Okay, I suspect I'm going to upset some forumers here, but I've watched a lot of World on holiday the past week and I'm not at all impressed. It was a technical mess most days with mis-cued items, mute Idents and puzzlingly bits of incomplete out of vision voice over. I noticed though that when Peter Dobie(sp?) presented is was much more professional rather than the student TV it was before.
I actually agree with you, despite being a long-time on-and-off World viewer. Before 2004, BBC World was quite capable of producing high quality bulletins which, most notably, had well-timed closing sequences. I haven't seen one close of a BBC World bulletin in recent years that has gone well. Normally it's so rushed that the presenter (whomever it is) makes a complete mess of it. Add to that the wrong vamps and stings are regularly played, and not just within a programme... sometimes I've heard (for example) the GMT vamp being used on World News. And of course, there are the failed VTs, incorrect astons etc that you mentioned.
Part of me wonders whether this is down to the fact that the channel now has far fewer back half hour recorded programmes than it used to. Back in 2001-ish, most back half hours, even on weekdays, were pre-recorded programmes, with occasional live WBR/Asia Today/Sport Today. But shows like Click Online, Top Gear, Fast Track, Hard Talk and even Rough Science filled most back half hours. This enabled N9 (as it was then) to rehearse bits and pieces for the next news bulletin, be it headlines, complex graphics sequences etc. I've certainly seen a correlation between the decrease in recorded programming and an increase in technical cock-ups. I think also that most of BBC World's news bulletins remain technically rather complicated. There are loads of different programmes, each with their own graphics, titles, music, lighting requirements, camera shots etc. They also have advert breaks which they have to hit on time, which can't be easy amongst all the chaos. I think the reason the BBC News Channel copes better with being live as much as World is now is because it's comparatively technically simple. People here may complain about the boring studio and unimaginative camera angles, but because it remains so formulaic, there's not much scope for error. There's really only one brand - BBC News - and as such, it's rare for incorrect titles, graphics or music to be used.
Just my two pence... as someone who's been watching both channels for a fairly long time now.