TE
Newsnight used to have weather about 2300 up until a few years ago, I remember seeing it, but then it stopped about 2001 / 2.
DU
where in newsnight does the weather forecast come?
oh yes, found it, fabulous
Out of interest when was the weather introduced into Newsnight?
Monday. Gavin Estler tried to be controversial yesterday, but not up to the high standards of Paxman.
Matrix posted:
Hymagumba posted:
Dunedin posted:
Yes, Paxman's on my side in the battle against the BBC Weather department thinking they're News.
In yesterday's self proclaimed "controversial" weather forcast, Paxman opted for something like- "sun, cloud, rain, dry, hail, snow, cold, hot".
Genius....Let's all get weather into perspective in BBC News productions.
In yesterday's self proclaimed "controversial" weather forcast, Paxman opted for something like- "sun, cloud, rain, dry, hail, snow, cold, hot".
Genius....Let's all get weather into perspective in BBC News productions.
where in newsnight does the weather forecast come?
oh yes, found it, fabulous
Out of interest when was the weather introduced into Newsnight?
Monday. Gavin Estler tried to be controversial yesterday, but not up to the high standards of Paxman.
DU
The weather has a hell of a lot more impact on people's lives than just about anything else in the news. In fact you can say it's the only thing in every bulletin that impacts on everyone's life in some way or other. More so than a dead Pope or a Royal Wedding. Paxman's attitude is less than professional.
I feel somewhat sorry if the weather has an "impact" on you- perhaps you are suffering from that terribly naughties disease "Seasonal Affective Disorder".
I'm not saying no weather....I'm saying less weather.
News 24 (perhaps unsurprisingly a 24 hour News channel) devotes less time per hour through the day to business news than they do for the weather. Newsnight have now dropped the market board watch in favour of weather. News 24 have in the past clearly interupted their coverage of breaking news for the incessant weather forcasts.
Time for it to stop...I fancy the only reason why the new weather graphics are delayed beyond the election is that the new "flyover" graphics will take LONGER per forcast than the current graphics...time they can't afford to give to weather during the election campaign.
Just think like this- how many fewer cuts would be required in BBC News if BBC Weather had NOT have spent millions on new equipment? How many fewer cuts would be required if we sacked the Met Office forcasters and allowed news presenters to read out prepared forcast scripts.....that's how you save 15% in news (or at least a large part of it) without cutting NEWS output and without the audience being any less aware of the weather in their area for the next few days.
marksi posted:
Dunedin posted:
Yes, Paxman's on my side in the battle against the BBC Weather department thinking they're News.
In yesterday's self proclaimed "controversial" weather forcast, Paxman opted for something like- "sun, cloud, rain, dry, hail, snow, cold, hot".
Genius....Let's all get weather into perspective in BBC News productions.
In yesterday's self proclaimed "controversial" weather forcast, Paxman opted for something like- "sun, cloud, rain, dry, hail, snow, cold, hot".
Genius....Let's all get weather into perspective in BBC News productions.
The weather has a hell of a lot more impact on people's lives than just about anything else in the news. In fact you can say it's the only thing in every bulletin that impacts on everyone's life in some way or other. More so than a dead Pope or a Royal Wedding. Paxman's attitude is less than professional.
I feel somewhat sorry if the weather has an "impact" on you- perhaps you are suffering from that terribly naughties disease "Seasonal Affective Disorder".
I'm not saying no weather....I'm saying less weather.
News 24 (perhaps unsurprisingly a 24 hour News channel) devotes less time per hour through the day to business news than they do for the weather. Newsnight have now dropped the market board watch in favour of weather. News 24 have in the past clearly interupted their coverage of breaking news for the incessant weather forcasts.
Time for it to stop...I fancy the only reason why the new weather graphics are delayed beyond the election is that the new "flyover" graphics will take LONGER per forcast than the current graphics...time they can't afford to give to weather during the election campaign.
Just think like this- how many fewer cuts would be required in BBC News if BBC Weather had NOT have spent millions on new equipment? How many fewer cuts would be required if we sacked the Met Office forcasters and allowed news presenters to read out prepared forcast scripts.....that's how you save 15% in news (or at least a large part of it) without cutting NEWS output and without the audience being any less aware of the weather in their area for the next few days.
SB
Just think like this- how many fewer cuts would be required in BBC News if BBC Weather had NOT have spent millions on new equipment? How many fewer cuts would be required if we sacked the Met Office forcasters and allowed news presenters to read out prepared forcast scripts.....that's how you save 15% in news (or at least a large part of it) without cutting NEWS output and without the audience being any less aware of the weather in their area for the next few days.
