derek500j post_id=24896 time= user_id=1363 Wrote:Was that decision based on having GB News as a competitor, though?
Possibly, although they'd have had a big advantage over GBN in terms of quality, synergies with their other outlets and publicity.
If Murdoch can't make something like that work then who can?
JK1985 post_id=24907 time= user_id=1347 Wrote:£60 million start up funding sounds big, but it will be eaten away very quickly. Think about the 140 staff working there, all their salaries, especially the larger salaries for the more prime time anchors.
I am amazed that they hired 120 journalists, leaving only 20 positions on the technical side. This explains the crap production quality.
There is little evidence on screen they've got 120 journalists with 10-15 regional reporters and Tom Harwood, plus around 20-25 presenters viewers are only seeing a third of that. I appreciate not all may be on screen journalists - although there is not much evidence of a team of researchers being behind the on screen personnel either.
Brekkie post_id=24919 time= user_id=976 Wrote:JK1985 post_id=24907 time= user_id=1347 Wrote:£60 million start up funding sounds big, but it will be eaten away very quickly. Think about the 140 staff working there, all their salaries, especially the larger salaries for the more prime time anchors.
I am amazed that they hired 120 journalists, leaving only 20 positions on the technical side. This explains the crap production quality.
There is little evidence on screen they've got 120 journalistswith 10-15 regional reporters and Tom Harwood, plus around 20-25 presenters viewers are only seeing a third of that. I appreciate not all may be on screen journalists - although there is not much evidence of a team of researchers being behind the on screen personnel either.
I must admit that I also can't really see where the output of 120 journos are on the station even if you count the presenting team and the regular guests as journos.
This station really misses the structure of having bulletins on the hour or half hour.
Couldn't they pay a company like Reuters to prepare bulletins for them - send them scripts for the news presenter to read, the odd 1-2m VT package, and so on?
That would go a long way to making it a news channel and more professional.
Costs money though and I guess with TV it's pretty much a bespoke service from scratch unlike radio where there are a few off-the-shelf options to look at for inserting an hourly news bulletin into the schedule.
Wouldn't it make sense to outsource the news side of things to Reuters (like, I believe, GMTV did in the 90s?)
The idea of the channel is a strong one and some of the content could, potentially, be very good with the right packaging and presentation. There's certainly an audience for it But the elephant in the room is the lack of news - you can't get your news from GB News as there is no news! Would a radio-style 4-5min up-summer on the hour be too much to ask?
TVNZ7 in New Zealand (now defunct) also used to outsource bulletins, too.
From
here:
Quote:Because of limited resources, the bulletins [done hourly] were scripted from news gathered from wire sources. These included One News and TVNZ affiliates Newstalk ZB, ABC America, ABC Australia, and the BBC.
So if they could, surely GBN can? (Remember, both have roughly the same level of resources.)
Just switched on for first time in a few days, and watching McCoy and Phillips. They started this hour by introducing a clip of Gavin Williamson, which they then couldn't play, so introduced a guest, who they then didn't have. These are such basic things that they still can't get right, 2.5 weeks after launch. The content of GB News is the biggest let down. As others have said, there is no news.
all new Phil post_id=24915 time= user_id=865 Wrote:Are students immune to earpieces failing?
No, but they probably have more sense than to wave in-vision at the presenter, or walk in and say End It on air.
news727 post_id=24950 time= user_id=1412 Wrote:TVNZ7 in New Zealand (now defunct) also used to outsource bulletins, too.
From here:
Quote:Because of limited resources, the bulletins [done hourly] were scripted from news gathered from wire sources. These included One News and TVNZ affiliates Newstalk ZB, ABC America, ABC Australia, and the BBC.
So if they could, surely GBN can? (Remember, both have roughly the same level of resources.)
They had TVNZ News backing it up though and the hourly updates relying more on wire content than journalists out in the field is no different to how the likes of 60 Seconds would have operated at the BBC, where the bulletins themselves required little resource but they had the backbone of BBC News behind them.
JK1985 post_id=24907 time= user_id=1347 Wrote:£60 million start up funding sounds big, but it will be eaten away very quickly. Think about the 140 staff working there, all their salaries, especially the larger salaries for the more prime time anchors.
I am amazed that they hired 120 journalists, leaving only 20 positions on the technical side. This explains the crap production quality.
As I've said before, that maths is wrong... if they've 140 staff, 120 journalists and 20 operational/technical staff then who's doing everything else?
James Martin post_id=24947 time=1625063108 user_id=872 Wrote:Wouldn't it make sense to outsource the news side of things to Reuters (like, I believe, GMTV did in the 90s?)
The idea of the channel is a strong one and some of the content could, potentially, be very good with the right packaging and presentation. There's certainly an audience for it But the elephant in the room is the lack of news - you can't get your news from GB News as there is no news! Would a radio-style 4-5min up-summer on the hour be too much to ask?
If we’re just talking radio style bulletins once or twice an hour, I’m sure there is enough news gathering resources already there to produce them, as they’re producing hours of content talking about the things that would make up that bulletin. So surely it’s just a case of a news reader picking out the bullet points of the GB News agenda for that day and adding some relevant stock footage and clips of their own interviews.
AJ post_id=24909 time=1625054208 user_id=920 Wrote:JasonJones01 post_id=24723 time= user_id=1783 Wrote:Am surprised no one commented on this (watch from the 2:00 mark)
It's really not great, is it.
I'd say that it's being run like a student TV channel at the moment, but I genuinely think that students would do a much better job.
Looks like they didn't brief her well, but I'm going to admin I don't know what "naked nimbisism" means either. :?
I'm reminded of the rather self-congratulatory press release on how they were going to launch a "nationwide" radio station (presumably on Digital 1?). I wonder if they're still going ahead with that - I guess it's harder to cock up radio in the way that they continue to do with TV?
i.h post_id=24979 time= user_id=1247 Wrote:I'm reminded of the rather self-congratulatory press release on how they were going to launch a "nationwide" radio station (presumably on Digital 1?). I wonder if they're still going ahead with that - I guess it's harder to cock up radio in the way that they continue to do with TV?
There's a slight problem with that assumption:
The output will be a full audio simulcast with the television station, meaning no special programmes or content will be made for the radio channel
https://radiotoday.co.uk/2021/06/gb-news...o-station/
Not sure how that'll work with the channel in the state it is, and presumably they'd have to replace the TV ads with ones made for radio