:-(
A former member
The member requested removal of this post
NL
I should think the very name "Sixty Minutes" has a very bad vibe about it in BBC1 circles after the early evening 1983/4 post Nationwide debacle.
True enough. I was of course referring to a Sixty Minutes-esque programme
Before anyone flies off the handle hear me out on this suggestion
Switch Newsnight to BBC1, move it to 9PM and turn it into a modern day version of Sixty Minutes with 50% National/World News, 10% Local News, 30% Current Affairs and the final 10% split between Sport, Newspapers and Weather. Close the Newsnight studio and use the News studio for all the interviews a'la Dateline London
That way you have a consolidated digest at a time where more would be likely to tune in. BBC 2 would then be free to broadcast more films, docs etc
(Now if you will excuse me I'm ducking for cover)
Switch Newsnight to BBC1, move it to 9PM and turn it into a modern day version of Sixty Minutes with 50% National/World News, 10% Local News, 30% Current Affairs and the final 10% split between Sport, Newspapers and Weather. Close the Newsnight studio and use the News studio for all the interviews a'la Dateline London
That way you have a consolidated digest at a time where more would be likely to tune in. BBC 2 would then be free to broadcast more films, docs etc
(Now if you will excuse me I'm ducking for cover)
I should think the very name "Sixty Minutes" has a very bad vibe about it in BBC1 circles after the early evening 1983/4 post Nationwide debacle.
True enough. I was of course referring to a Sixty Minutes-esque programme
MO
Much as I really hate to say it, I think the BBC News Channel should be put out if it’s misery - if this would save a decent amount of money.
The future is in online. If you’re interested in the news you read the website or twitter. When’s the last time you heard of breaking news while watching TV - no, it’s now always via Twitter.
One case in point recently was when that bloke sadly climbed the chimney in Carlisle. The best coverage of that horrific story was a guy tweeting from the scene. BBC News was hours behind his coverage.
For those saying the closure of the NC would leave Sky as the only news channel I’d say that news channels have had their day.
When major breaking news happens, put ad hoc rolling news online and flag it via an alert on the app.
Spend the money on a fantastic Ten, a fantastic Newsnight, a fantastic World at One.
The day they lost the double headed rolling news, with the banter alongside the news, which was genuinely great to watch, was the day they closed rolling news on the BBC.
Time for rolling news to only roll when its needed.
The future is in online. If you’re interested in the news you read the website or twitter. When’s the last time you heard of breaking news while watching TV - no, it’s now always via Twitter.
One case in point recently was when that bloke sadly climbed the chimney in Carlisle. The best coverage of that horrific story was a guy tweeting from the scene. BBC News was hours behind his coverage.
For those saying the closure of the NC would leave Sky as the only news channel I’d say that news channels have had their day.
When major breaking news happens, put ad hoc rolling news online and flag it via an alert on the app.
Spend the money on a fantastic Ten, a fantastic Newsnight, a fantastic World at One.
The day they lost the double headed rolling news, with the banter alongside the news, which was genuinely great to watch, was the day they closed rolling news on the BBC.
Time for rolling news to only roll when its needed.
BR
I don't think that is the sort of thing a news channel should be covering live anyway.
Perhaps the BBC's biggest issue is it's actually encouraged the move online - how many of us who consume content online do so via BBC apps rather than commercial rivals. Ratings for BBC News, Sky News and BBC Parliament over the last year have shown when the big events happen they are needed and they are trusted.
Now without a doubt both the News Channel and Sky News have struggled to evolve over the last few years and both gone through something of an identity crisis, which perhaps leaves them feeling irrelevant, but let's not pretend that closing the news channel would be anything other than purely a cost-saving decision rather than a true reflection of the changing way licence fee payers consume their news.
One case in point recently was when that bloke sadly climbed the chimney in Carlisle. The best coverage of that horrific story was a guy tweeting from the scene. BBC News was hours behind his coverage.
I don't think that is the sort of thing a news channel should be covering live anyway.
Perhaps the BBC's biggest issue is it's actually encouraged the move online - how many of us who consume content online do so via BBC apps rather than commercial rivals. Ratings for BBC News, Sky News and BBC Parliament over the last year have shown when the big events happen they are needed and they are trusted.
