I'd certainly axe the late Sunday bulletin, though more as a scheduling decision than to save money. I wouldn't favour axing other editions but axing the first Breakfast insert at 6.25am could knock 30 minutes off the wage bill every day which would add up - purely ill-informed guess work here but if there are 100 people across all regions involved that's 250 hours a week wages saved, though at 12,500 hours over the year you see it's just a drop in the ocean of the £40m that needs to be saved. Realistically though I could see the regional news being axed from Breakfast on Bank Holidays, though more serious savings would come from not airing Breakfast itself.
Away from news if cuts are coming across the BBC as I said when Matt Baker quit I wouldn't be surprised if The One Show becomes single headed.
Axing regional news bulletins during Breakfast, late evenings and Saturdays. Reduce the Sunday bulletins to one early evening only.
Reduce Newsnight to 30 minutes on Mon-Thurs, extended during elections, specials etc.
More collaboration between different BBC News programmes on tv and radio. Instead of internal rivalry, teams will agree to share copy and guests.
BBC World News to be simulcast on the NC during Breakfast. The signed segment would move to linear Red Button and iPlayer.
Again, World News to be simulcast during the 1, 6 and 10 giving an alternative to domestic news on the NC.
Outside Source replaced by World News Today.
Breakfast to go single headed at weekends with the back half hour being World filler.
Today to be simulcast on BBC Two, followed by Your Call on 5 Live, then NC simulcast from 10-12. (11.15 on Wednesday).
Ringfenced: Today and PM on Radio 4, 5 Live Breakfast and drive, weekday editions of Breakfast, the news at 1, 6 and 10, the existing NC only daytime output, BBC News online, weekday daytime and main regional bulletins, The Nine/Seven, Newsbeat and World News output.
Why drop the local news from Breakfast? Surely that's a time when viewers actually need some of the info that they provide. Does news never happen on a Friday, is that why Newsnight isn't needed on a Friday?
How does simulcasting World News on NC save any money when it's already simulcasting BBC Breakfast from BBC 1?
Also take issue with some of the ringfenced content. Ten or so years ago, I would have agreed about the 5 Live content, but not anymore. The station is a mess and lacks a true identity. There has been talk of brand extensions, like a rolling news service and a sport service, isn't that what 5 live is supposed to be?
The regional news content is minimal with content available online for those who desperately need travel and weather. In any case, the audience is more likely to get that information while listening to radio. It saves on a presenter and a tech-op. Axing Breakfast and late bulletins would lead to one crew for the lunch and evening bulletins where viewers are more likely to watch.
Offering WN would provide more choice while saving on wasteful duplication of the Breakfast programme.
Newsnight would continue to be on Friday as now for 30 mins.
Your opinion on 5 Live is subjective, it offers an 'easier' listen for listeners who find Today too analytical. Both are important PSB programmes covering different audiences.
Axing regional news bulletins during Breakfast, late evenings and Saturdays. Reduce the Sunday bulletins to one early evening only.
No. Lots of people (myself included) don't get home until after 7
The content on the late news is largely identical to the 1830. To the point that it's more of a 'best of' with the occasional correspondent in to do a two way. Watching iPlayer when you get in from work is more credible than keeping a crew in until 10.35pm.
Well yes, of course the BBC have a 'thing' about their news being presented live (something ITV have come to terms with in the pursuit of saving money) I agree the 22:30 stuff is just the 18:30 'reheated'
Why not just have someone chop down a recording of the 18:30 hrs show, to 7 mins and play it out at 22:30 ?
My suggestions would include extending the world news simulcast on BBC One and BBC News in the early mornings until between 06:30 and 07:00 as the amounts of viewers awake at these times is no greater than late in the evening which is already simulcast and additionally because WN is already focused on Europe at this time of day. As this would allow breakfast to start later I would either extend it on BBC One and the NC to 10:00 in order to cut the daytime budget or finish it at 09:00 on BBC One so that the Salford team can continue on the NC until 10:00. I would also reduce Newsnight to be broadcast for 30 minutes and on Mondays-Wednesday's only (as the viewer base is watching question time on Thursdays and the programme tends to be light on content on Friday's in any case).
Another possibility would be to simulcast politics live on the NC and get the morning NC presenter to also present the One (which is no different to a typical NC half hour except for an in studio weather forecast) so that one presenter can cover from 10:00-14:00. Furthermore I would scrap the Five and extend Afternoon Live until 6 or simulcast with World between 17:00 and 18:00.
I would also scrap the need for a sports presenter on weekdays with any important stories being covered by the main presenter and the less important ones being dropped (there is no need for 3 reports back to back on the Australian open for example) but maintain a business presenter in a similar role to a present.
