SN
As mentioned before there is a rights issues but also a costs issue. BBC World is produced by BBC News for BBC Worldwide - who fund the channel. Although there is simulcasting between 1:00 and 6:00. If further simulcasting were to take place this would be an additional cost to come out of BBC News 24 budget. News 24 are paid to produce Breakfast for BBC One - so taking BBC World would be throwing money away.
As mentioned before rights issues would be a problem but it would be an organsiational nightmare as the News 24 gallery would be in use 24/7 for pres purposes or opts - so no maintainance would be able to take place. World's gallery normally send their output to a separate pres area for broadcast.
As mentioned before rights issues would be a problem but it would be an organsiational nightmare as the News 24 gallery would be in use 24/7 for pres purposes or opts - so no maintainance would be able to take place. World's gallery normally send their output to a separate pres area for broadcast.
:-(
Erm...can't BBC ONE produce it for BBC ONE?
A former member
snarfu posted:
News 24 are paid to produce Breakfast for BBC One - so taking BBC World would be throwing money away.
Erm...can't BBC ONE produce it for BBC ONE?
RE
well if they cant take BBC World then they should at least get two presenters in for the morning shift. Someone young and fresh..say Martin Popplewell & Susanna Reid?. They could have their own "breakfast" program from 0600 - 0900.
AS
Apologies if this has been said in the rest of the thread - haven't read the last 3 pages.
But isn't this exactly what that committee criticised News 24 for? They wanted it to be different and stand out from other news channels - surely this is exactly what Breakfast is doing?
Just my penny's worth...
Square Eyes posted:
Have to agree. I think it's unaceptable for a so called 24 hour news channel to opt out from rolling news for a 3 hour "newsy" magazine programme every day.
Seems to me that when you take out Breakfast, Hardtalk, Business Today, Asia Today, Click On-Line, Straight Talk, Talking Movies, Gate 24 etc etc, that there is more rolling news on Sky and even the ITVNC.
Sky & ITVNC do exactly what it says on the tin.
Seems to me that when you take out Breakfast, Hardtalk, Business Today, Asia Today, Click On-Line, Straight Talk, Talking Movies, Gate 24 etc etc, that there is more rolling news on Sky and even the ITVNC.
Sky & ITVNC do exactly what it says on the tin.
Apologies if this has been said in the rest of the thread - haven't read the last 3 pages.
But isn't this exactly what that committee criticised News 24 for? They wanted it to be different and stand out from other news channels - surely this is exactly what Breakfast is doing?
Just my penny's worth...
:-(
A former member
Saying that News 24 should simulcast Breakfast because it's pointless having different news on both channels is a bit like saying that the ITV News Channel should simulcast This Morning. In my eyes they're both lightweight magazine-type shows, so what's the difference? And if this *is* the argument for showing Breakfast, why doesn't News 24 simulcast The 1, 6 and 10 o'clock news?
I'm sorry but if Sky can afford to pay people to man their gallery 24 hours a day, then so can News 24. This argument about it costing more even to show BBC World because they have to pay someone to sit there and insert a break filler is crap, of course they can afford that. They manage perfectly well overnight.
I'm sorry but if Sky can afford to pay people to man their gallery 24 hours a day, then so can News 24. This argument about it costing more even to show BBC World because they have to pay someone to sit there and insert a break filler is crap, of course they can afford that. They manage perfectly well overnight.
MO
Apologies if this has been said in the rest of the thread - haven't read the last 3 pages.
But isn't this exactly what that committee criticised News 24 for? They wanted it to be different and stand out from other news channels - surely this is exactly what Breakfast is doing?
Just my penny's worth...
Yes but if being different to other news channels means they stop covering news, then surely that's silly!
They could be different to other news channels by covering fishing 24/7, but that's not what the committee wanted.
Breakfast is not rolling news!
Aston posted:
Square Eyes posted:
Have to agree. I think it's unaceptable for a so called 24 hour news channel to opt out from rolling news for a 3 hour "newsy" magazine programme every day.
