The Cuts - Spending Review Coverage

Really? Assuming you understand what that word means* (I won't make a cheap shot about the fact that you don't know how to spell it) I'm surprised you don't realise that the News Channel is on Freeview.

* Hint: Terrestrial doesn't mean BBC1,2, ITV, C4 and C5

I thought the BBC News Channel was broadcast on Freeview and therefore is a digital terrestrial channel.

Well whatever. It began as a station that was only available to a few.

So you really think the vast amount of money spent on the BBC News Channel is justified? All those presenters and reporters...does it really need all them.

There may be an interesting debate to be had about the future of news - but given your fundamental lack of awareness of the actuality in terms of the BBC's reach, and your churlish "whatevva" response to the facts; I would suggest that you're not really best placed to be making any counter-argument - and I would encourage more rational members to henceforth ignore you.

I think cuts could be made to the BBC News Channel, such as using double-headed presentation for much of the day. Every time I turn it on there is normally two newsreaders, a sports presenter, a weather presenter and occasionally a business presenter. Certainly there is room to cut the number of on-screen presenters at specific times.

Are you serious? If you are, you clearly don't see the whole point of the BBC News channel.

Wow I've hit a nerve. Talk about getting personal. Continued childishness - rather than deal with the points I raised. The justification of the BBC News Channel... Now do you want to address the matter or concentrate on me saying whatever.

What is the point of it?

This assumes that the presenters not currently on-air are just sat down in the canteen making use of the coffee machine.

Some sense.

What the heck are you on about? Going by that logic, your beloved Sky News is exactly the same - did it not start off on the Sky analogue satellite platform when hardly anybody had access to it? It may be on Freeview now, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's pulled off in the future, leaving it on just Sky and Virgin.

If you think that the BBC News Channel doesn't contribute to the BBC's public service remit, then you're very uninformed. Why shouldn't the BBC provide an impartial, high quality rolling news channel to allow viewers to follow news stories in more depth and watch news as it happens, such as press conferences and speeches? One of the BBC's most important tasks is to infom the public about current affairs in an impartial manner. What's more, Lee is absolutely right - the future of TV news is rolling news channels. As dedicated channels become more readily available with DSO, I can envisage a time when mixed channels like BBC1 and ITV1 which include a wide range of programming, including news, will not be needed any more, making the BBC News Channel a key player in the future.

As for all the BBC presenters and reporters being a waste of money, that is totally false. You do realise that they are very often serving more than one BBC outlet? For instance, one reporter might be working on the BBC News Channel, BBC World News and the BBC National News, not to mention radio reports and articles on BBC News Online.

If the license fee payers are to pay for the World division, this presumably includes World News? If so I don't see license fee payers should be paying for a channel and service they cannot access - would producing "World News" bulletins between 10pm and 1am, for example, when fewer amounts of UK-centric breaking news comes in? That would save a little money, surely, even if it did mean the loss of UK business, sports and papers review segments?