The Newsroom

BBC NEWS CUTS

Cuts reactivated - P43 onwards (January 2020)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
MA
Markymark


Using that methodology, one could then question whether Sport should be on the News Channel, or even the Film Review, but people don't complain about those.


There's way too much sport on the BBC NC and Sky News IMHO, trying to grab some 'news' between HH:30 and HH:45 is quite tricky
BR
Brekkie


Using that methodology, one could then question whether Sport should be on the News Channel, or even the Film Review, but people don't complain about those.


There's way too much sport on the BBC NC and Sky News IMHO, trying to grab some 'news' between HH:30 and HH:45 is quite tricky

You have other news for the remaining 45 minutes of the hour. News, sport and weather have always come as a package.


In terms of cuts though I could see the early shift being cut on weekdays when it comes to sports news, though of course BBC World take sports news too (presumably using the same presenter) so it isn't a real saving if it continues there.
Last edited by Brekkie on 26 January 2020 6:05pm
MF
Matthew_Fieldhouse


Using that methodology, one could then question whether Sport should be on the News Channel, or even the Film Review, but people don't complain about those.


There's way too much sport on the BBC NC and Sky News IMHO, trying to grab some 'news' between HH:30 and HH:45 is quite tricky

Would you like them to constantly repeat the same 15 minutes of news throughout the hour? What alternative would you propose?
MA
Markymark


Using that methodology, one could then question whether Sport should be on the News Channel, or even the Film Review, but people don't complain about those.


There's way too much sport on the BBC NC and Sky News IMHO, trying to grab some 'news' between HH:30 and HH:45 is quite tricky

Would you like them to constantly repeat the same 15 minutes of news throughout the hour?


Well, actually yes! I thought that's the idea of rolling news?
LL
London Lite Founding member

There's way too much sport on the BBC NC and Sky News IMHO, trying to grab some 'news' between HH:30 and HH:45 is quite tricky

Would you like them to constantly repeat the same 15 minutes of news throughout the hour?


Well, actually yes! I thought that's the idea of rolling news?


We've been here before when Sky News did the tight wheel of news on a 20 min loop, it didn't last very long. Radio suits a short wheel of news much better.
MA
Markymark
Would you like them to constantly repeat the same 15 minutes of news throughout the hour?


Well, actually yes! I thought that's the idea of rolling news?


We've been here before when Sky News did the tight wheel of news on a 20 min loop, it didn't last very long. Radio suits a short wheel of news much better.


I agree, it's another thing that (UK) radio does better, but I do find both news channels have a shade too much reverence towards sports news.
SW
Steve Williams
Well, some interesting ideas in this thread, including merging BBC News with CBBC.

I'd drop BBC4 and put all that stuff back on BBC2, to make 2 do what it was set out to do to start with. BBC2 has become a lifestyle channel whereas what it used to do is now on BBC4. It's a ridiculous situation.


I think this is a sweeping statement most weeks, but particularly in this one when tonight at 9pm there's a ninety minute drama about the Holocaust and tomorrow at 9pm is a documentary about Belsen, while last week there was the documentary about population control which proved especially controversial.

I don't understand why people say BBC2 has "become a lifestyle channel", my first memories of watching BBC2 in the eighties come from my parents watching the DIY shows On The House and Tricks Of The Trade, plus Entertainment USA. BBC2 has always been the channel of Delia Smith and Gardeners World and Pot Black. They've had programmes like this since the channel began. And in the past they certainly weren't showing foreign films at 9pm, like BBC4 do now. Anyone who used to watch Moviedrome will remember having to set the video for gone midnight.

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.


Smart motorways is a perfectly legitimate topic for Panorama, transport infrastructure is a major issue - that's why we have a Department for Transport - and when BBC Parliament did that evening about railways a few years back there was an eighties Panorama about British Rail in the line-up. Transport is a major issue, and I see tonight's has been picked up by the papers.

They can't all be about arms dealing, and it's always been the case that Panorama mixes international stories with more domestic, populist stories. You can look at the most recent episodes - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t14n/episodes/guide - with reports on China, Saudi Arabia, modern slavery and war crimes. That's always been the case throughout its entire history. A diet of nothing but relentless foreign news would never attract big audiences which, at the end of the day, is the point of doing the programme.

Besides, the last time I watched Dispatches it was about train tickets, so it's hardly Panorama alone that's encouraging mass dumbing-down.
TR
trivialmatters
I think we're all missing the point here. There are only modest savings to be made by axing more programmes or reshuffling the news channel schedule.

What's needed now is a wholesale culture shift in the output to save money across every outlet. The talk about changes in the commissioning process will likely reflect this.

Start with:

- no live hits from correspondents for the channel or bulletins. ever. pre-record every hit and file it in, rather than sending a sat truck.

- don't present bulletins on location with the exception of low-cost live points such as Downing Street. there is no value in "tonight's show is coming from sort of near where there was a terror attack four days ago".

- no live interviews especially with politicians. pre-record them. the words "sorry we have run out of time" should be a thing of the past.

- no bespoke packages for programmes . it is wasteful to create a package that will air only on the 1pm news and never be seen again. create content that flourishes online but can also be recut for TV. the TV outlets need to accept they are an old medium now, swallow their pride and run online content.

They could also save some money by making the news channel less presenter-led, so in quiet periods you could run episodes of (e.g.) HardTalk quarter screen, with text stories on the other side of the screen, a bit like their "push back" graphics.
BFGArmy and JamesWorldNews gave kudos
IS
Inspector Sands

- no live hits from correspondents for the channel or bulletins. ever. pre-record every hit and file it in, rather than sending a sat truck.

