830 - Breakfast and BBC World. At 0830, the News 24 operation starts up. Under your proposal, the Breakfast and BBC World operations continue but News 24 starts half an hour earlier. That's actually adding expenditure, not cutting it back!
cityprod posted:
The News 24 schedule ends at 10pm, with a simulcast of the Ten O'Clock News, followed by an airing of "World Business Report", which would have originally aired at 9.30pm UK on BBC World. Then the BBC World simulcast would begin with the 11pm UK airing of World News America.
Actually, WBR now only airs at 2215 on BBC World.
You were not paying attention.
Currently, News 24 is live from 8.30am to 1am (I always thought 8.30 was an odd time to start.), which is a total of 16.5 hours. Under my proposal, the live time for News 24 would be 8am to 10pm, which is 14 hours, 2.5 hours less.
And as for the change of time, since the channel has commercial breaks, that edition of WBR can be aired on a 15 minute digital delay or similar.
OK, so under your proposal, News 24 is finishing earlier. However, the BBC World crew would have to work all night. You're just shifting around responsibility without saving much at all.
MO
Aren't BBC World's crew working from 10pm to 1am anyway? So they're not getting extra responsibility under the proposal, just gaining UK viewers 2½ hours earlier than at present.
itsrobert posted:
OK, so under your proposal, News 24 is finishing earlier. However, the BBC World crew would have to work all night. You're just shifting around responsibility without saving much at all.
Aren't BBC World's crew working from 10pm to 1am anyway? So they're not getting extra responsibility under the proposal, just gaining UK viewers 2½ hours earlier than at present.
TI
So the British Empire is dead - yet nobody remembered to tell the BBC!
And Burma is still oppressed, isn't it?
Yes, and the BBC is doing valuable work bringing news to those who otherwise don't know that their plight is being reported around the world. Why else is Burmese TV reporting that the BBC is a "Sky full of liers" every night.
Indeed..international TV channels can be very effective ways of spreading a country's values, beliefs, etc - it's quite a clever use of cash in terms of the ability it has to spread a country's influence.
The BBC aren't unique in this either - the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade fund the Australia Network (a general entertainment channel, with news, run in a similar fashion to BBC World), Russia Today is funded by the Russion state news agency, and the French government fund France 24.
archiveTV posted:
Brekkie Boy posted:
archiveTV posted:
The BBC has a long tradition of bringing hope and truth to peoples of the world. From war torn Europe in the 1940's, through Soviet Russia, to the oppressed people of Burma today.
So the British Empire is dead - yet nobody remembered to tell the BBC!
And Burma is still oppressed, isn't it?
Yes, and the BBC is doing valuable work bringing news to those who otherwise don't know that their plight is being reported around the world. Why else is Burmese TV reporting that the BBC is a "Sky full of liers" every night.
The BBC aren't unique in this either - the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade fund the Australia Network (a general entertainment channel, with news, run in a similar fashion to BBC World), Russia Today is funded by the Russion state news agency, and the French government fund France 24.
IT
All of this is a waste of time. The BBC definately have the best news service. Look at BBC News clips and ITV News clips on their respective websites and you can clearly see a difference. They corispondents in many locations around the globe bringing great live news updates quicker than than anyone possibly could. Saving a couple of K will not justify the loss of Britains greatest news service. Also if they want cuts why launch a new 8 o'clock bulletin.
IT
Aren't BBC World's crew working from 10pm to 1am anyway? So they're not getting extra responsibility under the proposal, just gaining UK viewers 2½ hours earlier than at present.
But then who does 0100-0500? If News 24's day finishes at 2200, BBC World would have to do the complete overnight, whereas the World newsroom currently shuts down just after 0030.
itsrobert
Founding member
Moz posted:
itsrobert posted:
OK, so under your proposal, News 24 is finishing earlier. However, the BBC World crew would have to work all night. You're just shifting around responsibility without saving much at all.
Aren't BBC World's crew working from 10pm to 1am anyway? So they're not getting extra responsibility under the proposal, just gaining UK viewers 2½ hours earlier than at present.
But then who does 0100-0500? If News 24's day finishes at 2200, BBC World would have to do the complete overnight, whereas the World newsroom currently shuts down just after 0030.