SR
Please dont turn this into a rota thread, its bad enough with the ones we have.
Reasons presenters are missing...
Annual leave / Sick Leave / Working other duties / Training at BH / blah blah blah... does it matter?
Peter Dobbie is becoming as frequent as Tim Willcox did on the Channel. He has been working every shift going in the past month apart from the 2300-0500 slot. Hope the Move away from TVC also gives us a better selection of presenters.
Please dont turn this into a rota thread, its bad enough with the ones we have.
Reasons presenters are missing...
Annual leave / Sick Leave / Working other duties / Training at BH / blah blah blah... does it matter?
IT
itsrobert
Founding member
Setting aside the whole issue of advertising, which is a very real restriction on the broadcasting of BBC World in the United Kingdom, why on earth would a broadcaster with any sense operate two news channels broadcasting side by side on the same platform with only minor differences? It wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. They'd be competing with each other for viewers on the majority of stories.
I do have access to BBC World only because I'm a presentation fan and when I had a satellite dish installed in 2002, the channel was sufficiently different to domestic output so as to be interesting from an anorak's point of view. These days I actually watch little of it as it's effectively a carbon copy of all BBC News output, and I find the BBC News channel provides a more than adequate summary of international stories.
I have to disagree with you about British viewers needing coverage of minor stories emanating out of Russia, China or Somalia. Why don't you take a look at some of their own news broadcasters and see if a story out of Newcastle, UK makes it into their running order. Hmmm, didn't think so. If it's major enough to be of interest to British viewers, it generally gets reported on BBC News in the UK. What's more, an edition of BBC World News broadcasts on BBC2 on weekdays as well as World News Today on BBC4. So, anyone with an interest in international stories are catered for in these broadcasts.
This whole situation is no different from CNN International not being shown in the USA. They have CNN and CNN Headline News - both of which are tailored for their priority American audience. Just as they see no need to broadcast CNNI in America, the BBC really don't need to broadcast BBC World here. It's pointless. The BBC's main focus will always be its British audience and when they provide a good quality dedicated news channel tailored for the British people, there's absolutely no need for them to broadcast BBC World to them as well.
I do have access to BBC World only because I'm a presentation fan and when I had a satellite dish installed in 2002, the channel was sufficiently different to domestic output so as to be interesting from an anorak's point of view. These days I actually watch little of it as it's effectively a carbon copy of all BBC News output, and I find the BBC News channel provides a more than adequate summary of international stories.
I have to disagree with you about British viewers needing coverage of minor stories emanating out of Russia, China or Somalia. Why don't you take a look at some of their own news broadcasters and see if a story out of Newcastle, UK makes it into their running order. Hmmm, didn't think so. If it's major enough to be of interest to British viewers, it generally gets reported on BBC News in the UK. What's more, an edition of BBC World News broadcasts on BBC2 on weekdays as well as World News Today on BBC4. So, anyone with an interest in international stories are catered for in these broadcasts.
This whole situation is no different from CNN International not being shown in the USA. They have CNN and CNN Headline News - both of which are tailored for their priority American audience. Just as they see no need to broadcast CNNI in America, the BBC really don't need to broadcast BBC World here. It's pointless. The BBC's main focus will always be its British audience and when they provide a good quality dedicated news channel tailored for the British people, there's absolutely no need for them to broadcast BBC World to them as well.
HA
Yeah I have to admit I did exactly the same, I too watch very little World News but in 2001 I couldn't stop watching it, it was so good back then BBC World, now its just like watching UK BBC News.
harshy
Founding member
Setting aside the whole issue of advertising, which is a very real restriction on the broadcasting of BBC World in the United Kingdom, why on earth would a broadcaster with any sense operate two news channels broadcasting side by side on the same platform with only minor differences? It wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. They'd be competing with each other for viewers on the majority of stories.
I do have access to BBC World only because I'm a presentation fan and when I had a satellite dish installed in 2002, the channel was sufficiently different to domestic output so as to be interesting from an anorak's point of view. These days I actually watch little of it as it's effectively a carbon copy of all BBC News output, and I find the BBC News channel provides a more than adequate summary of international stories.
