Could classic Presentation come back into use?

Doesn't seem to bother them now!

Do you mean the network clock was a bit fast? It may have been.

In NI on digital, if you wanted the clock to reach the top of hour on-screen, and stay there until just before it ticked on to one second past, you needed to cut to news at 1 second and 10 frames past the hour. One announcer never bothered with this, and simply cut to network at the usual time, which always resulted in the clock never actually reaching the top of the hour when they introduced the News.

Precisely. This reflects what I have said about the function of the clock - and as a 'news indicator' it was much better suited to the task than a symbol - but there is clearly some debate about how important the accuracy is... I don't feel it is an issue personally, but then I wouldn't complain about a slight delay in the timing.

It has been said that people may take issue if the time is incorrect, and I can understand that as a reason for not broadcasting one so as not to incur those complaints if there would be many - but your information puts a different and interesting perspective on things, insofar as inaccurate clocks have already been used in the past... So I'm not convinced the accuracy question is reason enough to stop a clock being re-introduced, particularly as that would not be its primary function, as we have said.

If delayed clocks have quite happily been broadcast before, then why not now? There doesn't seem to have been much mention of their being considered slow or old-fashioned prior to just now, but I very much find that easier to understand as the reason for not being shown at present, even if I wholeheartedly disagree with it!

I used to set my wrist watch to match the time on BBC News 24. I'd wait for the next minute before pressing set. Nowadays i go by the time on my smartphone which set the time the first time i switched it on.

I always set the time by my computer, as it synchronises with UK time servers with delays taken into account.

Actually, even back in the dim and distant 100% analogue days, no TV clock was accurate. They all ran 0.5 seconds fast, so you'd see the second hand hit the top, before they cut to the news etc

I can remember visiting NC1 at TVC in the 80s, and seeing the real time control room clock, with the BBC 1 'capgen' clock 0.5 seconds in front

It's not the clock that out it the transmission signal...
On your suggestion I'd have different time displays between our HD Freeview in the living room to our Freeview set in the dining room. There's at least 3 secs different between them.

I think the news, on any channel, should always be preceded by a clock, rather than some ballet dancers, or farmyard animals or whistling wind and blowing leaves, as the case may be.

A good big clock with visible digits!

That's odd. The clock on my PC seems to lag behind the clock on BBC Breakfast, yet you would expect that to be behind judging by the comments on here.

Also, slightly paradoxically, the very things we're talking about here (IVC, clocks and the like) are problematic for the newer technology. Running these automated is prone to errors, mistiming etc.

I think this has as much to do with their disappearance as anything else. It can be done with manual intervention, but that doesn't fit too well with the idea of automating everything either, and certainly gets in the way when you're controlling multiple stations at once.

This idea never seemed to chime with Tyne Tees, who generally would have their clock spot-on, but would crossfade or wipe from clock to the news after the audio had started (as per the house style), often running to 10:00:01 in the process.

As with others, I don't buy into the time lag argument at all. For a start, the final BBC1 clock in the english regions was a pre-recording of a specific time played out like an ident and only as accurate as the person controlling it. That situation was considered acceptable for two years and presumably if the dancers clock (which apparently was made) had made it to air it would have carried on a lot longer.

I don't think there's anyone who used a TV clock as a source of accurate time, it's simply a presentation device, and a very effective one which was long associated with the news. Also, in an era where junctions are squeezed tighter and tighter using a clock would surely benefit the broadcasters as it made for a quicker introduction - the ident+anno sequence into the news on BBC1 now actually takes longer than the clock+anno did 10 years ago. And you don't have to go that far back to see the news introduced over 2 seconds of clock and 'This is BBC1' - something which just wouldn't work now when there is nothing but the announcer to differentiate a news junction from any other.

The possibility that there may be a major backlash against having a clock which is inaccurate by a few seconds (or even the 20 seconds which has been quoted) due to digital delays is surely beyond all realms of possibility.

If it's a simple creative choice then I can accept that (even if I think presentation was stronger with it). But it annoys me when it's attributed to a technical reason, which implies they would if they could. If that's truly the case, and future technological developments overcomes digital delays (or makes them identical across all platforms and equipment and thus something which can be compensated for) then presumably I can look forward to a clock introducing the 6 O'Clock news again? No? I thought not.