BBC Four & CBBC to close

[neonemesis]

It's clear to me that you don't know much about the history of the BBC, before 2002 there was no CBeebies, only Children's BBC so all programmes would air in that strand and had it not been for Greg Dyke and Nigel Pickard it probably would've stayed that way, so on that point AxiosBrit67 is right, merging the two channels is much better than having to close one of them.

Respectfully, this is a different point. You are correct, in the past the BBC served children with a single strand.

It is also true that the audiences are different, with very different content. In the Night Garden is not comparable with Newsround. In the old days Children's BBC would begin with content for the youngest viewers and conclude with content for older children. But that was then.

In the past 20 years the amount of content for both of those discreet audiences has increased. And that content has been much more effectively targeted at the relevant audiences.

My personal experience is that my young children never watch linear Cbeebies. They have their favourite programmes that we use iPlayer to show them. Once, when our internet was down and they did watch the linear channel they couldn't comprehend why they weren't able to choose to put Go Jetters or Octonauts on instead of whatever was being served up at the time.

So yes, there is history. Yes, a linear channel serving two distinct audiences is clearly a compromise. But to suggest these audiences are in any way similar just isn't true.



CBeebies and CBBC serve very different audiences.

[BBCMeridian]

It's clear to me that you don't know much about the history of the BBC, before 2002 there was no CBeebies, only Children's BBC so all programmes would air in that strand and had it not been for Greg Dyke and Nigel Pickard it probably would've stayed that way, so on that point AxiosBrit67 is right, merging the two channels is much better than having to close one of them.

Respectfully, this is a different point. You are correct, in the past the BBC served children with a single strand.

It is also true that the audiences are different, with very different content. In the Night Garden is not comparable with Newsround. In the old days Children's BBC would begin with content for the youngest viewers and conclude with content for older children. But that was then.

In the past 20 years the amount of content for both of those discreet audiences has increased. And that content has been much more effectively targeted at the relevant audiences.

My personal experience is that my young children never watch linear Cbeebies. They have their favourite programmes that we use iPlayer to show them. Once, when our internet was down and they did watch the linear channel they couldn't comprehend why they weren't able to choose to put Go Jetters or Octonauts on instead of whatever was being served up at the time.

So yes, there is history. Yes, a linear channel serving two distinct audiences is clearly a compromise. But to suggest these audiences are in any way similar just isn't true.



CBeebies and CBBC serve very different audiences.

So the big question is what's going to happen now? I mean it feels like we're going back to 2011 where all older kids programmes were on BBC One and BBC Two.

[natashajacobs]

In all of this I feel sorry for the kids of the parents on Universal Credit who don’t have a phone or internet access and use the free kids channels, they lose out most from this.

[Brekkie]

BBC4 or BBC3 closing won't get much of a reaction, but this is a gamble the BBC will be hoping resonates with an audience deemed not to be too invested in BBC services - but exactly the generation who grew up with the CBBC channel when it launched 20 years ago. Feels like another 6Music moment - the BBC will do what they can to keep it going but they need to threaten it's closure to get the support for it to continue.

[Andrew]

Now that I think of it though......reading the press release has made me think
So as things stand roght now CBBC, BBC Four and BBC Radio 4 Extra will be closed in 2025, now could this be some sort of a way to delay the closure of the channels until after the next General Election, hoping that the Conservative Party loses and that Labour (or whoever else will be in Government) give a bit more funds to the BBC so that these closures could be avoided? Because remember when BBC Three's closure was first proposed, it was in 2014 and then it was approved in 2015, but bear in mind that the plan was approved by the BBC Trust after the 2015 GE (provisional approval in June 2015, full approval in November).......I don't know maybe I just wrote complete b******t, but still.......

I'm sure the BBC would hope for a favourable change of circumstances -- whether a change of government, or a change of policy from the current government. But that would require a massive public backlash against the BBC switching a small number of TV/radio services to online only. Given everything else in British politics, I doubt that's the sort of thing that's going to swing many votes.

Not being political but in the current cost of living crisis, no government of any colour is going to increase the licence fee which would hit ‘hard working families and those on the lowest incomes’. So I can’t imagine any change to the current situation whatever happens in the next few years.

[Whataday]

In all of this I feel sorry for the kids of the parents on Universal Credit who don’t have a phone or internet access and use the free kids channels, they lose out most from this.

On paper this is a good argument for a children's strand on one of the remaining linear channels. However, 97% of the UK has internet access so I'm not sure it really stands up once you dive into the figures. Also BT and Virgin offer heavily discounted broadband for those on Universal Credit.

[Blubatt]

Considering it basically serves as an archive channel, I understand the incentive in closing the channel, and moving the archive stuff online. However, I think there are other services that could be put online, such as BBC Parliament, first.

[BBCMeridian]

Considering it basically serves as an archive channel, I understand the incentive in closing the channel, and moving the archive stuff online. However, I think there are other services that could be put online, such as BBC Parliament, first.

I respectfully disagree it's important for the BBC to have a parliament channel to see what's happening in parliament.

[i.h]

Considering it basically serves as an archive channel, I understand the incentive in closing the channel, and moving the archive stuff online. However, I think there are other services that could be put online, such as BBC Parliament, first.

It is the textbook definition of public service broadcasting (should people need an internet connection to watch their politicians?) and costs nothing to run. What would be the point?

Moot anyway - they've decided what's to go on the chopping block, so what-abouts are unnecessary

[Newshound47]

I do wonder if BBC Parliament will possibly end up being online only within this decade.

[Newshound47]

In all of this I feel sorry for the kids of the parents on Universal Credit who don’t have a phone or internet access and use the free kids channels, they lose out most from this.

On paper this is a good argument for a children's strand on one of the remaining linear channels.  However, 97% of the UK has internet access so I'm not sure it really stands up once you dive into the figures.  Also BT and Virgin offer heavily discounted broadband for those on Universal Credit.

Another issue is that there is still some parts of the Uk that don’t really get broadband that is fast enough to use to stream Tv.

[DTV]

One thing I am surprised about is no mention of local radio which at 40 stations in England I've always felt is far too much, especially when there is now so much choice not just with other stations but also music streaming and podcasts. You could slim these down into much larger areas such as BBC North West, BBC North East etc where surely they'd have more impact.

Reducing the number of local radio stations - particularly merging them to cover the same areas as TV regions - is such an obvious cut that there is presumably a reason that it hasn't seriously been suggested at any round of cutbacks. I've always attributed it to MPs being frequent guests on a lot of local radio stations and they typically kick up a fuss at any proposed cuts to a service they use.

---

I do wonder if BBC Parliament will possibly end up being online only within this decade.

I don't know why the BBC haven't suggested it being taken over by the parliamentary authorities or a consortium of the BBC, ITN and Sky. Many similar channels in other countries are run by parliaments themselves and there is no real reason that it has to be broadcast under the BBC label, especially as the BBC don't even produce the coverage.

[London Lite]

Newsround should get a linear slot to ensure those children and schools without a decent internet connection can still watch the programme.

[Newshound47]

I think a more controversial decisions will be to axe programmes that popular on Linear but not so on demand. That hints that those programs appeal to the demographics who are less likely to use on demand. Bizarrely it means something that simply gets more younger audiences will more likely survive which feels like it will be controversial.

[Roger Darthwell]

I am having déjà vu because I already saw this argument a few years ago.......
https://twitter.com/rickyboleto/status/1...3874628608