I have to disagree with you about British viewers needing coverage of minor stories emanating out of Russia, China or Somalia. Why don't you take a look at some of their own news broadcasters and see if a story out of Newcastle, UK makes it into their running order. Hmmm, didn't think so. If it's major enough to be of interest to British viewers, it generally gets reported on BBC News in the UK. What's more, an edition of BBC World News broadcasts on BBC2 on weekdays as well as World News Today on BBC4. So, anyone with an interest in international stories are catered for in these broadcasts.
This whole situation is no different from CNN International not being shown in the USA. They have CNN and CNN Headline News - both of which are tailored for their priority American audience. Just as they see no need to broadcast CNNI in America, the BBC really don't need to broadcast BBC World here. It's pointless. The BBC's main focus will always be its British audience and when they provide a good quality dedicated news channel tailored for the British people, there's absolutely no need for them to broadcast BBC World to them as well.
I do have access to BBC World only because I'm a presentation fan and when I had a satellite dish installed in 2002, the channel was sufficiently different to domestic output so as to be interesting from an anorak's point of view. These days I actually watch little of it as it's effectively a carbon copy of all BBC News output, and I find the BBC News channel provides a more than adequate summary of international stories.
I have to disagree with you about British viewers needing coverage of minor stories emanating out of Russia, China or Somalia. Why don't you take a look at some of their own news broadcasters and see if a story out of Newcastle, UK makes it into their running order. Hmmm, didn't think so. If it's major enough to be of interest to British viewers, it generally gets reported on BBC News in the UK. What's more, an edition of BBC World News broadcasts on BBC2 on weekdays as well as World News Today on BBC4. So, anyone with an interest in international stories are catered for in these broadcasts.
This whole situation is no different from CNN International not being shown in the USA. They have CNN and CNN Headline News - both of which are tailored for their priority American audience. Just as they see no need to broadcast CNNI in America, the BBC really don't need to broadcast BBC World here. It's pointless. The BBC's main focus will always be its British audience and when they provide a good quality dedicated news channel tailored for the British people, there's absolutely no need for them to broadcast BBC World to them as well.
Yeah I have to admit I did exactly the same, I too watch very little World News but in 2001 I couldn't stop watching it, it was so good back then BBC World, now its just like watching UK BBC News.
EX
CNNI does have some distribution in the US
This whole situation is no different from CNN International not being shown in the USA. They have CNN and CNN Headline News - both of which are tailored for their priority American audience. Just as they see no need to broadcast CNNI in America, the BBC really don't need to broadcast BBC World here. It's pointless.
CNNI does have some distribution in the US
SP
The counterpoint is why broadcast both Radio 4 and World Service Radio in the UK?
As for the advertising issue, isn't there a "clean" version of World that just has the breakfiller? I guess there might be the odd sponsorship bumper that needs some thought to make sure it wasn't shown to the domestic audience I guess but I don't think that would be beyond the wit of the Beeb/RedBee.
Setting aside the whole issue of advertising, which is a very real restriction on the broadcasting of BBC World in the United Kingdom, why on earth would a broadcaster with any sense operate two news channels broadcasting side by side on the same platform with only minor differences? It wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. They'd be competing with each other for viewers on the majority of stories.
The counterpoint is why broadcast both Radio 4 and World Service Radio in the UK?
As for the advertising issue, isn't there a "clean" version of World that just has the breakfiller? I guess there might be the odd sponsorship bumper that needs some thought to make sure it wasn't shown to the domestic audience I guess but I don't think that would be beyond the wit of the Beeb/RedBee.
GE
thegeek
Founding member
That previous post just reminded me that while suffering from a little bit of insomnia a few weeks ago, I discovered that HARDtalk now gets regular airings on the World Service. Which must be a fairly cheap, if unimaginative way to fill some airtime.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004t1s0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004t1s0