LO
I think these comments should be part of the much wider debate, as to what television will look like in ten years time. If we look back ten years ago BBC iplayer was relatively new and Netflix was very much in its infancy which many thinking it would not last. In the years that followed regular TV has declined as more and more people watch programmes around their own schedule rather than when it suits the TV execs. It seems logical that this decline will continue over the next ten years, which will likely see the consolidation of main television channels to save on money.
It seems logical that news would follow this. I can see the news bulletins evolving in a similar way. I can imagine that news would be more interactive, so people find out about the stories which really matter to them, this can then be consumed when it convenient, such at 6.10pm or 6.45pm. You could still have a presenter linking stories and conducting interviews, but these are recorded links. People will then find out which story they want to watch and those stories are then played. This will the news running order can be prioritised to the individual. This is not likely to lead to any 'cuts' but rather investment and the redistribution of job roles, this is the same that is happening in any other work industry.
The retention of a singular news bulletin, will then be in place to cater for audiences who do not wish to view the news in this manner. It seems right that the top executives would have these sorts of plans in the back of their mind, whether this will materialise in the timescale is accurate is not clear, but this is being driven very much by the consumer.
It seems logical that news would follow this. I can see the news bulletins evolving in a similar way. I can imagine that news would be more interactive, so people find out about the stories which really matter to them, this can then be consumed when it convenient, such at 6.10pm or 6.45pm. You could still have a presenter linking stories and conducting interviews, but these are recorded links. People will then find out which story they want to watch and those stories are then played. This will the news running order can be prioritised to the individual. This is not likely to lead to any 'cuts' but rather investment and the redistribution of job roles, this is the same that is happening in any other work industry.
The retention of a singular news bulletin, will then be in place to cater for audiences who do not wish to view the news in this manner. It seems right that the top executives would have these sorts of plans in the back of their mind, whether this will materialise in the timescale is accurate is not clear, but this is being driven very much by the consumer.
IT
The thing is, though, how much of that is just unnecessary hot air to fill time? Back in the days before any kind of news channels, there were still interviews and analysis - but they were provided as part of well crafted reports on the network bulletins. Most of the time interviews are pointless and at the most there might be one soundbite that comes out of an interview. That used to be clipped up and inserted into the network bulletin. And extended analysis is the reason why Newsnight started - that was intended as a much more in-depth analytical news programme to complement the main network bulletins.
I for one would be happy to lose the hours and hours and hours of relentless filler on the 24 hour news channels in favour of absolutely top notch network news, backed up by more in-depth news online.
itsrobert
Founding member
If you look at the flagship bulletins on BBC News Channel (Newsroom Live, Afternoon Live) BBC World News (Impact, Global, Outside Source, WNT, Beyond 100 Days) they are in rolling format with mix of long reports, interviews and analysis, pack a lot into half an hour compared to 'rigid' BBC One bulletins, the Nine & Five are better formats
The thing is, though, how much of that is just unnecessary hot air to fill time? Back in the days before any kind of news channels, there were still interviews and analysis - but they were provided as part of well crafted reports on the network bulletins. Most of the time interviews are pointless and at the most there might be one soundbite that comes out of an interview. That used to be clipped up and inserted into the network bulletin. And extended analysis is the reason why Newsnight started - that was intended as a much more in-depth analytical news programme to complement the main network bulletins.
I for one would be happy to lose the hours and hours and hours of relentless filler on the 24 hour news channels in favour of absolutely top notch network news, backed up by more in-depth news online.
CH
This. If anything the move to streaming for other genres means more news for linear, not less.
Output is much cheaper than input - the 6 are 10 are practically the same programme and if you ditched one, you’d still have the same newsgathering costs.
I disagree with Unsworth’s assertion for that reason, as well as that I think curation will still be desired. Will the nature of the programmes change? Undoubtedly they’ll become more analytical, with people already knowing what’s happened during the day online.
The Six or Ten won't go for the same reason News at Ten kept coming back - they're expensive to replace with little reward.
This. If anything the move to streaming for other genres means more news for linear, not less.
Output is much cheaper than input - the 6 are 10 are practically the same programme and if you ditched one, you’d still have the same newsgathering costs.
I disagree with Unsworth’s assertion for that reason, as well as that I think curation will still be desired. Will the nature of the programmes change? Undoubtedly they’ll become more analytical, with people already knowing what’s happened during the day online.