But the 15% cuts are meant to be in day to day running costs and not in investments, where the money is coming in from the savings made. New equipment and technology is not something the BBC will be saving on but on running itself daily.
Dunedin posted:
Just think like this- how many fewer cuts would be required in BBC News if BBC Weather had NOT have spent millions on new equipment? How many fewer cuts would be required if we sacked the Met Office forcasters and allowed news presenters to read out prepared forcast scripts.....that's how you save 15% in news (or at least a large part of it) without cutting NEWS output and without the audience being any less aware of the weather in their area for the next few days.
But the 15% cuts are meant to be in day to day running costs and not in investments, where the money is coming in from the savings made. New equipment and technology is not something the BBC will be saving on but on running itself daily.
MA
The weather has a hell of a lot more impact on people's lives than just about anything else in the news. In fact you can say it's the only thing in every bulletin that impacts on everyone's life in some way or other. More so than a dead Pope or a Royal Wedding. Paxman's attitude is less than professional.
I feel somewhat sorry if the weather has an "impact" on you- perhaps you are suffering from that terribly naughties disease "Seasonal Affective Disorder".
I'm not saying no weather....I'm saying less weather.
News 24 (perhaps unsurprisingly a 24 hour News channel) devotes less time per hour through the day to business news than they do for the weather. Newsnight have now dropped the market board watch in favour of weather. News 24 have in the past clearly interupted their coverage of breaking news for the incessant weather forcasts.
Time for it to stop...I fancy the only reason why the new weather graphics are delayed beyond the election is that the new "flyover" graphics will take LONGER per forcast than the current graphics...time they can't afford to give to weather during the election campaign.
Just think like this- how many fewer cuts would be required in BBC News if BBC Weather had NOT have spent millions on new equipment? How many fewer cuts would be required if we sacked the Met Office forcasters and allowed news presenters to read out prepared forcast scripts.....that's how you save 15% in news (or at least a large part of it) without cutting NEWS output and without the audience being any less aware of the weather in their area for the next few days.
When you go out and it's raining, do you get wet? If the temperature drops do you need to turn on the central heating? If it's icy do you need to leave more time to get to work in the morning? Then the weather has an impact on you.
Weather forecasts with the new graphics will be the same durations as they are now. So you're making that bit up.
There's no reason for Newsnight to have dropped the market board for the weather, both could have been included. The weather can be written as a concise summary. It was clearly an editorial decision by NEWSNIGHT to include a weather forecast.
You're clearly not interested in the weather. Fine. I'm not interested in sport, but I'm not advocating the removal of all sports "news" from bulletins and News 24.
If you got rid of the Met Office forecasters, who would be writing the scripts for the newsreaders to read?
I think you've shown a complete lack of understanding of the importance of the weather forecasts for a very large number of people. Perhaps you live in a big city, away from the coasts and mountains, don't drive or indeed go outside often.
Your attitude appears to be "I'm not interested in the weather so the BBC shouldn't spend any money on it", which is rather childish.
Dunedin posted:
marksi posted:
Dunedin posted:
Yes, Paxman's on my side in the battle against the BBC Weather department thinking they're News.
In yesterday's self proclaimed "controversial" weather forcast, Paxman opted for something like- "sun, cloud, rain, dry, hail, snow, cold, hot".
Genius....Let's all get weather into perspective in BBC News productions.
In yesterday's self proclaimed "controversial" weather forcast, Paxman opted for something like- "sun, cloud, rain, dry, hail, snow, cold, hot".
Genius....Let's all get weather into perspective in BBC News productions.
The weather has a hell of a lot more impact on people's lives than just about anything else in the news. In fact you can say it's the only thing in every bulletin that impacts on everyone's life in some way or other. More so than a dead Pope or a Royal Wedding. Paxman's attitude is less than professional.
I feel somewhat sorry if the weather has an "impact" on you- perhaps you are suffering from that terribly naughties disease "Seasonal Affective Disorder".
I'm not saying no weather....I'm saying less weather.
News 24 (perhaps unsurprisingly a 24 hour News channel) devotes less time per hour through the day to business news than they do for the weather. Newsnight have now dropped the market board watch in favour of weather. News 24 have in the past clearly interupted their coverage of breaking news for the incessant weather forcasts.
