Which commissioned editor went 'there just aren't enough opportunities for viewers to air their opinions about news stories on which they know very little' - quite frankly as they are introducing Outside Source as well, it'll mean that almost 3 hours of their daytime programming is taken up by viewer led TV programming, if we take out simulcasts with BBC One, other programming strands and overnights it means that under half of their air time will be rolling news.
Some have said that this programming is down to cost cutting but how? A big name presenter like Victoria Derbyshire's salary is probably more than 2 news channel presenters, they're using the studio which requires the largest studio and gallery team, they would have to commission a new theme tune, they would either have to hire a new editorial team or take others away from other jobs, they would have to change the furniture on days when they wouldn't usually need to and all this for a programming which isn't actually needed and doesn't really fit into the BBC News Channel remit - it would be the perfect programme to sit after Breakfast on BBC One, but doesn't fit on a rolling news channel. Much in the same way that if ITV still had a news channel - Lorraine and This Morning wouldn't be on that channels schedule.
Also, when this isn't really the kind of show you dip in and out of, is it not a bit weird, especially for viewers on BBC Two, to repeat the same stories an hour later? I know this is quite sensible on the NC, but I can't imagine that viewers on BBC Two who have it on as background noise will appreciate watching what is effectively an hour's worth of content spread to an hour and forty five minutes?
.
Was it the exact same reports an hour later or just following up the same story with new information/opinions?
It was certainly the same report on transgender children an hour later, although perhaps furnished with some different comments from Social Media afterwards.
Will start with the positives - I do like the overall look and that everything from the graphics to the studio isn't the typical look you expect of BBC News. Although the content wasn't for me skipping through it tonight I didn't think it was too bad a show either - but as I've always said it's not appropriate for the news channel and dropping out from a political press conference with an ex-primeminister during the election campaign isn't good news. Didn't like how the sport and the weather seemed to be presented to Victoria rather than to the audience at home either.
I also have to question why they've left it so long until they launched it - I know these things take time before going to air but launching it in the middle of an election campaign seems foolish. It should either have been launched earlier in the year so it had the chance to iron out any teething issues prior to the election or waited until after the election.
I do think Victoria herself though handled the show very well indeed but it is frustrating that yet again they seem to think it's OK to sideline a typically male audience in the belief that a female audience isn't actually able to handle actual news.
Watching back on iPlayer so far the programme doesn't seem too bad overall. I can't help feeling the opening 'exclusive' report could do with being shortened. That would allow for a (minute) roundup of news headlines at 9.30am, which might help it fit in better with the news channel. Similarly the timing of the weather needs refining, as News channel viewers are used to seeing it at about 9.55am, with the headlines at 10am. I'm not sure whether I like having members of the general public, though at least they appear to be debating and not just shouting at each other.
On a plus it does show how different Studio B can look. Also there was a different shot of the sports centre during the 10am-ish link up.
Which commissioned editor went 'there just aren't enough opportunities for viewers to air their opinions about news stories on which they know very little' - quite frankly as they are introducing Outside Source as well, it'll mean that almost 3 hours of their daytime programming is taken up by viewer led TV programming, if we take out simulcasts with BBC One, other programming strands and overnights it means that under half of their air time will be rolling news.
Some have said that this programming is down to cost cutting but how? A big name presenter like Victoria Derbyshire's salary is probably more than 2 news channel presenters, they're using the studio which requires the largest studio and gallery team, they would have to commission a new theme tune, they would either have to hire a new editorial team or take others away from other jobs, they would have to change the furniture on days when they wouldn't usually need to and all this for a programming which isn't actually needed and doesn't really fit into the BBC News Channel remit - it would be the perfect programme to sit after Breakfast on BBC One, but doesn't fit on a rolling news channel. Much in the same way that if ITV still had a news channel - Lorraine and This Morning wouldn't be on that channels schedule.
Whoever that commissioner said that we lack opportunities for viewers to air their opinions and get educated about issues may be right, but do we need N24 to address them?
Probably it's cost-cutting because had no major cost-cutting have taken place, they would have aired VL on BBC Two anyway and had rolling news on N24.
As much as I disagree with these radical changes to N24's lineup (and these are the most radical I've seen since they started simulcasting the national news bulletins from BBC One almost a decade ago), I'm afraid such programmes won't be going anywhere as far as N24 is concerned.
Will this programme be saving much money though - surely it's going to be more expensive than the standard BBC News programme it replaces, even when you're considering the repeats cut from BBC2 as well.
As others have said simulcasting the Daily Politics would make more sense, with the 11-2 shift ditched and the morning presenters coming back for an hour at noon, perhaps with the News Channel simulcasting Breakfast through to 9.15am to save further. When Daily Politics isn't on air I guess simulcasting an hour of World News instead would be the best option.
Simulcasting Daily Politics suggests that politics is the only news there is. Although this programme needs work at least it's trying to do something different.
I really do think that news channels need to change. I get most my news online, if there's breaking news I get that as an alert on my phone, I'd perhaps turn on the NC but it's rarely there where I first find breaking news
Simulcasting Daily Politics suggests that politics is the only news there is. Although this programme needs work at least it's trying to do something different.
I really do think that news channels need to change. I get most my news online, if there's breaking news I get that as an alert on my phone, I'd perhaps turn on the NC but it's rarely there where I first find breaking news
Your comments show that the rolling news channels are not attracting a younger audience. Like you I also use social media, but as I'm in my thirties, have had rolling news as the main delivery of news since the mid 1990s.
Sky have been really good at attempting to attract a younger audience using digital via their virals and the Stand Up and Be Counted campaign, while the BBC aren't very interested in the demographic with the demotion of BBC Three leaving their main outlet to attract young audiences with EastEnders and Radio 1/1Xtra with next to no promotion of the linear News Channel.
Which commissioned editor went 'there just aren't enough opportunities for viewers to air their opinions about news stories on which they know very little' - quite frankly as they are introducing Outside Source as well, it'll mean that almost 3 hours of their daytime programming is taken up by viewer led TV programming, if we take out simulcasts with BBC One, other programming strands and overnights it means that under half of their air time will be rolling news.
Some have said that this programming is down to cost cutting but how? A big name presenter like Victoria Derbyshire's salary is probably more than 2 news channel presenters, they're using the studio which requires the largest studio and gallery team, they would have to commission a new theme tune, they would either have to hire a new editorial team or take others away from other jobs, they would have to change the furniture on days when they wouldn't usually need to and all this for a programming which isn't actually needed and doesn't really fit into the BBC News Channel remit - it would be the perfect programme to sit after Breakfast on BBC One, but doesn't fit on a rolling news channel. Much in the same way that if ITV still had a news channel - Lorraine and This Morning wouldn't be on that channels schedule.
I agree with this - In addition if the BBC was really trying to cut costs a straight forward world news simulcast on bbc news with repeats of Animal Park etc on BBC Two would be the most straight forward way of doing it. With Business Live starting after the election are the BBC still going to continue having a morning news channel presenter for 15 minutes & requiring two separate teams to operate two studio's - it seems a huge waste of already limited BBC resources. With this in mind as far as im aware BBC Two was already broadcasting repeats of BBC News programme's (Travel Show, HARDtalk, click) - this wouldn't have cost much.
Having said that the programme isn't terrible - i am just not sure whether there is an audience or how it's saving cash.