NancerOnTheLIVEForum post_id=65948 time= user_id=1794 Wrote:BBCMeridian post_id=65922 time= user_id=2083 Wrote:L1 post_id=65918 time= user_id=959 Wrote:Would always have the opportunity to have UK stories when World goes to ad breaks. And I wasn't saying that they are similar channels, clearly they are not, but I think a merged World News and NC (or rather World News in the UK with opt outs a few times a day for an hour or so) would be a good service if/when savings require cuts to be made. Well it wouldn't, it would be terrible and thank goodness there isn't a merged world news channel, and also think of weather updates, there wouldn't be time to have a global weather update and a UK weather update.
So then by that logic a merged children's channel would be a bad idea as well. No I didn't say that, only the news channel.
BBCMeridian post_id=65960 time= user_id=2083 Wrote:NancerOnTheLIVEForum post_id=65948 time= user_id=1794 Wrote:BBCMeridian post_id=65922 time= user_id=2083 Wrote:Well it wouldn't, it would be terrible and thank goodness there isn't a merged world news channel, and also think of weather updates, there wouldn't be time to have a global weather update and a UK weather update.
So then by that logic a merged children's channel would be a bad idea as well. No I didn't say that, only the news channel. You really need to get over your obsession of merging CBBC and CBeebies.
It ain't gonna happen.
From the many (many) posts you've bought this up in, the only reason you can give is that "the BBC only used to have one children's block on BBC1", or that "the BBC doesn't need 2 children's channels". The first argument is why we now have 2 channels - the programming and content are (thousands of) miles apart. A 12 year old doesn't want to watch Teletubbies or In The Night Garden. A 2 year old doesn't want to watch Blue Peter or Newsround. (Everyone, of every age, should be forced to watch Bluey for its sheer brilliance, but that's another matter)
You can argue all you like about putting the CBeebies stuff on when the CBBC audience is at school, but that doesn't solve the problem of what to show before school, after school and at weekends and school holidays.
I can only presume you have no children, have never seen the content on the two channels, and/or have some vendetta against children watching age-appropriate content and the BBC providing a channel for them to do that. Your arguments make zero sense whatsoever... especially when you then don't apply the same arguments to merging Channel and World, which in many (many!) ways makes much more sense than merging CBeebies and CBBC.
A few questions aimed at those arguing for the merging of the two news channels...
1) Imagine that a coup d'etat happens in Egypt on the same day as the 1922 Committee announce they have enough letters of no confidence in Boris Johnson. What should be the top story on the combined channel? If they spend half an hour talking about Boris, how does that serve World viewers? If they spend half an hour talking about Egypt, does that serve UK viewers in the best possible way? How would you propose to resolve this?
2) Technology can largely solve the problems of showing a different weather forecast (for example) to both the channels - as long as they are the exact same duration. It can also allow the UK version to opt out when the World version shows ads - so UK viewers get a filler of some kind, or extra UK-focused live studio content, or (possibly in the future) UK-targeted ads. The problem when filling live is it has to be done strictly to time, so it's usually too risky to do any live interviews. So what you get is 3 minutes of OOVs which allow no context, no exploration, and little detail of the stories covered. How does that best serve UK audiences?
3) How much money do you think the merger would actually save? The correspondents, location crews, studio crews, and journalists already work across both channels. Same goes for some of the presenters. The studios are already built and fitted. If you're keeping the 1, 6 and 10 you still need extra staff in the building to do those. Those people can (and do) work on other content in between. Without the Channel, they have less work to do. Cue "BBC staff paid millions to do nothing for half the day" stories.
Merging the two channels ad-hoc for big international stories works. Merging them in emergencies such as Covid staffing levels (mostly) works. Merging them on a permanent basis, for so many reasons, doesn't work.
L1 post_id=65918 time= user_id=959 Wrote:Would always have the opportunity to have UK stories when World goes to ad breaks. And I wasn't saying that they are similar channels, clearly they are not, but I think a merged World News and NC (or rather World News in the UK with opt outs a few times a day for an hour or so) would be a good service if/when savings require cuts to be made.
I don't doubt the sincerity of some of these posts, and there clearly will be tough decisions to be made, but the suggestion that the BBC's main news channel could provide specifically British news to British viewers only "when World goes to ad breaks" really is thinking outside the box.
ITV Region: ITV News Meridian
BBC Region: BBC South East Today
I think the most likely situation is the simulcasts becoming less noticeable. We've already seen this to an extent on Context, Outside Source and Newsday where the BBC World News name is rarely mentioned and "you're watching BBC News" is far more common.
It is still definitely beneficial to keep the two channels separate for the moment, but bringing the two channels closer together wouldn't be a bad thing either, and would make the simulcasts seem far more consistent.
I've noticed the off air barker on BBC Four HD (on Sky Glass at least), now carries subtitles. It currently reads
# BACKGROUND MUSIC
albeit its birds tweeting.
The fact remains that it is going to be increasingly difficult to justify having multiple channels. BBC News and BBC World News, CBBC and CBeebies, purely because people are watching content on demand more and more. The only time news channels come into their own is in breaking news, but even then it is difficult to justify. Especially with the BBC, when it has other news channels and language services already offering content. In my experience, the majority of the time world news will just show whatever breaking news is occurring at the same time as on BBC News, and world news also has a lot of documentaries.
in terms of the sets already there etc, these are old sets now so it would be very possible to say the channels are merged and we will use the new set coming into being instead of paying to renew other sets. There is also the fact that BBC world news, I'm afraid to say is not really a good channel for world news. It often misses many stories which go out on other world news channels such as Al Jazeera. Although on the plus side I assume it allows the BBC to cover stories in the world better than Sky when they occur, but I cannot think of an example. Basically, it seems a bit silly to me and I think the BBC should focus on demand and have just a channel or two. Which the future will be.
