Is News 24 a waste of license payers money?

News 24 is drab and dull . it's something that granny watches.

no presenter chemistry

usually the last to break news stories

poor set

dull static graphics

the presenters are always the ones who dont really have the x factor for the main bbcone bulletins.

with so much commercial choice out there do we need news 24? even the upper echelons of the government watch sky news doesnt this say something

i believe the bbc should get rid of this channel now or alter the format so it has more analysis like news nite or the channel 4 news

Try concentrating on your spelling and grammar, and we might credit this thread with an answer.

This is a news channel Ronald. It's 'chemistry' is for it to be fast paced while providing as much detail as possible.

It is not there to analyise different stories, hence why we have Newsnight.

What happens and has happened when they are first to break news stories?

Something like they are facing in the Hutton inquiry. (not that extreme normally, but they are still slated by SKY, ITV, and news watchdogs if they break it and it turns out not to be true.)

Plus ITV actually broadcast the News at 10 all night so how do they deal with over-night breaking news? Do they have crew on-standby?

Yes.

My love, that's not quite true, it is?

You see, a) News 24 and the Hutton inquiry have absolutely nothing to do with each other; b) I cannot recall Sky and ITV attacking the BBC for breaking incorrect reports (which it has) indeed, it has always been the other way around; c) what is a "news watchdog", exactly?

The BBC's reporting in question came from three of their least-news-channel-like programmes: Today, Newsnight and Ten O'clock News. All were researched and prepared for, none reliant upon wire services and sketchy details from afar, and all were constructed by senior journalists at the corporation rather than presenters at a news desk.

The reporting in question and the reporting the BBC routinely criticise on Sky (because clearly attacking your rivals is more fun than running a news channel at all) could not be more different.

Do you see your mistake now?

no presenter chemistry

There are some good presenters on News 24, but you will never see Mishal Husain on BBC News 24 that's for sure, she's too good!

usually the last to break news stories

Well they need to check two sources!

poor set

True, sends you into a nice deep sleep though!

dull static graphics

I think they animate too much for my liking, plus they are using the wrong shade of red, that red should only be used for Breaking News.

And please someone at N24, sort out the information ticker aston, it's annoying with that one second delay before the next line of text!!!

I think BBC News 24 plays a vital role, in forcing the other networks to keep improving. News 24 is this mighty force which only reaches a part of its potential, but it instills an urge to be the best and to outdo the Beeb with its many many resources. I doubt TV News would be in the same state had it not been for BBC News 24. But if the Beeb want to appear different in its approach, they should return to the casual format they launched with, and leave the heavy weight reporting to Sky and their TV/Radio bulletins.

They need to get out of that horrible red set complete with fake live gallery!

I think News 24 has some serious problems, certainly.

Along with the rest of BBC News, they've now sort of half given up on the corporate branding but not quite, leaving News 24's presentation appearing very confused: it's half dreary old graphics that have been trotted out for the last 4 years, and half bizarre (and poor) new graphics that don't really fit in very well.

The lack of presenter chemistry is a valid point, and personally I'd rather the joint News 24/World bulletins overnight didn't happen - I admire Sky News for keeping a UK focused news service going 24 hours a day - which News 24 (and certainly not ITVNC) does not.

And, I'd like to know quite why News 24 (which can allready draw on all of BBC News' resources) costs as much as it does, when Sky News costs nothing like it, and has to operate an entire newsgathering operation too for that money.

I certainly wouldn't say get rid of it, but some accountability and justification for it's running costs needs to be provided (along with accountability of all of the BBC - I think their books should be published online every year so we can see exactly where every penny they get goes - it might be interesting to see just how much of the licence fee goes into Board of Governer's wages etc).

No, as the resources are already there... so it's not a waste at all.

Who needs Rolling News anyway? You can learn just as much from browsing Ceefax for five minutes as from watching Rolling News all day. Once you strip out the speculation, the not-really-newsworthy stories and the bits where they just tell you the same thing they've already told you in five different ways, there really isn't much left.