Time for it to stop...I fancy the only reason why the new weather graphics are delayed beyond the election is that the new "flyover" graphics will take LONGER per forcast than the current graphics...time they can't afford to give to weather during the election campaign.
Just think like this- how many fewer cuts would be required in BBC News if BBC Weather had NOT have spent millions on new equipment? How many fewer cuts would be required if we sacked the Met Office forcasters and allowed news presenters to read out prepared forcast scripts.....that's how you save 15% in news (or at least a large part of it) without cutting NEWS output and without the audience being any less aware of the weather in their area for the next few days.
When you go out and it's raining, do you get wet? If the temperature drops do you need to turn on the central heating? If it's icy do you need to leave more time to get to work in the morning? Then the weather has an impact on you.
Weather forecasts with the new graphics will be the same durations as they are now. So you're making that bit up.
There's no reason for Newsnight to have dropped the market board for the weather, both could have been included. The weather can be written as a concise summary. It was clearly an editorial decision by NEWSNIGHT to include a weather forecast.
You're clearly not interested in the weather. Fine. I'm not interested in sport, but I'm not advocating the removal of all sports "news" from bulletins and News 24.
If you got rid of the Met Office forecasters, who would be writing the scripts for the newsreaders to read?
I think you've shown a complete lack of understanding of the importance of the weather forecasts for a very large number of people. Perhaps you live in a big city, away from the coasts and mountains, don't drive or indeed go outside often.
Your attitude appears to be "I'm not interested in the weather so the BBC shouldn't spend any money on it", which is rather childish.
DU
Once more I'm NOT saying the "BBC shouldn't spend any money on it", but that they should spend a hell of a lot less.
Other broadcasters buy in the forcasts from the Met Office and get their own presenters to read out the bulletins (kind of like seen on Newsnight but more professional). This is clearly cheaper than paying the Met Office for the same forcasting, plus paying meteorologists to present the weather. The new system has cost millions of pounds. The website is ridiculous and totally unnecessary in size and live information.
If you can't catch one of the 48 daily weather forcasts on News 24, plus the national forcasts after the national bulletins, plus your local forcasts in local news, you can always press the red button to get more weather than you need.
The weather is ONE story- it shouldn't be taking more time to present on News 24 than the entire world of business. That's a stupid and lazy editorial decision. It shouldn't be replacing the business news on Newsnight.
And how can you say that flyover forcasts will take the same length of time than the current 2D maps for the same information? It's clear that where at the moment we have a static map of the UK providing information for the entire country in a few seconds, we are now going to flying up and down providing the same information for a smaller part of the country at any one time. Weather forcasts will have to be longer if they want to cover the same amount of information- I don't think this is acceptable to BBC News, and it shouldn't be acceptable to viewers.
marksi posted:
When you go out and it's raining, do you get wet? If the temperature drops do you need to turn on the central heating? If it's icy do you need to leave more time to get to work in the morning? Then the weather has an impact on you.
Weather forecasts with the new graphics will be the same durations as they are now. So you're making that bit up.
There's no reason for Newsnight to have dropped the market board for the weather, both could have been included. The weather can be written as a concise summary. It was clearly an editorial decision by NEWSNIGHT to include a weather forecast.
You're clearly not interested in the weather. Fine. I'm not interested in sport, but I'm not advocating the removal of all sports "news" from bulletins and News 24.
If you got rid of the Met Office forecasters, who would be writing the scripts for the newsreaders to read?
I think you've shown a complete lack of understanding of the importance of the weather forecasts for a very large number of people. Perhaps you live in a big city, away from the coasts and mountains, don't drive or indeed go outside often.
Your attitude appears to be "I'm not interested in the weather so the BBC shouldn't spend any money on it", which is rather childish.
Weather forecasts with the new graphics will be the same durations as they are now. So you're making that bit up.
There's no reason for Newsnight to have dropped the market board for the weather, both could have been included. The weather can be written as a concise summary. It was clearly an editorial decision by NEWSNIGHT to include a weather forecast.
You're clearly not interested in the weather. Fine. I'm not interested in sport, but I'm not advocating the removal of all sports "news" from bulletins and News 24.
If you got rid of the Met Office forecasters, who would be writing the scripts for the newsreaders to read?
I think you've shown a complete lack of understanding of the importance of the weather forecasts for a very large number of people. Perhaps you live in a big city, away from the coasts and mountains, don't drive or indeed go outside often.