Now without a doubt both the News Channel and Sky News have struggled to evolve over the last few years and both gone through something of an identity crisis, which perhaps leaves them feeling irrelevant, but let's not pretend that closing the news channel would be anything other than purely a cost-saving decision rather than a true reflection of the changing way licence fee payers consume their news.
NJ
If you have to stick your head up and further explain your POV in a follow-up post then that usually implies either your argument is flawed, badly explained or you haven't written it down properly. Especially if others have drawn their own conclusions that don't match what you were trying to get at...
Neil Jones
Founding member
Well I would have thought that those reading the post would understand implicitly what I mean. In fairness though It should have been clearer
If you have to stick your head up and further explain your POV in a follow-up post then that usually implies either your argument is flawed, badly explained or you haven't written it down properly. Especially if others have drawn their own conclusions that don't match what you were trying to get at...
AN
Surprised no ones mentioned a merger of Five Live with local radio. Seems a neat solution to me - a national station (on FM too!) with local opts at certain times. A huge saving to make but could be sold as an exciting new service.
Chuckled at the “surely Sophie and George will be safe” comment a while back. Why should they be? They’re expensive.
Agree with the suggestion of ditching MOTD too. Not only is this something that could and should easily fit on a commercial station, it is currently a huge cost where it could be a much bigger opportunity for sponsorship elsewhere. In fact the more I think about it, the more I can’t even begin to figure out why it’s on the BBC.
Chuckled at the “surely Sophie and George will be safe” comment a while back. Why should they be? They’re expensive.
Agree with the suggestion of ditching MOTD too. Not only is this something that could and should easily fit on a commercial station, it is currently a huge cost where it could be a much bigger opportunity for sponsorship elsewhere. In fact the more I think about it, the more I can’t even begin to figure out why it’s on the BBC.
CA
Agree with the suggestion of ditching MOTD too. Not only is this something that could and should easily fit on a commercial station, it is currently a huge cost where it could be a much bigger opportunity for sponsorship elsewhere. In fact the more I think about it, the more I can’t even begin to figure out why it’s on the BBC.
Google ITV and The Premiership.
Also the cuts are specifically aimed at BBC News, BBC sport have already meet their half of the bargain and given up F1 and half of the 6 nations
Agree with the suggestion of ditching MOTD too. Not only is this something that could and should easily fit on a commercial station, it is currently a huge cost where it could be a much bigger opportunity for sponsorship elsewhere. In fact the more I think about it, the more I can’t even begin to figure out why it’s on the BBC.
Google ITV and The Premiership.
Also the cuts are specifically aimed at BBC News, BBC sport have already meet their half of the bargain and given up F1 and half of the 6 nations
Last edited by Cando on 26 January 2020 1:30am
CA
Spot on
Cut all the stuff I don't like
Leave all the stuff I do like
... and repeat
Leave all the stuff I do like
... and repeat
Spot on
AN
Agree with the suggestion of ditching MOTD too. Not only is this something that could and should easily fit on a commercial station, it is currently a huge cost where it could be a much bigger opportunity for sponsorship elsewhere. In fact the more I think about it, the more I can’t even begin to figure out why it’s on the BBC.
Google ITV and The Premiership.
Also the cuts are specifically aimed at BBC News, BBC sport have already meet their half of the bargain and given up F1 and half of the 6 nations
It’s simple. Take Match of the Day. Put it on ITV at the same time. The audience follows. The Premiership tried to reinvent the wheel.
Agree with the suggestion of ditching MOTD too. Not only is this something that could and should easily fit on a commercial station, it is currently a huge cost where it could be a much bigger opportunity for sponsorship elsewhere. In fact the more I think about it, the more I can’t even begin to figure out why it’s on the BBC.
Google ITV and The Premiership.
Also the cuts are specifically aimed at BBC News, BBC sport have already meet their half of the bargain and given up F1 and half of the 6 nations
It’s simple. Take Match of the Day. Put it on ITV at the same time. The audience follows. The Premiership tried to reinvent the wheel.