In terms of BBC four, I think it would be very easy to close this channel down, most viewers will be able to view its content on demand. The BBC missed a trick brining back BBC three, they should have returned BBC choice!
I find it funny when people say that the BBC should just operate 2 or 3 services on television instead of multiple. The reality is though that the BBC is meant to cater for everyone. To axe and merge channels like CBeebies is to axe choice. You can't just cram everything onto BBC One and/or BBC Two, because you obviously still need channels like BBC Three and BBC Four to overspill sports and arts coverage.
A total merger of the two BBC news channels would be a bad idea as several people above have illustrated. The current set-up might not be ideal, but it is a fairly happy equilibrium - most UK news breaks between 0900 and 1800. A full merger during those hours (excluding big international news as current) would severely weaken both services and not really save much money.
As for BBC Four going, I can't say that I'm particularly bothered if it does. That's not to say that I don't like the content of the channel, but a de facto merger of BBC Two and BBC Four is fairly sensible. It's not like there isn't plenty of room in BBC Two's schedule and iPlayer is probably a better place for a lot of archive stuff anyway. Both channels have felt a bit rudderless at times in recent years, a merger could be an opportunity to give them a better focus.
Also love CantGetIn's suggestion that BBC World News is just 'a bit silly' and they should get rid. Not like it is the BBC's most-watched television channel by quite some margin and also quite cost effective. Although I guess outright absurdity is better than the slew of posts that amount to 'the BBC should just get rid of the services I don't use'.
"From April, BBC Four will cement its status as the home of performance on the BBC with new Sunday Night Performances every week of the year showcasing some of the best of the UK’s dance, theatre, music and spoken word in specially made films for television."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2022/b...e-projects
ITV Region: ITV News London
BBC Region: BBC London News
If BBC Four were to close, they would still be left with unused bandwidth after CBeebies closes down. We've just had six years of the BBC using one of their channels to broadcast nothing but a downtime caption during prime viewing hours. A return to that situation would not be desirable - surely better to broadcast something watchable during the evening, even if it is nearly all repeats.
I wouldn't say there is anything funny about it. It is the reality and I still think the BBC and many others have yet to accept it. The BBC can very easily cater for everyone with one children channel and may need to when the money really stars to go down. Even though what is saved will be small, the BBC likes to make gestures.
As the closure of BBC Three demonstrated or perhaps gave us a preview, channels will not need to exist in the near future. The fact that is was raised from the dead is bizarre while BBC four yet may still close. The BBC can very easily fit it all in considering the amount of repeats that are shown. As I say, they missed a trick with not bring BBC choice back and instead now suggesting closing BBC four. The only way it makes sense to me, is that the BBC always planned it, and with the re-introduction of BBC three in a much cheaper setup, this could be merged with BBC four with the aim being it will be cheaper to do that than it would have been with the old set up.
TV Channels are going to become like the yellow pages, we are far from it yet, but in 5 to 10 years we will be there. The channels will drop like flies! The BBC being the national broadcaster, should try to stay ahead of the game. How much could it get away with cutting while being within the rules of the charter I wonder. If the BBC is on the ball, it will already be working it out, just in case.
Robert Williams post_id=75715 time= user_id=993 Wrote:they would still be left with unused bandwidth after CBeebies closes down.
My idea: 24 repeats of In the Night Garden :lol:
<t>Presentation party, Saturdays at 23:00! Free pint and area for talking about how much you hate Oneness!</t>
CCFG post_id=75718 time= user_id=1195 Wrote:Robert Williams post_id=75715 time= user_id=993 Wrote:they would still be left with unused bandwidth after CBeebies closes down.
My idea: 24 repeats of In the Night Garden :lol:
Off-topic I know but I wonder if Night Garden will ever lose its 6.20pm slot on CBeebies?
My first child was born in Dec 2012 and loved Night Garden when he was little. There were only ever 100 episodes ever made and, according to Time and Date, he has been alive for 3,381 days. So, the average episode has been shown 33 times in his lifetime.
For Ragdoll Productions and the actors in the costumes, this must be the gift that keeps on giving.
<t></t>
johnnyboy post_id=75730 time= user_id=925 Wrote:CCFG post_id=75718 time= user_id=1195 Wrote:Robert Williams post_id=75715 time= user_id=993 Wrote:they would still be left with unused bandwidth after CBeebies closes down.
My idea: 24 repeats of In the Night Garden :lol:
Off-topic I know but I wonder if Night Garden will ever lose its 6.20pm slot on CBeebies?
My first child was born in Dec 2012 and loved Night Garden when he was little. There were only ever 100 episodes ever made and, according to Time and Date, he has been alive for 3,381 days. So, the average episode has been shown 33 times in his lifetime.
For Ragdoll Productions and the actors in the costumes, this must be the gift that keeps on giving.
I believe that is one of the supreme beauties of early years television. Children of that age can't really remember the details of an episode and will grow out of the programme within a few years, so you can basically repeat a relatively small number of episodes on a loop until the programme itself ages out (due to technical improvements etc.)
|