At weekends simulcast with world until 08:00 and then have a single headed version of breakfast from Salford until 10:00 on BBC One and 12:00 on the NC on a Saturday and scrap breakfast completely on Sunday with the extra hour absorbed into the London NC rota. I would also drop the Saturday edition of PM and make the Saturday version of Today and weekend breakfast on 5 Live single headed.
On radio I would turn 5 live into an opt of world service with only its own breakfast and drives shows (and any sports opts needed) and also simulcast this with radio 4 and local radio overnight. I would combine the news bulletins on radio 2, radio 3 and radio 6 music and also on radio 1 and 1 extra during evenings and weekends, but would maintain Newsbeat during weekday daytimes.
Outside of News I would close the linear red button and BBC Scotland in their entirety, would reduce some sports coverage noticeably giving up Wimbledon as producing coverage of 15 courts some of which are watched by a handful of people at best is not even close to a good use of resources. I would merge BBC 4 into BBC 2, would create a distinct strand for BBC3 on BBC2 between 22:00 and midnight on Thursdays and Fridays, reduce the numbers of programmes in genres well covered elsewhere such as period dramas and weight loss documentaries. I would also make 6 Music a part time station so that it only broadcasts between 7am and 7pm Monday-Friday and 9am-5pm at weekends, would close down all AM radio frequencies outside of rural areas that cannot recieve a FM or DAB signal.
Wow, where to start with this mess! Firstly Radio 1 and 1xtra already share news 7 days a week, and don't have many updates after 5.45 Newsbeat during the week anyway, so there's no savings there. Apart from weekday breakfast on Radio 2, the same presenter does Radio 2 and 6 Music news, one on the hour, one on the half hour, so no saving there.
Why does 6 Music have to be reduced to those silly times? Why not Radio 3? Or Radio 2? Is that because you're not a listener of 6 Music?
The first half hour of weekday Breakfast is in my opinion the most news focused of the whole show, handling the developing overnight stories, newspaper reviews, sport, weather and local news. I take it, you're not up before 7, unlike so many viewers?
While i agree that something needs to be done about the content on 5 live, your idea of being an opt out service from the World service doesn't work. If you are going to cut it down so much, just close it!
I'm also getting the feeling that you aren't a tennis fan, mentioning the Australian Open and pointless Wimbledon coverage, but Wimbledon is one of the BBC's crown jewels.
I mean personally I'd scrap radio 3 completely but that'd never happen (despite the existence of both classic FM and Scala making it unnecessary). Whatever it's listeners may think 6 music has already been proposed for closure once and the scale of the cuts needed now mean that it should go completely so reducing it to the times that radio has its highest audience is probably the best that people should hope for. Furthermore Radio 2 has specialist content for much of the evening making it unnecessary duplication during those times.
The fact that people can get away with suggesting that match of the day should be scrapped but the first mention of reducing tennis coverage is overly criticised just highlights one of the biggest problems at the BBC, which it that it wants to make content for middle aged (and older) middle class people and doesn't know how to cater for anyone else. Whatever some may want to believe Tennis is a dying sport that is increasingly the domain of the privately educated and Wimbledon would get coverage on another channel if the BBC dropped it making its position on BBC nonviable in my opinion.
I mean arguing that the first half hour of breakfast being the most news focused means it shouldn't be replaced by news is rather strange and the amount of people awake at 06:00 is now no larger than at the times in the evening the NC simulcast begins so it is strange that people are so against the simulcast of world being extended in the morning but don't seem to care about how early it starts in the evening (unless let again the fact those awake early tend to be older and richer means the people in charge think they are more important). Quite frankly the numbers of people who would turn over because it was Sally Bundock reading the news at 06:00 rather than Dan and Louise could almost certainly be counted on one hand and I can only assume you have never been awake during the night if you think a world simulcast means the weather updates disappear.
Unfortunately TV executives would like for the BBC to scrap its genuinely PSB content that attracts the viewers not catered for elsewhere and who need to be attracted for the BBC to have a long term future in favour of chasing viewing figures which has lead to it leaving a generation behind and if the BBC continues in the way that it is heading it will die with its current audience as there is nothing that makes my generation want to buy a TV licence.
My suggestions would include extending the world news simulcast on BBC One and BBC News in the early mornings until between 06:30 and 07:00 as the amounts of viewers awake at these times is no greater than late in the evening which is already simulcast and additionally because WN is already focused on Europe at this time of day. As this would allow breakfast to start later I would either extend it on BBC One and the NC to 10:00 in order to cut the daytime budget or finish it at 09:00 on BBC One so that the Salford team can continue on the NC until 10:00. I would also reduce Newsnight to be broadcast for 30 minutes and on Mondays-Wednesday's only (as the viewer base is watching question time on Thursdays and the programme tends to be light on content on Friday's in any case).