Your attitude appears to be "I'm not interested in the weather so the BBC shouldn't spend any money on it", which is rather childish.
Once more I'm NOT saying the "BBC shouldn't spend any money on it", but that they should spend a hell of a lot less.
Other broadcasters buy in the forcasts from the Met Office and get their own presenters to read out the bulletins (kind of like seen on Newsnight but more professional). This is clearly cheaper than paying the Met Office for the same forcasting, plus paying meteorologists to present the weather. The new system has cost millions of pounds. The website is ridiculous and totally unnecessary in size and live information.
If you can't catch one of the 48 daily weather forcasts on News 24, plus the national forcasts after the national bulletins, plus your local forcasts in local news, you can always press the red button to get more weather than you need.
The weather is ONE story- it shouldn't be taking more time to present on News 24 than the entire world of business. That's a stupid and lazy editorial decision. It shouldn't be replacing the business news on Newsnight.
And how can you say that flyover forcasts will take the same length of time than the current 2D maps for the same information? It's clear that where at the moment we have a static map of the UK providing information for the entire country in a few seconds, we are now going to flying up and down providing the same information for a smaller part of the country at any one time. Weather forcasts will have to be longer if they want to cover the same amount of information- I don't think this is acceptable to BBC News, and it shouldn't be acceptable to viewers.
MA
Personally, I find weather forecasts immensly important. I often have to work out an' about and find News 24's forecasts to be very useful.
As I've said before I think the importance of weather is striking a balance between too much and too litlle and I think News24 has got this just right.
Its the same with Sport and Business aspects to a channel, There needs to be a balance in respect to all of these and others and the importance of news. News 24 I feel works very well, Business is admitlly somewhat lacking but in respect to Sport/Weather it strikes the right balance, simularly it also manages to produce the right amount of rolling news and specific prorgrammes, like Technology : Click Online and Travel : Fast Track.
I look forward to the new graphics and hope the they can be as clear and effective as the previous set.
_____________
Now on BBC One, Oh who gives a f U ck
As I've said before I think the importance of weather is striking a balance between too much and too litlle and I think News24 has got this just right.
Its the same with Sport and Business aspects to a channel, There needs to be a balance in respect to all of these and others and the importance of news. News 24 I feel works very well, Business is admitlly somewhat lacking but in respect to Sport/Weather it strikes the right balance, simularly it also manages to produce the right amount of rolling news and specific prorgrammes, like Technology : Click Online and Travel : Fast Track.
I look forward to the new graphics and hope the they can be as clear and effective as the previous set.
_____________
Now on BBC One, Oh who gives a f U ck
CA
Once more I'm NOT saying the "BBC shouldn't spend any money on it", but that they should spend a hell of a lot less.
Other broadcasters buy in the forcasts from the Met Office and get their own presenters to read out the bulletins (kind of like seen on Newsnight but more professional). This is clearly cheaper than paying the Met Office for the same forcasting, plus paying meteorologists to present the weather. The new system has cost millions of pounds. The website is ridiculous and totally unnecessary in size and live information.
If you can't catch one of the 48 daily weather forcasts on News 24, plus the national forcasts after the national bulletins, plus your local forcasts in local news, you can always press the red button to get more weather than you need.
The weather is ONE story- it shouldn't be taking more time to present on News 24 than the entire world of business. That's a stupid and lazy editorial decision. It shouldn't be replacing the business news on Newsnight.
And how can you say that flyover forcasts will take the same length of time than the current 2D maps for the same information? It's clear that where at the moment we have a static map of the UK providing information for the entire country in a few seconds, we are now going to flying up and down providing the same information for a smaller part of the country at any one time. Weather forcasts will have to be longer if they want to cover the same amount of information- I don't think this is acceptable to BBC News, and it shouldn't be acceptable to viewers.
Says who the forecasts will be longer? As you've not even seen the new graphics, is it not a little bit silly to try to make judgements about the amount of time it will take for them to display information using them?
As for other forecasters ''buying in'' forecasts... not entirely sure where you're getting that from. ITV do to an extent, but Sky certainly employ meterologists who use the information they're given to forecast the weather. If you're suggesting that they 'buy' in data from the Met Office, well, everyone does - you can't expect the BBC to go and launch weather balloons or operate satellites; they aren't the Met Office or a University.
I agree it shouldn't be taking over business news on Newsnight, but personally I'd say that whether it is raining or not is probably going to worry most people more than whether the NASDAQ has fallen.
