BBC News - General

It is a tiny desk only suitable for a single presenter - you wouldn't be able to have a sports presenter on-set as well. You'd also be limited to a single camera shot for the entire bulletin - so any interviews would have to be done using boxes.



The cost is far from minimal if you have to rebuild the gallery to allow this low level of staffing. The studio is a "main" TV Centre studio with separate lighting gallery, sound gallery and production gallery, as well as a full sized studio. This requires more staff to operate it. The regional studios/galleries were built with this in mind. The studio in question at TV Centre wasn't...

It wouldn't be suitable for the main BBC1 bulletins, but could perhaps be used on Saturday for the short lunchtime bulletins - and even on News 24 for short periods to give the BBC1 team a bit more time in advance of their bulletin.


Re: Galleries - I hope with all this work going on now it'll ensure the galleries are much more flexible in the future.

I refer you back to Noggin's post - it's the gallery crew that you would need - that's the problem, not a single cso set.

This is what doesn't make sense - and needs to be rectified. They can do an OB from seemingly anywhere in the world, but a bulletin from a few feet down the corridor is considered impossible.

Then you are naïve.

I don't think that comment was justified. Brekkie was making a reasonable point about the questionable decisions that have apparently been made regarding quantity and allocation of galleries. When the ITV News Channel apparently had a more flexible set-up that allowed for better use of studio facilities, it seems bizarre that BBC News would opt for such a restrictive choice - although less so when it is clear that the choice has been made on purely financial grounds.

Most people can see that in most of the choices that have been made (that we know of), there is evidence that the cheaper solution has been chosen over the better or more practical solution. We have already seen the impact that News 24 has suffered by being forced to continually accommodate BBC One bulletins.

I don't think it's unfair to highlight this point - that, rightly or wrongly, the BBC has made choices that have in some minds impacted upon the quality of both the National and News 24 services - and to call someone naive for doing so seems pretty ignorant at best.

If you park an OB truck outside you can... (Anyone who has ever tried to do a live from somewhere other than a normal studio at TVC will tell you how painful it is to do it WITHOUT a truck...)

Many here seem to ignore the very real issue that running more studios and galleries requires more staff, and don't seem to understand that just because some set-ups can run on low numbers of staff, that doesn't mean all studios and galleries can - and nor does it mean that they can be engineered to do that AND do programmes in a more conventionally staffed, higher quality, and more flexible manner.

ITN ran two studios and two galleries to make the ITV1/ITV News Channel mix work - but in a flexible manner (with either studio capable of working to either gallery) after all... They didn't re-engineer one gallery and one studio to do both.

But the WHOLE point of the changes is to make the major cost savings the BBC has to make to continue under a licence fee settlement that is much lower than expected. It is a basic question of saving money in studios and galleries, or saving it by closing overseas bureaux, and cutting services.

If you were working out how to start from scratch, or had a blank cheque book, you would obviously do things differently. The BBC are not in this situation - they have to work with existing galleries and studios in the locations they are in, and with a very restricted purse...



Yep - welcome to the new, low-cost, BBC News...



I think the suggestion of being naive was made at the assumption that huge galleries can work in a low staffed manner AND a normal manner - and the suggestion that running a studio with fewer staff wouldn't cost much to do. (When in fact it would cost a lot to re-engineer a large gallery to work in this manner, and could compromise the quality of the studio when in a normally staffed manner)

Of course, I completely appreciate and understand that, and I assure you that I don't need that point explained.

I realise that the overall purpose of the restructure of human resources and delivery of services is to ensure a more focused and organised BBC that can deliver significant savings over the next few years, and that this must by necessity extend to the BBC News operation.

But I question the wisdom of imposing such severe savings targets on BBC News that its quality is eroded. For some of the changes that are being made, it is blatantly obvious that problems will arise, while in other areas, the negative effects of changes are already being seen.

It seems self-defeating to enforce cuts to the point that the service is forced to make do with what they've got, rather than having the resources that would be genuinely useful - not frivolous or luxurious, but of real use - to make the delivery of BBC News services of the best possible quality.

I think that a great part of the success that BBC News has enjoyed, and of the respect that it is afforded through its unparallelled reputation, is down to an inherent drive within its workforce to do the very best job possible, while maintaining rigorous standards. I think it will be very difficult to maintain that level of drive among staff while tying their hands at the same time.

Don't get me wrong - I realise that cuts are necessary, and in many ways long overdue. The golden age of Dyke raised expectations within the BBC that the Corporation had a licence to print money, in a media environment where the way that people receive their entertainment was already changing, and where digital technologies changed the ways that television was made and delivered - this meant that the BBC could no longer justify such casual spending at a time when commercial organisations were getting leaner and more focused on the new digital age.

The spending of the Dyke days could never be justified under a new licence fee settlement, and for all the gasping and shock that accompanied the announcement of the final actual licence fee settlement, it was really no great surprise that the DCMS would tell the BBC to start reaching down the back of the sofa.

However, I still think that some departments need to be given some room to manoeuvre with the savings targets, to avoid excessive cuts which may damage the reputations of BBC brands and programmes.

noggin & BBC LDN's latest novel is out on Thursday and available from Waterstones at a discount to anyone who knows Asa.

Incidentally, where was that set that was used for sport on News 24? Was that just a corner of N8 with a different set or was it a different studio with its own gallery?

Fair enough. I didn't realise the gallery would have to be reubilt in order to do this, instead I thought that it would just be a case of doubling up roles on the gallery, although obviously this isn't the case.

It appears that there is no real alternative to the current set up then as the problem is with the gallery, not the location, and everywhere there is a gallery requires a full set of staff and ends up costing as much as before. Looks like we'll just have to make do