A lot of live hits aren't done by sat truck, but with IP based systems, either mobile based or cheap semi automatic satellite based systems. The BBCs SNG fleet has been reduced significantly in the last few years and replaced with cheaper solutions


Although sending back a file takes less bandwidth (its not real time) in a lot of cases there's no cost difference to just use the same system to do a live. Sat trucks are used where there is something happening that's either important enough that they want good picture quality or reliability.

Apart from the cost of the fuel and wear and tear, in most cases sending a sat truck out doesn't cost extra, the engineers are on shift anyway and the truck and satellite space is paid for. They wouldn't want to get rid of the trucks and space altogether, there are plenty of events where to get live pictures back it's the only option


Quote:
- no live interviews especially with politicians. pre-record them. the words "sorry we have run out of time" should be a thing of the past.

Why would that save money? It would probably cost more as it would take edit time to get it to air

Quote:

no bespoke packages for programmes . it is wasteful to create a package that will air only on the 1pm news and never be seen again.

Does this actually happen? Normally the opposite is the problem, people complain that things a being shown too many times
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 27 January 2020 1:10pm - 4 times in total
AN
Andrew Founding member
Well, some interesting ideas in this thread, including merging BBC News with CBBC.

I'd drop BBC4 and put all that stuff back on BBC2, to make 2 do what it was set out to do to start with. BBC2 has become a lifestyle channel whereas what it used to do is now on BBC4. It's a ridiculous situation.


I think this is a sweeping statement most weeks, but particularly in this one when tonight at 9pm there's a ninety minute drama about the Holocaust and tomorrow at 9pm is a documentary about Belsen, while last week there was the documentary about population control which proved especially controversial.

I don't understand why people say BBC2 has "become a lifestyle channel", my first memories of watching BBC2 in the eighties come from my parents watching the DIY shows On The House and Tricks Of The Trade, plus Entertainment USA. BBC2 has always been the channel of Delia Smith and Gardeners World and Pot Black. They've had programmes like this since the channel began. And in the past they certainly weren't showing foreign films at 9pm, like BBC4 do now. Anyone who used to watch Moviedrome will remember having to set the video for gone midnight.

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.


Smart motorways is a perfectly legitimate topic for Panorama, transport infrastructure is a major issue - that's why we have a Department for Transport - and when BBC Parliament did that evening about railways a few years back there was an eighties Panorama about British Rail in the line-up. Transport is a major issue, and I see tonight's has been picked up by the papers.

They can't all be about arms dealing, and it's always been the case that Panorama mixes international stories with more domestic, populist stories. You can look at the most recent episodes - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t14n/episodes/guide - with reports on China, Saudi Arabia, modern slavery and war crimes. That's always been the case throughout its entire history. A diet of nothing but relentless foreign news would never attract big audiences which, at the end of the day, is the point of doing the programme.

Besides, the last time I watched Dispatches it was about train tickets, so it's hardly Panorama alone that's encouraging mass dumbing-down.

Tonight’s Panorama is sensationally titled “Britain’s Killer Motorways?’ Though.
SW
Steve Williams
Tonight’s Panorama is sensationally titled “Britain’s Killer Motorways?’ Though.


Well, I've had a quick look through the episodes of Panorama on Genome when the days fell the same as this year in 1986, and we've got this synopsis...
https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/bbcone/london/1986-01-13#at-21.30
The Thin Blue Line
Too scared to go out, a 73-year-old woman sits watching tv as thieves break in and steal her pension book. Down the road, a 50-year-old woman is raped as she walks home, elsewhere a 15-year-old boy is arrested for armed robbery. It's just a day in the life of an inner city borough where new research suggests that one in two houses will be hit by crime each year.
Tonight Panorama looks at whether police can hold the line in the war against crime.


Doesn't sound much different to me, sounds even more sensational. Two weeks later we have The Scout Who Smuggled Heroin and the week after, The Battle Over Britain's Babies.
https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/bbcone/london/1986-02-03#at-21.30

Why would that save money? It would probably cost more as it would take edit time to get it to air


Some of these ideas are reminding me of the bit in the Mary Whitehouse Experience book where they talk about kids coming up with energy saving ideas, and one of them suggests "don't eat toast".
MF
Matthew_Fieldhouse

- no live hits from correspondents for the channel or bulletins. ever. pre-record every hit and file it in, rather than sending a sat truck.

A lot of live hits aren't done by sat truck, but with IP based systems, either mobile based or cheap semi automatic satellite based systems. The BBCs SNG fleet has been reduced significantly in the last few years and replaced with cheaper solutions


Although sending back a file takes less bandwidth (its not real time) in a lot of cases there's no cost difference to just use the same system to do a live. Sat trucks are used where there is something happening that's either important enough that they want good picture quality or reliability.

Apart from the cost of the fuel and wear and tear, in most cases sending a sat truck out doesn't cost extra, the engineers are on shift anyway and the truck and satellite space is paid for. They wouldn't want to get rid of the trucks and space altogether, there are plenty of events where to get live pictures back it's the only option


Quote:
- no live interviews especially with politicians. pre-record them. the words "sorry we have run out of time" should be a thing of the past.

Why would that save money? It would probably cost more as it would take edit time to get it to air

Quote:

no bespoke packages for programmes . it is wasteful to create a package that will air only on the 1pm news and never be seen again.

Does this actually happen? Normally the opposite is the problem, people complain that things a being shown too many times

It happens with segments made for programmes like VD and Newsnight but not standard BBC News programmes

Newer posts