NJ
Panorama I believe had its budget significantly cut which is why it now seems to float around as a filler and deals with things like smart motorways, whereas previously it was more hard hitting. I dare say it now ticks a few boxes for current affairs coverage if nothing else, even if it does deal in "fluff" a lot of the time.
Neil Jones
Founding member
Panorama? A programme that is a half hour filler most weeks (tomorrow 30 mins on smart motorways) and seems to exist just because of its name and legacy. Would rejigging it as a real investigative journalism series that airs less frequently but with much higher prominence be a saving?
Panorama I believe had its budget significantly cut which is why it now seems to float around as a filler and deals with things like smart motorways, whereas previously it was more hard hitting. I dare say it now ticks a few boxes for current affairs coverage if nothing else, even if it does deal in "fluff" a lot of the time.
AN
Seen a lot of comments both now and previously saying it wouldn’t work to merge the News Channel with World News. They can (and at some point will probably have to) make it work.
Also I’d argue travel news isn’t as essential a part of everyone’s morning as you suggest. If I’m driving somewhere in the morning, or at any time for that matter, I use the maps on my phone and get the quickest route to avoid traffic.
Re: Breakfast and regional bulletins - they’ll never be dropped, an essential part of everyone’s morning especially the travel segment.
The merging of World and the NC was quashed the last time News came under review. It just wouldn’t work.
How many of us have moaned when Outside Source isn’t dropped when there’s huge breaking news happening, or how many of us have moaned when the channel hasn’t jumped on a breaking story fast enough.
The channel is a necessity however it’s consumed.
The News Channel is the ‘go to’ for Breaking News and without that, what else is there unless you switch channels.
The merging of World and the NC was quashed the last time News came under review. It just wouldn’t work.
How many of us have moaned when Outside Source isn’t dropped when there’s huge breaking news happening, or how many of us have moaned when the channel hasn’t jumped on a breaking story fast enough.
The channel is a necessity however it’s consumed.
The News Channel is the ‘go to’ for Breaking News and without that, what else is there unless you switch channels.
Seen a lot of comments both now and previously saying it wouldn’t work to merge the News Channel with World News. They can (and at some point will probably have to) make it work.
Also I’d argue travel news isn’t as essential a part of everyone’s morning as you suggest. If I’m driving somewhere in the morning, or at any time for that matter, I use the maps on my phone and get the quickest route to avoid traffic.
JK
Seen a lot of comments both now and previously saying it wouldn’t work to merge the News Channel with World News. They can (and at some point will probably have to) make it work.
Also I’d argue travel news isn’t as essential a part of everyone’s morning as you suggest. If I’m driving somewhere in the morning, or at any time for that matter, I use the maps on my phone and get the quickest route to avoid traffic.
Funding of World News is the problem with merging the two channels. BBC News Channel of course has no advertising and funded by our licence fee, BBC World News is commercially funded and includes advertising - if you merge the two channels into one, how exactly would that work in the case of advertising for the international sections? Thanks.
Re: Breakfast and regional bulletins - they’ll never be dropped, an essential part of everyone’s morning especially the travel segment.
The merging of World and the NC was quashed the last time News came under review. It just wouldn’t work.
How many of us have moaned when Outside Source isn’t dropped when there’s huge breaking news happening, or how many of us have moaned when the channel hasn’t jumped on a breaking story fast enough.
The channel is a necessity however it’s consumed.
The News Channel is the ‘go to’ for Breaking News and without that, what else is there unless you switch channels.
The merging of World and the NC was quashed the last time News came under review. It just wouldn’t work.
How many of us have moaned when Outside Source isn’t dropped when there’s huge breaking news happening, or how many of us have moaned when the channel hasn’t jumped on a breaking story fast enough.
The channel is a necessity however it’s consumed.
The News Channel is the ‘go to’ for Breaking News and without that, what else is there unless you switch channels.
Seen a lot of comments both now and previously saying it wouldn’t work to merge the News Channel with World News. They can (and at some point will probably have to) make it work.