Seems to me that when you take out Breakfast, Hardtalk, Business Today, Asia Today, Click On-Line, Straight Talk, Talking Movies, Gate 24 etc etc, that there is more rolling news on Sky and even the ITVNC.
Sky & ITVNC do exactly what it says on the tin.
Seems to me that when you take out Breakfast, Hardtalk, Business Today, Asia Today, Click On-Line, Straight Talk, Talking Movies, Gate 24 etc etc, that there is more rolling news on Sky and even the ITVNC.
Sky & ITVNC do exactly what it says on the tin.
Apologies if this has been said in the rest of the thread - haven't read the last 3 pages.
But isn't this exactly what that committee criticised News 24 for? They wanted it to be different and stand out from other news channels - surely this is exactly what Breakfast is doing?
Just my penny's worth...
Yes but if being different to other news channels means they stop covering news, then surely that's silly!
They could be different to other news channels by covering fishing 24/7, but that's not what the committee wanted.
Breakfast is not rolling news!
:-(
A former member
I think News 24 would prefer to have their own breakfast programme, but the BBC was criticised for spending so much on a rolling news channel that nobody watched (£60m annual budget - 0.1% of digital audience). Therefore, to cut costs they amalgamated the production costs on BBC One and N24. N24 don't show Breakfast because they are paid, or because they use the studio as a training gallery - it is purely about how they spend taxpayers money.
HA
This problem wouldn't even arise, if BBC News 24 had a proper presentation unit like World, this would give the gallery a break, the weather and the trailers could be played by News 24, and this gives the chance for the presenter to rehearse headlines, and we'd get the bongs with the headlines.
It will never happen due to cost.
I'd like to see BBC World between these hours, just to give viewers choice, but they would have to ditch Sport Today in the morning, as well as the other "problems" mentioned in this thread.
harshy
Founding member
Phil posted:
Saying that News 24 should simulcast Breakfast because it's pointless having different news on both channels is a bit like saying that the ITV News Channel should simulcast This Morning. In my eyes they're both lightweight magazine-type shows, so what's the difference? And if this *is* the argument for showing Breakfast, why doesn't News 24 simulcast The 1, 6 and 10 o'clock news?
I'm sorry but if Sky can afford to pay people to man their gallery 24 hours a day, then so can News 24. This argument about it costing more even to show BBC World because they have to pay someone to sit there and insert a break filler is crap, of course they can afford that. They manage perfectly well overnight.
I'm sorry but if Sky can afford to pay people to man their gallery 24 hours a day, then so can News 24. This argument about it costing more even to show BBC World because they have to pay someone to sit there and insert a break filler is crap, of course they can afford that. They manage perfectly well overnight.
This problem wouldn't even arise, if BBC News 24 had a proper presentation unit like World, this would give the gallery a break, the weather and the trailers could be played by News 24, and this gives the chance for the presenter to rehearse headlines, and we'd get the bongs with the headlines.
It will never happen due to cost.
I'd like to see BBC World between these hours, just to give viewers choice, but they would have to ditch Sport Today in the morning, as well as the other "problems" mentioned in this thread.
RE
I don't understand how with all the crap-ness, simulcasting & trollop News 24 turns out it costs THREE times more than Sky News. That figure has been tossed around numerous times, and I can't believe that its true.
Do News 24 pay their presenters on an a salary? If so it must be these salaries that are too high. Put them all on performance related pay totally, and most of them will be living in a shack in an underground station - Joanna Gosling, Liz Pike, Matthew Amroliwala, Phillipa Thomas, Louise Munching etc.
Are more experienced presenters paid more - e.g. Phillip Hayton compared to Chris Eakin?
Do News 24 pay their presenters on an a salary? If so it must be these salaries that are too high. Put them all on performance related pay totally, and most of them will be living in a shack in an underground station - Joanna Gosling, Liz Pike, Matthew Amroliwala, Phillipa Thomas, Louise Munching etc.
Are more experienced presenters paid more - e.g. Phillip Hayton compared to Chris Eakin?