CM
Is it somewhat just a case of the BBC telling itself what might happen when in reality nobody has really thought massively about it?
If anything I agree with posts above that rolling news is more at threat - particularly considering the fact that more recently I can find out something quicker on my phone than on the news channel. The issue with that is (again as mentioned above) people reading news from only sources that fits their views. The BBC should focus on this and ensure that fair and balanced news, whether it be them, ITV or Sky, get the light of day. They should do this whilst also working on tv news and their (slightly) older audiences.
If anything I agree with posts above that rolling news is more at threat - particularly considering the fact that more recently I can find out something quicker on my phone than on the news channel. The issue with that is (again as mentioned above) people reading news from only sources that fits their views. The BBC should focus on this and ensure that fair and balanced news, whether it be them, ITV or Sky, get the light of day. They should do this whilst also working on tv news and their (slightly) older audiences.
BR
Right now I think there is too much news on BBC One and that's purely down to cost savings. I would rather they go back to having less news but at more suitable times. In my view, they should prioritise breakfast, lunchtime and evening, purely because that is when most people will have the opportunity to watch it. Basically what they were doing for decades!!
I think Lorraine moving on ITV has kind of allowed BBC1 to get away with the hour of news at 9am - it offers a true alternative and actually complements Breakfast rather than repeats it. Crucially being on BBC1 rather than BBC2 delivers a true cost saving too - they've been able to cut 45 minutes of new daytime programming most days - roughly speaking you'd expect new shows to feature at 9.15 and 11.00am prior to Covid, and now that has been reduced to one slot at 10am.
10am - 1pm on BBC2 is another matter - even cutting that first hour would make a difference, especially once Politics Live returns. If they still want an extra simulcast hour I'd then opt for 3pm or 4pm.
I do question whether BBC One really needs more news in the schedules as some here have suggested, Surely with Breakfast, BBC News at 9 and the usual bulletins, there's more than enough news in the schedules. If anything, they probably will drop News at 9 in the near future.
Right now I think there is too much news on BBC One and that's purely down to cost savings. I would rather they go back to having less news but at more suitable times. In my view, they should prioritise breakfast, lunchtime and evening, purely because that is when most people will have the opportunity to watch it. Basically what they were doing for decades!!
I think Lorraine moving on ITV has kind of allowed BBC1 to get away with the hour of news at 9am - it offers a true alternative and actually complements Breakfast rather than repeats it. Crucially being on BBC1 rather than BBC2 delivers a true cost saving too - they've been able to cut 45 minutes of new daytime programming most days - roughly speaking you'd expect new shows to feature at 9.15 and 11.00am prior to Covid, and now that has been reduced to one slot at 10am.
10am - 1pm on BBC2 is another matter - even cutting that first hour would make a difference, especially once Politics Live returns. If they still want an extra simulcast hour I'd then opt for 3pm or 4pm.
NL
It’s a good point but it runs the risk of flights of fancy or even diverting into fantasy schedules. If there was a thread dedicated to such a discussion withthen I would be happy to contribute.
I think these comments should be part of the much wider debate, as to what television will look like in ten years time. If we look back ten years ago BBC iplayer was relatively new and Netflix was very much in its infancy which many thinking it would not last. In the years that followed regular TV has declined as more and more people watch programmes around their own schedule rather than when it suits the TV execs. It seems logical that this decline will continue over the next ten years, which will likely see the consolidation of main television channels to save on money.
It seems logical that news would follow this. I can see the news bulletins evolving in a similar way. I can imagine that news would be more interactive, so people find out about the stories which really matter to them, this can then be consumed when it convenient, such at 6.10pm or 6.45pm. You could still have a presenter linking stories and conducting interviews, but these are recorded links. People will then find out which story they want to watch and those stories are then played. This will the news running order can be prioritised to the individual. This is not likely to lead to any 'cuts' but rather investment and the redistribution of job roles, this is the same that is happening in any other work industry.
The retention of a singular news bulletin, will then be in place to cater for audiences who do not wish to view the news in this manner. It seems right that the top executives would have these sorts of plans in the back of their mind, whether this will materialise in the timescale is accurate is not clear, but this is being driven very much by the consumer.
