It's all well and good that the US only has one national new programme a day, but the UK isn't the US, and what might work there won't necessarily work there. After so many years of national bulletins at lunchtime, in the evening and at night I can't see them being dropped in favour of one programme, which won't reach all the audience that three separate bulletins can.
With cost being a major factor in everything, it would make much more sense to scrap the BBC News at One and BBC News at Six altogether.
Have One national News programme per day like in the US. Make BBC News at Ten that programme.
Allow the regional teams to put together their own News at One and News at Six, drawing on the national and international stories from the New Channel to suit the broadcast and region.
It means they wouldn't need to pay big presentation costs and if people want the core news they always have the News Channel to fall into.
I mean, if they really wanted to scrap the Six they could move The One Show an hour early, run it for the hour and have the national and regional news integrated into it… so basically a bit like Nationwide, or like what ITV wanted to do a few years ago (with just the news)
But, highly highly unlikely that they would ever do it, I can see there being a major viewer upset if it was to go.
With cost being a major factor in everything, it would make much more sense to scrap the BBC News at One and BBC News at Six altogether.
Have One national News programme per day like in the US. Make BBC News at Ten that programme.
Allow the regional teams to put together their own News at One and News at Six, drawing on the national and international stories from the New Channel to suit the broadcast and region.
What utter nonsense. The bulletins would be made for the news channel anyway and it would be far costlier to have 15 or so regions compiling the reports together for their own versions of the 6pm bulletins than just one team.
Worth remembering any demand for a Scottish Six isn't really coming from the viewers - it's a political matter and as usual the BBC is just collateral damage.
Ah OK, I was kind of right about the ticker I guess. Sounds like the NC has dropped it because Scotland take the bulletin via the News Channel rather than directly from the studio.
Yes that makes sense. If Scotland take the feed from Studio E via a contribution circuit they a) have to pay for that circuit and b) have to sort something out to make the subtitles work. If they take the Channel output the subtitles just work and there's is no cost.
Yes that makes sense. If Scotland take the feed from Studio E via a contribution circuit they a) have to pay for that circuit and b) have to sort something out to make the subtitles work. If they take the Channel output the subtitles just work and there's is no cost.
How does taking the channel output solve a)? There will still need to be a line to get the News Channel output to Scotland won't there?
However AIUI there are 'clean feed' lines from London to the Nations - which can take anything that lands on the Ericsson BBC playout router. I'd expect a number of News lines from NBH to be available on that router - so I suspect that choice is cost neutral?
Worth remembering any demand for a Scottish Six isn't really coming from the viewers - it's a political matter and as usual the BBC is just collateral damage.
Well, yes and no. It's true to say there aren't people outside with banners demanding a Scottish Six. At the same time you don't need to go far to hear someone complaining about the amount of England and Wales stories on the national news. And I say that as someone who fully understands why they are there - because that's the vast majority of the population
Yes that makes sense. If Scotland take the feed from Studio E via a contribution circuit they a) have to pay for that circuit and b) have to sort something out to make the subtitles work. If they take the Channel output the subtitles just work and there's is no cost.
How does taking the channel output solve a)? There will still need to be a line to get the News Channel output to Scotland won't there?
However AIUI there are 'clean feed' lines from London to the Nations - which can take anything that lands on the Ericsson BBC playout router. I'd expect a number of News lines from NBH to be available on that router - so I suspect that choice is cost neutral?
That's a good point, I was assuming Scotland would have access to all of the networks as a matter of course but I guess that they would have just used the switchable clean feed circuits.
Yes that makes sense. If Scotland take the feed from Studio E via a contribution circuit they a) have to pay for that circuit and b) have to sort something out to make the subtitles work. If they take the Channel output the subtitles just work and there's is no cost.
How does taking the channel output solve a)? There will still need to be a line to get the News Channel output to Scotland won't there?
However AIUI there are 'clean feed' lines from London to the Nations - which can take anything that lands on the Ericsson BBC playout router. I'd expect a number of News lines from NBH to be available on that router - so I suspect that choice is cost neutral?
That's a good point, I was assuming Scotland would have access to all of the networks as a matter of course but I guess that they would have just used the switchable clean feed circuits.
Yes. Glasgow would have permanent BBC One HD and BBC Two network feeds available - as they need them to create BBC One HD and Two Scotland - but there is no reason for the News Channel (or other networks like CBeebies, BBC Four, CBBC or BBC Parliament) to be permanently fed to Glasgow, so it would be just as easy/difficult to route News Channel as it would be to route a different studio output.
(AIUI Coding and Mux for BBC One/Two Scotland SD and HD versions is carried out in the same coding and mux centres as England so no need for networks to be fed for statmuxing purposes)
I suspect subtitles are the reason that the News Channel version is used...