Another possibility would be to simulcast politics live on the NC and get the morning NC presenter to also present the One (which is no different to a typical NC half hour except for an in studio weather forecast) so that one presenter can cover from 10:00-14:00. Furthermore I would scrap the Five and extend Afternoon Live until 6 or simulcast with World between 17:00 and 18:00.
I would also scrap the need for a sports presenter on weekdays with any important stories being covered by the main presenter and the less important ones being dropped (there is no need for 3 reports back to back on the Australian open for example) but maintain a business presenter in a similar role to a present.
At weekends simulcast with world until 08:00 and then have a single headed version of breakfast from Salford until 10:00 on BBC One and 12:00 on the NC on a Saturday and scrap breakfast completely on Sunday with the extra hour absorbed into the London NC rota. I would also drop the Saturday edition of PM and make the Saturday version of Today and weekend breakfast on 5 Live single headed.
On radio I would turn 5 live into an opt of world service with only its own breakfast and drives shows (and any sports opts needed) and also simulcast this with radio 4 and local radio overnight. I would combine the news bulletins on radio 2, radio 3 and radio 6 music and also on radio 1 and 1 extra during evenings and weekends, but would maintain Newsbeat during weekday daytimes.
Outside of News I would close the linear red button and BBC Scotland in their entirety, would reduce some sports coverage noticeably giving up Wimbledon as producing coverage of 15 courts some of which are watched by a handful of people at best is not even close to a good use of resources. I would merge BBC 4 into BBC 2, would create a distinct strand for BBC3 on BBC2 between 22:00 and midnight on Thursdays and Fridays, reduce the numbers of programmes in genres well covered elsewhere such as period dramas and weight loss documentaries. I would also make 6 Music a part time station so that it only broadcasts between 7am and 7pm Monday-Friday and 9am-5pm at weekends, would close down all AM radio frequencies outside of rural areas that cannot recieve a FM or DAB signal.
Wow, where to start with this mess! Firstly Radio 1 and 1xtra already share news 7 days a week, and don't have many updates after 5.45 Newsbeat during the week anyway, so there's no savings there. Apart from weekday breakfast on Radio 2, the same presenter does Radio 2 and 6 Music news, one on the hour, one on the half hour, so no saving there.
Why does 6 Music have to be reduced to those silly times? Why not Radio 3? Or Radio 2? Is that because you're not a listener of 6 Music?
The first half hour of weekday Breakfast is in my opinion the most news focused of the whole show, handling the developing overnight stories, newspaper reviews, sport, weather and local news. I take it, you're not up before 7, unlike so many viewers?
While i agree that something needs to be done about the content on 5 live, your idea of being an opt out service from the World service doesn't work. If you are going to cut it down so much, just close it!
I'm also getting the feeling that you aren't a tennis fan, mentioning the Australian Open and pointless Wimbledon coverage, but Wimbledon is one of the BBC's crown jewels.
I mean personally I'd scrap radio 3 completely but that'd never happen (despite the existence of both classic FM and Scala making it unnecessary). Whatever it's listeners may think 6 music has already been proposed for closure once and the scale of the cuts needed now mean that it should go completely so reducing it to the times that radio has its highest audience is probably the best that people should hope for. Furthermore Radio 2 has specialist content for much of the evening making it unnecessary duplication during those times.
The fact that people can get away with suggesting that match of the day should be scrapped but the first mention of reducing tennis coverage is overly criticised just highlights one of the biggest problems at the BBC, which it that it wants to make content for middle aged (and older) middle class people and doesn't know how to cater for anyone else. Whatever some may want to believe Tennis is a dying sport that is increasingly the domain of the privately educated and Wimbledon would get coverage on another channel if the BBC dropped it making its position on BBC nonviable in my opinion.
I mean arguing that the first half hour of breakfast being the most news focused means it shouldn't be replaced by news is rather strange and the amount of people awake at 06:00 is now no larger than at the times in the evening the NC simulcast begins so it is strange that people are so against the simulcast of world being extended in the morning but don't seem to care about how early it starts in the evening (unless let again the fact those awake early tend to be older and richer means the people in charge think they are more important). Quite frankly the numbers of people who would turn over because it was Sally Bundock reading the news at 06:00 rather than Dan and Louise could almost certainly be counted on one hand and I can only assume you have never been awake during the night if you think a world simulcast means the weather updates disappear.
Unfortunately TV executives would like for the BBC to scrap its genuinely PSB content that attracts the viewers not catered for elsewhere and who need to be attracted for the BBC to have a long term future in favour of chasing viewing figures which has lead to it leaving a generation behind and if the BBC continues in the way that it is heading it will die with its current audience as there is nothing that makes my generation want to buy a TV licence.