Also I’d argue travel news isn’t as essential a part of everyone’s morning as you suggest. If I’m driving somewhere in the morning, or at any time for that matter, I use the maps on my phone and get the quickest route to avoid traffic.
Funding of World News is the problem with merging the two channels. BBC News Channel of course has no advertising and funded by our licence fee, BBC World News is commercially funded and includes advertising - if you merge the two channels into one, how exactly would that work in the case of advertising for the international sections? Thanks.
JK
Worth noting he was paid around £1.75M in both the 2018/19 and 2017/18 financial years according to the BBCs own lists. Considering the recent equal pay verdict I imagine there might be some pressure to cut his salary before others start asking for an equal wage.
I really can't imagine MOTD getting axed any time soon. However spending less money on the presenter and pundits might be an option. Going off-topic I wonder how many stars are glad they're now paid via BBC Studios, so don't have their (high) salaries disclosed anymore.
If BBC stars are paid via BBC Studios, does this mean BBC Studios uses commercial money to pay those salaries, as BBC Studios says they are the commercial arm of the BBC and are funded through commercial activity.
Cut Gary Linekers wages he can go back to promoting a famous crisp company.
Worth noting he was paid around £1.75M in both the 2018/19 and 2017/18 financial years according to the BBCs own lists. Considering the recent equal pay verdict I imagine there might be some pressure to cut his salary before others start asking for an equal wage.
I really can't imagine MOTD getting axed any time soon. However spending less money on the presenter and pundits might be an option. Going off-topic I wonder how many stars are glad they're now paid via BBC Studios, so don't have their (high) salaries disclosed anymore.
If BBC stars are paid via BBC Studios, does this mean BBC Studios uses commercial money to pay those salaries, as BBC Studios says they are the commercial arm of the BBC and are funded through commercial activity.
CR
I think advertising also creates a logistical headache as it leads to there being a fair few minor differences between the News Channel and World News which make it awkward to bring them together.
For example, all World News shows appear to be approx. 26 minutes in duration, whereas there's no fixed duration generally on the News Channel. Occasionally when they bring the two channels together they leave a pause at 26m for WN to opt-out and then carry on for the News Channel, but more often than not both channels end the programme there, and the NC goes to a long weather forecast and a few minutes of promos to plug the gap. This often leads to nearly 10 minutes an hour where the News Channel isn't actually showing a programme!
The ad break around quarter past/quarter to on WN shows also always comes across as awkward when watching in the UK too; on Outside Source for example they do a 'coming up' sequence then play a sting for World News to go to ads, whilst in the UK there's a long-ish hold on the end of the sting before the presenter awkwardly reappears and introduces a UK-specific story before throwing to a VT. This VT is rarely the right duration for the break slot and so is often cut off suddenly to go to the sting that marks the end of the break, at which point the presenter tends to say 'welcome back', even though viewers in the UK haven't gone anywhere!
Thirdly, during Overnights at the BOTH after the one-minute headline summary, the presenter reappears after the sting to link into the next programme. Sometimes they'll give a summary of the top story in the UK first, which presumably is to plug the gap where World News are showing an ident and then perhaps a sponsorship sting for the next programme?
Ultimately, all of the above just create lots of stops and starts which are jarring for UK viewers as they're not necessary, and whilst they're all problems that can be overcome, at the moment not much thought seems to given to how programmes shared across the two channels can be a seamless experience for both.
Funding of World News is the problem with merging the two channels. BBC News Channel of course has no advertising and funded by our licence fee, BBC World News is commercially funded and includes advertising - if you merge the two channels into one, how exactly would that work in the case of advertising for the international sections? Thanks.
I think advertising also creates a logistical headache as it leads to there being a fair few minor differences between the News Channel and World News which make it awkward to bring them together.