It seems logical that news would follow this. I can see the news bulletins evolving in a similar way. I can imagine that news would be more interactive, so people find out about the stories which really matter to them, this can then be consumed when it convenient, such at 6.10pm or 6.45pm. You could still have a presenter linking stories and conducting interviews, but these are recorded links. People will then find out which story they want to watch and those stories are then played. This will the news running order can be prioritised to the individual. This is not likely to lead to any 'cuts' but rather investment and the redistribution of job roles, this is the same that is happening in any other work industry.
The retention of a singular news bulletin, will then be in place to cater for audiences who do not wish to view the news in this manner. It seems right that the top executives would have these sorts of plans in the back of their mind, whether this will materialise in the timescale is accurate is not clear, but this is being driven very much by the consumer.
It’s a good point but it runs the risk of flights of fancy or even diverting into fantasy schedules. If there was a thread dedicated to such a discussion withthen I would be happy to contribute.
AN
Well if this thread has taught me one thing, it’s that TVF doesn’t understand that someone predicting what might happen in the future (even saying that she might be wrong) doesn’t mean that it will. Things evolve.
Of course things will look different in 10 years time, and it is perfectly reasonable for someone in Unsworth’s position to discuss what that might look like. It’s no different to say the boss of Tesco speculating that the majority of people might pay using their phone in ten years time. Things don’t stand still, no matter how much you can’t bear the thought of Huw no longer standing there on the catwalk reading the top story.
Of course things will look different in 10 years time, and it is perfectly reasonable for someone in Unsworth’s position to discuss what that might look like. It’s no different to say the boss of Tesco speculating that the majority of people might pay using their phone in ten years time. Things don’t stand still, no matter how much you can’t bear the thought of Huw no longer standing there on the catwalk reading the top story.
NL
Off course there’s no certainty that things will evolve that way. There’s no guarantee about tv.
One of my original points was that it seemed a bit odd or even ominous that the interview took place in the aftermath of the combined negative news of the licence fee and the recent survey giving the beeb a low reliability score.
Being cynical it’s possible to assume that the interview could have been some kind of reposte to the news.
If (and I must emphasise) if it is then it’s a bit of a strop.
One of my original points was that it seemed a bit odd or even ominous that the interview took place in the aftermath of the combined negative news of the licence fee and the recent survey giving the beeb a low reliability score.
Being cynical it’s possible to assume that the interview could have been some kind of reposte to the news.
If (and I must emphasise) if it is then it’s a bit of a strop.
CI
Fran Unsworth has proved only one thing. She hasn't got a clue. There is absolutely no way in hell that linear broadcasting will be replaced entirely by on demand. It just isn't going to happen. And there's precedent for it, many many years of precident.
When Cinemas became the thing, people said that live theatre would die. Nope, it didn't.
When radio became a thing, it was again stated that this would end up killing off live theatre. Not even close.
When television became popular, it was said that it would kill off both radio and the cinema. That ain't happened.
What Satellite & Cable became the in thing, it was predicted that terrestrial television would die. Starting to see a pattern here???
When internet radio became a thing, it was predicted that over the air radio would die, that DAB was Dead & Buried. Err, Nope.
Idiots make stupid predictions that never come true, and Fran Unsworth just proved she's the latest idiot to predict the demise of something, that in fact isn't going to die. Like so many other media before them, linear TV will evolve, and become a more live proudced product, much like it used to be. But it sure as hell ain't gonna die.
When Cinemas became the thing, people said that live theatre would die. Nope, it didn't.
When radio became a thing, it was again stated that this would end up killing off live theatre. Not even close.
When television became popular, it was said that it would kill off both radio and the cinema. That ain't happened.
What Satellite & Cable became the in thing, it was predicted that terrestrial television would die. Starting to see a pattern here???
When internet radio became a thing, it was predicted that over the air radio would die, that DAB was Dead & Buried. Err, Nope.
Idiots make stupid predictions that never come true, and Fran Unsworth just proved she's the latest idiot to predict the demise of something, that in fact isn't going to die. Like so many other media before them, linear TV will evolve, and become a more live proudced product, much like it used to be. But it sure as hell ain't gonna die.
BR
Loose lips create newspaper headlines.
Now it'll probably play into the hands of the #DefundTheBBC brigade - so angry that the BBC might lose their national bulletins that they want to see the BBC not be given the money to make them.
MIRROR: Beeb TV news doomed #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/725O7LGPwn
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) August 20, 2020
Now it'll probably play into the hands of the #DefundTheBBC brigade - so angry that the BBC might lose their national bulletins that they want to see the BBC not be given the money to make them.