Can you please use paragraphs, it makes it a lot more easier to understand your points.
One obvious salary saving would be the Six o'clock News presenter. Having Huw on BBC1 at 6pm makes better use of him than on BBC News at 5pm, and if presenters on BBC News need to go better to start nearer the top than the bottom.
Someone else mentioned the morning News Channel host fronting the One o'clock News, simulcasting Politics Live in between at noon. Afternoon Live could move to 1.30-4 and share a host with News at 5, with a World simulcast at 4pm. An evening news channel host would cover from 6.30pm, so although you don't save any NC presenter shifts you're losing Victoria Derbyshire and the host of the 1pm and 6pm bulletins. Simulcasting Newsnight at 10.30 means you can axe The Papers too - why waste money on two guests a night promoting rival media organisations that just slag you off anyway?
Some BBC observations not just limited to news (which I'm more than happy for people to disagree with):
-I do find it odd that some of CBBC is broadcast while their viewers would surely be at school. Would it maybe make sense for BBC News to take those hours (say 9am-3pm) which means there'd still be a significant news offering in the daytime. Cbeebies is slightly different given it's a much younger audience.
-I can't say I'm sure what 5 Live is meant to be these days. In theory it's meant to be a rolling news and sports radio station. It still does the latter very well and while you do want a variety of programming you can't really call it a rolling news station when you have the likes of Laura Whitmore, Scott Mills (I like both but you wouldn't a story breaking with them on air) and Nihal and Sarah Brett's incredibly lightweight shows.
Is there an argument maybe to, as messy as it sounds, in theory to combine 5 Live and the News Channel's daytime and late evening operations - to give 5 Live some gravitas and ability to handle rolling news and diversify the news channel output a bit.
-Similarly if we're looking at radio stations, 1Xtra feels the sort of thing the commercial sector could provide and Radio 4 Extra similarly feels a bit superfluous.
-With the News Channel I can't say I've ever really got the 5. If Huw's not anchoring it, it's essentially somebody being brought in to present one hour that really isn't that different from the others. Feels a bit of luxury that the BBC maybe can't afford these days.
-Speaking of that, it's been mentioned many a time but bringing in a separate newsreader to do the weekend evening bulletin again feels a bit of a luxury. The content isn't that different (if at all) from what's on the News Channel all day plusit's an additional presenter to pay and most of the News Channel presenters are perfectly capable of anchoring a bulletin. And I know there's the preparation argument but at weekends the back half-hours are mostly recorded programs or don't involve the on-duty presenter plus currently there's a 90 minute block from 8.30-10 where seemingly however big a domestic story is, the on-duty presenter won't be used. So combine that all and that's considerable preparation time for a 15-20 minute bulletin
Regarding the weekend bulletins, they should schedule the network presenter on the News Channel, hence reducing the amount of freelancers/temps that pop up every Saturday night.
I agree about the Five being a waste of time nowadays but generally if Huw isn't presenting then 90 times out of 100 it's either the presenter of the One who stays behind to do it or the evening News Channel presenter who starts early.
I agree about the Five being a waste of time nowadays but generally if Huw isn't presenting then 90 times out of 100 it's either the presenter of the One who stays behind to do it or the evening News Channel presenter who starts early.
Except almost every single Friday and at least 3 other days last week alone.
There's a lot of stuff above I disagree with but I want to make the point particularly on Wimbledon coverage. The BBC do not produce all-court coverage solely for a domestic audience, those feeds are produced for broadcasters worldwide and it would be a huge step backwards to cut them when almost every match at every other tournament throughout the year is televised.
I don't see tennis as a dying sport, at least not globally, and it's definitely not "increasingly the domain of the privately educated", the effect is actually the opposite. It has suffered from lack of investment in the UK but Wimbledon still sells out day after day. The free to air coverage it gets for two weeks a year is the biggest publicity the sport has. If you aren't a tennis fan then fine.
If we're going to go off cuts to News then drop MOTD .
IIRC that's about £70m a year currently and to be honest since it is such a visible cut should bring home to a lot of people you can't expect cuts to BBC funding and everything stays the same .
Yeah the BBC are going to dump their most watched show and brand with men.... I'm sure they'll understand
It’d make a very visable ‘point’ though.
Cuts in news, will they be replaced elsewhere, probably not, will they be noticed by most viewers, also probably not.
Would MOTD being axed be noticed, yes massively, would it be picked up elsewhere, yes. But when those viewers are watching what will be seen as an inferior version elsewhere and complaining about it, The importance of well funding the BBC will be madeclear.
