Head To Head News / News Channels

I would like to get everyone's opinions about the following:
Is head-to-head news beneficial to you?
And
Are around-the-clock news channels worth it?

Here's my neutral view:

For me, late night head-to-head terrestrial news does not work. When you look at the TV ratings, it is self-evident that with the BBC and ITV's late news are not in direct competition, their audiences improve.
And if head to head news is wanted, try it at lunchtime. Move the BBC "News At Ten" and put it back to 9 o'clock and possibly have the plaudits of saying "We still get more viewers than ITV" - that is how they will get more viewers because it is earlier in the evening. Alternatively, I would like to see how the BBC1 Late News would be approached if it aired after Newsnight.

I do not think that news channels are worth it and are economically viable. Which was the case of the ITV/ITN News Channel. It must be a huge drain on resources trying to re-hash and stretch news over one hour, let alone 24 hours. With the exception of Channel 4 News.
My feeling about it is that you get more news in a standard news bulletin on terrestrial than what you would get on in 1 hour of 24hr news.

I must admit I did watch the first ever hour on Sky News in February 1989 and found it quite exciting for a few years. But I stopped watching after a few years because of their reliance to have news "reminders" every ten minutes. I notice, even now, Sky News has news every 15 minutes.
I liked the ITN News Channel when it debuted, even if they had "The news every 15 minutes" agenda but they somehow carried it off better than Sky ever has. I was sorry to see it go, but ITV had to put their tabloid style over it.
I have never watched BBC News World, or whatever it is called.

I value what your views are on this.

I admit that I dislike the BBC and ITV bulletins going head-to-head at 10pm. It forces you to choose when I'm sure some viewers would prefer to sometimes watch both. If there's a particularly interesting/big story, it's sometimes good to watch another broadcaster to get a different perspective. That isn't possible unless you watch News at Ten and then switch to the BBC News Channel at 11pm (or have the forethought to record one).

That said, I can see why direct competition is a good thing. Having the two bulletins up against each other forces the BBC and ITV to pull their socks up and really push for the best programme in order to draw in viewers. That can only be a good thing for viewers. As far as I am concerned, though, 10pm has always and will always be ITV's time for the late news. The BBC should return to 9pm as I'm sure there are lots of people who want news but don't stay up for it until 10pm. With the BBC at 9pm in the 1980s and 1990s, both the early bird and the night owl were catered for. I don't think they will change now, sadly.

I think 24-hour news channels are handy but they can become very, very repetitive. I tend to use them if I miss a main bulletin and just want to dip in to catch up, or if something major has happened and I want immediate coverage. I would never intentionally tune into a news channel at a certain time - it's usually just an ad hoc decision. My main bugbear with them is that on the occasions when you want a quick digest of news, they always clear the schedule for some unimportant press conference that all of about 3 people are interested in.

That could possibly be one of the worst decisions for the BBC in my opinion. That would mean no evening dramas at 9pm - including one of my favourites, Hustle - (they'd have to be shifted to 9:30 at the earliest). Plus, a two hour gap between the 6 o'clock news and 9 is far too short nowadays. If people want news at 9, they can get a brief summary on a news channel.

I personally believe the BBC's set up is perfectly fine at the moment.

I disagree, Chris. One of the major worst decisions the BBC has had is moving their 9 O'Clock News. Even the then-Director General Greg Dyke admitted a few years ago, it was to "put off ITV" or words similar to that. What about the BBC's heritage? It had close to 30 years of having a regular nine o'clock news bulletin. If it had continued, it would be close to 40 years and could have had the prestige of Britain's longest-lasting news bulletin.
If the BBC wanted to have their news later, why not after Newsnight ends? There is an audience at 11.30 at night when there is no news. That will be a good spot for the BBC.
I tell you what, if I ran the ITC or Ofcom, I would demand a better answer for moving the BBC's late news than "to jump in there before ITV".

However, from an impartial point of view, the BBC News is 9 O'Clock and ITN News is 10 O'Clock. That is tradition and should be adhered to.

The late evening news has gone from strength to strength on the BBC since it moved to 10pm, and the BBC have challenged in the post-watershed drama slot far more since the move to 9pm than they did in the nineties. There is absolutely no point in changing it back.

ITV should have stuck at 11pm IMO, but ad things are at the moment 10pm makes sense for them - it's a shame though despite the quality of the bulletin, the viewers just aren't there at the moment, but IMO that's more down to the BBC's dominance in the 9pm hour than the quality of News at Ten. ITV haven't really had a hugely successful drama at 9pm since News at Ten returned.


And one minute you're arguing it should be at 9pm, now you're saying after Newsnight at 11.30pm (that would be better how?). OFCOM had nothing to do with the BBC's decision to move it - rather ironically (and wrongly IMO) the BBC could move it at just two weeks notice without approval from the regulator while ITV had to jump through several hoops over years to be allowed to move News at Ten, and it's a rare example actually of where OFCOM interfering in the running of ITV (the initial decision to force them to bring back News at Ten) didn't do anyone any favours.

Regarding my BBC time changes: I was trying to put across the opinion that no matter what time it is moved, I do not think that it will have a huge impact on ratings. It annoys me when broadcasters steal successful ideas from other broadcasters. It would be interesting if there was no 10 O'Clock News ever invented. Would the BBC fall over themselves to put themselves in at that? Or, if News At Ten was never popular to begin with?
Mind you, ITV dramas are not helping. A small portion of the blame does go to ITV, but more of the blame should go towards this unnecessary forced digital switchover con. Where everyone is forced to buy a dish and watch 'new channels' when, in actual fact, almost all channels are repeating what other channels are showing ad nauseaum.

While I generally like the idea of head-to-head competition in news, I also think there's quite a bit of truth in the following quote:

"I've never been able to figure out how competition makes cars better and television news worse. [...] In other industries, competition creates new and different products. In television, it makes all the products look the same. That's weird."

-- Robert Lichter, Center for Media and Public Affairs

So your argument is that it should be at 9 because of tradition? That's hardly an argument.

I really don't understand your points. It sounds to me that the only reason you don't like the BBC News being at 10 is because ITV got there first, yet it was because of ITV's silly 'News at When?' fiasco that the BBC decided to move it.

Plus, could you really argue for the return of a 9 o'clock bulletin when it's very obvious (from ratings) what the public want is drama at 9?

And to your argument about the news should be on at 11:30 if they wanted it later because "there's no news at that time for people to watch" - I think the reason is because there aren't as many people there to watch; they're in bed.