For example, all World News shows appear to be approx. 26 minutes in duration, whereas there's no fixed duration generally on the News Channel. Occasionally when they bring the two channels together they leave a pause at 26m for WN to opt-out and then carry on for the News Channel, but more often than not both channels end the programme there, and the NC goes to a long weather forecast and a few minutes of promos to plug the gap. This often leads to nearly 10 minutes an hour where the News Channel isn't actually showing a programme!
The ad break around quarter past/quarter to on WN shows also always comes across as awkward when watching in the UK too; on Outside Source for example they do a 'coming up' sequence then play a sting for World News to go to ads, whilst in the UK there's a long-ish hold on the end of the sting before the presenter awkwardly reappears and introduces a UK-specific story before throwing to a VT. This VT is rarely the right duration for the break slot and so is often cut off suddenly to go to the sting that marks the end of the break, at which point the presenter tends to say 'welcome back', even though viewers in the UK haven't gone anywhere!
Thirdly, during Overnights at the BOTH after the one-minute headline summary, the presenter reappears after the sting to link into the next programme. Sometimes they'll give a summary of the top story in the UK first, which presumably is to plug the gap where World News are showing an ident and then perhaps a sponsorship sting for the next programme?
Ultimately, all of the above just create lots of stops and starts which are jarring for UK viewers as they're not necessary, and whilst they're all problems that can be overcome, at the moment not much thought seems to given to how programmes shared across the two channels can be a seamless experience for both.
AN
Nobody said it’d be simple, but keeping the News Channel running in order to avoid a few jarring stops and starts? The most jarring of all is at the weekend when they have to stop everything to include a 5 minute BBC One bulletin.
There are plenty of times already where the News Channel and World News merge, that doesn’t seem to cause an issue with funding.
There are plenty of times already where the News Channel and World News merge, that doesn’t seem to cause an issue with funding.
CR
I'm not saying that the current somewhat messy way the two channels comes together means that merging the two channels isn't feasible, nor that it should be a reason for keeping it going, but simply that there'd have to be some thought afforded to making a combined channel work for both UK viewers and for overseas. If you're losing around 10 minutes an hour just so the rest of the world can watch adverts then I can see BBC-bashers having a field day complaining that the licence fee payer is being shortchanged by it all!
GL
Im sure the News Channels closure won’t be announced this week, but anyone saying ‘It’ll never happen’ are deluded. This is the first of what will probably be a decade of cuts. The current Government is looking to reign the broadcaster in and ease the financial burden of the license fee on individuals. Trust me. Within a decade the BBC will be very much slimmed down to a couple of TV channels, a couple of radio stations and an online presence. Worth noting this same debate is happening across Europe right now. Denmark’s DR has been fighting a daily battle to save services and in Sweden the news channel was cut years ago.
SJ
I wondered if the new expanded approach to BBC News on iPlayer (promoted when the red button services closed) portended the closure of the news channel—but it still feels like a bolder move than the BBC has been making in recent years to me. I don't think anyone would be surprised to see a 'Victoria Derbyshire' strand on the new iPlayer service, though.
LL
As far as I'm aware, the NC simulcasts 8.5 hours on weekdays, this includes Newsday from 12-2am, 2-5 Mike Embley, The Briefing 5-6am, Worklife 8.30-9am, Beyond 100 Days 7-8pm, Outside Source 9-10pm.
The NC only hours are from 9am-7pm, 8-9pm, 10-midnight which is 13 hours (including BBC1 main bulletins and VD), excluding Breakfast.
London Lite
Founding member
the news channel is just too cut down spends most of its time simulcasting BBC World News, its time for the News channel to go.
As far as I'm aware, the NC simulcasts 8.5 hours on weekdays, this includes Newsday from 12-2am, 2-5 Mike Embley, The Briefing 5-6am, Worklife 8.30-9am, Beyond 100 Days 7-8pm, Outside Source 9-10pm.
The NC only hours are from 9am-7pm, 8-9pm, 10-midnight which is 13 hours (including BBC1 main bulletins and VD), excluding Breakfast.