Channel 5 have decided to scrap their ailing morning news program 5 News at Breakfast in favour of simulcasting the ITN News Channel between 6 and 7am. This will happen at the same time as Channel 5 launch their second evening program, which is I believe to be called 'ITN 5 News' apparently, and the launch of Home and Away on Channel 5.
Mmmm that's an interesting development, I don't see a problem in ITN trying to raise it's profile after ITV dumped the name in an attempt to establish it's own brand. ITV do not produce their own news, it is done by ITN, so why shouldn't they get the credit ? I wonder if this means new idents, hopefully a new studio for Channel 5.
Rupert in secret pact with Blair
to ax BBC competitor to BSkyB
Tycoon drops opposition to digital license fee
By Simon Bond
The UK government is reported to be planning to scrap the BBC's controversial digital channel, News 24, as part of a backroom deal with Rupert Murdoch's pay-TV company BSkyB.
The story was broken by London's Financial Times in the wake of growing unease about the relationship between Tony Blair's government and Murdoch's media empire in the UK.
According to the reports, the UK government believes that BSkyB will drop its opposition to the proposed digital TV license fee if the BBC's News 24--a rival to Murdoch's Sky News channel--is closed down.
BSkyB is part of an alliance of commercial broadcasters who are opposed to the introduction of an extra license fee for viewers of digital television services.
The alliance believes that the extra tax on viewing the new digital channels will stifle growth and slow down the acceptance of digital TVs and set-top boxes.
Gavin Davies, the government's own consultant on the future of BBC funding, proposed the digital license fee last year as a way to raise funding for new programs to attract viewers to digital. However, Davies' proposals have caused an outcry in the TV industry.
Now, BSkyB's influence over government broadcasting policy is set to be under close scrutiny again following the Financial Times' revelations.
The close relationship between the present government and BSkyB goes back to before their election win three years ago when soon-to-be Prime Minister Tony Blair flew to Australia to court Murdoch's support.
Murdoch obliged and swung the support of his UK newspapers behind Blair's campaign. This included the UK's top-selling tabloid, The Sun, which--as a reminder of where the dues should be paid--ran the headline 'It was the Sun that Won It' on the morning of Blair's election victory.
Since then, Murdoch and the Blair regime have been linked over a $30 million sponsorship of the London Millennium Dome and some useful decisions over an anti-competition investigation into the competing French media group Vivendi.
The digital license fee is BSkyB's latest concern. The government has been considering a two-tier fee that would see the introduction of a small digital levy and a slight increase in the current analogue charge to fund the BBC.
However, last month's government consultation into the introduction of the charges attracted over 500 representations, of which 97 percent were against the fee and just 2 percent in favor.
Chris Smith, the government minister is charge, is expecting to make his decision in February. He is known to want News 24 off the air. And given the weight of opposition to the fee, the BBC maybe forced to concede the channel as a pre-condition to securing the license fees it wants to fund its other digital ventures.
Whether the scrapping of News 24 alone is enough for BSkyB to support what will amount to a tax on its customers is unknown. However, with crucial negotiations underway for the future TV rights for UK premier league soccer, there is plenty of scope to 'even-up' the deal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now may I just make it known that I am not posting this to get on everyone's nerves, I simply found it in Time Magazine and thought it was interesting, personally I would not like to see News24 off the air but that isn't the point.
I presume the article was written in 2000 as it says Blair won the election 3 years ago, so 97+3 years is 2000 if my maths is correct.
Now it says in February.... this must mean Feb 2001 as the government was only elected in May 1997, so that wouldn't be 3 years.
But the thing is, Chris Smith is no longer Media Sec. that is Tessa Jowel, I know the News24 review has been put back until after the election, so it should take place once the cabinet is sorted etc.
But it will certainly be interesting whatever happens.
AL
alekf
I couldn't believe that they would (the gov) rip a channel of the air. I mean, that has never happened in the history of the BBC and it would look extraordinarily bad.
And, why would Murdoch want News 24 off the air so badly, especially since (from what I heard) Sky News is way ahead of News 24 in the ratings.
I just find it hard to believe.
KE
kevin
Sky is still ahead of News 24 in the ratings, but it is still not pulling the amount of viewers that an Advertising-funded station needs to get to woo new advertisers to the network.
Also, a digital license fee would encourage people to watch what they paid for, which would be BBC Services, that in itself is a threat to Sky News, becuase people will feel that they have paid for N24, therefore they will watch N24 instead...
Well I think it would be a hugh embarassment to BBC News reputation if they pulled off News 24, especially since they have invested tons of money into it.
The sad thing is that if BBC News 24 were to be axed, they can't even bring in their global 24hr news channel BBC World because it's commercially funded.
Although I personally hate News 24 and watch BBC One and BBC World, I wouldn't like to see the UK, without a decidicated 24Hr news channel from the BBC.
i dont think it would be pulled from air but modified if anything. the beeb would probably start another news channel called UKNEWS or something and run it under the uktv network. just a thought
The point is, had Smith stayed Culture Media and Sport Sec. it would have been taken off the air.
Sky only want it removed because of the fact that it is offered free to cable homes, whereas Sky have to charge for Sky News as it is advert funded.
It is nothing to do with viewing figures, simply the fact that Murdoch has had his best news channel replaced by the BBC, devastating for Murdoch.
It would not be a massive embarrasment, it wouldn't even get into the Business News roundup on Sky, simply because of the fact that it wouldn't actually affect anyone, the BBC is not a stock exchange listed service and they certainly wouldn't broadcast the news themselves.
The most likely solution would be that BBC News24 would be attached to the BBC Worldwide arm, and hence carry advertising, and then they would also have to charge to put it on cable networks so competition would be levelled out.
UKNEWS would fare even worse as no-one would have ever heard of that name.
SC
ScottC
errr... is it just me, or are we missing a HUGE point in this discussion? ...
Sky News would have a monopoly on UK 24hr News coverage. OK, there's ITN but at the moment not too many people are tuning in.
Did anyone see the James Bond film 'The World Is Not Enough'? Quite ironic I feel considering what's been said in this thread!
The point is that BBC News24 has the current majority... as it is potentially available to more people people, 96% compared to Sky's 76%.
The BBC already has a monopoly on news, and they would like it, as would many people in this forum, if Sky News was never created, meaning that we would not have a 3rd independent news source in the Uk.
If many people at the BBC had their way Sky News would never have been created in the first place, as the BBC want to keep a stranglehold on news and deprive the public of a 3rd news source.
The BBC already has a monopoly on news, we are getting to the very dangerous stage indeed whereby if the BBC is allowed to expand further it will be the news service that people watch on all platforms, be it appoitment to view bulletins or 24 hours or online news.
This will be a very sad day as essentially people will mainly be watching BBC News coverage, which as we all known are not normally the whole truth, leading to a nation of ill informed idiots.
SC
ScottC
Wow!
'Calm Down, Calm Down' to coin a catchphrase from Harry Enfield!
My point was that if Mr Murdoch is able to dictate which channels are allowed to broadcast and which are not, then Sky become a law unto themselves. This is a democratic country we live in, not a Republic. People should have choice.
Right now, we do have choice in the UK - Sky News, News24, and the newcomer ITN News Channel. If you don't like the way the BBC or anyone else for that matter informs you, then you have a remote control to take you to another channel.
If an individual, be it a person or company, doesn't like the other, what gives them the right to wipe them out?
Going back to my original analogy of 'The World Is Not Enough'... who owns and runs the majority of News Media groups globally? That's monopoly for you