Dunedin posted:
marksi posted:
When you go out and it's raining, do you get wet? If the temperature drops do you need to turn on the central heating? If it's icy do you need to leave more time to get to work in the morning? Then the weather has an impact on you.
Weather forecasts with the new graphics will be the same durations as they are now. So you're making that bit up.
There's no reason for Newsnight to have dropped the market board for the weather, both could have been included. The weather can be written as a concise summary. It was clearly an editorial decision by NEWSNIGHT to include a weather forecast.
You're clearly not interested in the weather. Fine. I'm not interested in sport, but I'm not advocating the removal of all sports "news" from bulletins and News 24.
If you got rid of the Met Office forecasters, who would be writing the scripts for the newsreaders to read?
I think you've shown a complete lack of understanding of the importance of the weather forecasts for a very large number of people. Perhaps you live in a big city, away from the coasts and mountains, don't drive or indeed go outside often.
Your attitude appears to be "I'm not interested in the weather so the BBC shouldn't spend any money on it", which is rather childish.
Weather forecasts with the new graphics will be the same durations as they are now. So you're making that bit up.
There's no reason for Newsnight to have dropped the market board for the weather, both could have been included. The weather can be written as a concise summary. It was clearly an editorial decision by NEWSNIGHT to include a weather forecast.
You're clearly not interested in the weather. Fine. I'm not interested in sport, but I'm not advocating the removal of all sports "news" from bulletins and News 24.
If you got rid of the Met Office forecasters, who would be writing the scripts for the newsreaders to read?
I think you've shown a complete lack of understanding of the importance of the weather forecasts for a very large number of people. Perhaps you live in a big city, away from the coasts and mountains, don't drive or indeed go outside often.
Your attitude appears to be "I'm not interested in the weather so the BBC shouldn't spend any money on it", which is rather childish.
Once more I'm NOT saying the "BBC shouldn't spend any money on it", but that they should spend a hell of a lot less.
Other broadcasters buy in the forcasts from the Met Office and get their own presenters to read out the bulletins (kind of like seen on Newsnight but more professional). This is clearly cheaper than paying the Met Office for the same forcasting, plus paying meteorologists to present the weather. The new system has cost millions of pounds. The website is ridiculous and totally unnecessary in size and live information.
If you can't catch one of the 48 daily weather forcasts on News 24, plus the national forcasts after the national bulletins, plus your local forcasts in local news, you can always press the red button to get more weather than you need.
The weather is ONE story- it shouldn't be taking more time to present on News 24 than the entire world of business. That's a stupid and lazy editorial decision. It shouldn't be replacing the business news on Newsnight.
And how can you say that flyover forcasts will take the same length of time than the current 2D maps for the same information? It's clear that where at the moment we have a static map of the UK providing information for the entire country in a few seconds, we are now going to flying up and down providing the same information for a smaller part of the country at any one time. Weather forcasts will have to be longer if they want to cover the same amount of information- I don't think this is acceptable to BBC News, and it shouldn't be acceptable to viewers.
Says who the forecasts will be longer? As you've not even seen the new graphics, is it not a little bit silly to try to make judgements about the amount of time it will take for them to display information using them?
As for other forecasters ''buying in'' forecasts... not entirely sure where you're getting that from. ITV do to an extent, but Sky certainly employ meterologists who use the information they're given to forecast the weather. If you're suggesting that they 'buy' in data from the Met Office, well, everyone does - you can't expect the BBC to go and launch weather balloons or operate satellites; they aren't the Met Office or a University.
I agree it shouldn't be taking over business news on Newsnight, but personally I'd say that whether it is raining or not is probably going to worry most people more than whether the NASDAQ has fallen.
SJ
I don't know if you're already aware, but there's a healthy debate bubbling along on Newsnight's replacement of the Markets with weather over on the Newsnight site. My favourite comment so far:
Quote:
On Fridays, will we get an in-depth review of the week's weather by the Newsnight Review folk?
MA
This is a joke, right?
I know the current "look" is p*ss poor but would they relaunch for less than 2 years? The only changes I can see is possibly altering the national studio/graphics to update to the rest of the look.
Joel.
nat210790 posted:
I know that chances of this are extremely small, but has anyone heard anything of a new look for BBC News when the weather graphics get a new look? The current state of BBC News presentation is pretty awful!
This is a joke, right?
I know the current "look" is p*ss poor but would they relaunch for less than 2 years? The only changes I can see is possibly altering the national studio/graphics to update to the rest of the look.
Joel.