BBC News and BBC World to merge

[Markymark]

How about calling the new service,  
BBC News 24?

---

That’s before you factor in all the awkwardness with leaving gaps for advert opt outs and not being able to mention what time it is etc

They usually get past that by saying x hours GMT on World Service
I've noticed on Newsday on BBC R4 (WS simulcast) they say it's 5 o'clock in London - something that could work. But that might be a bit unpopular with a lot of domestic audiences

I don't think I've ever heard a time check on The BBC News Channel?

[Brekkie]

So it’s only the Six and the Ten using Studio B? Not the One.

I'm sure they said the One as well but that didn't really make sense considering the One has long been considered a News Channel production.

I guess it might be the case that the Six and Ten are launching from B next month, with One and Weekends joining them after the new channel is launched. I expect enough resources will be freed up by the merger to allow the One to have a bare-bones production team of its own.

Sadly these cuts aren't about freeing up cash to use elsewhere but about enabling an underfunded BBC to continue to offer the bare minimum of public service.    A new production team for the One is not something they could justify - though of course being anchored from one studio rather than another doesn't necessarily require a separate production team, especially if they can be controlled from the same gallery.

I suspect it's inevitable that down the line the news channel will partially move in with the network bulletins anyway - especially if they're going down the "UK opt" route.   Probably be a dedicated channel for the core service and then they'll use the network studio for any additional opt outs.

[harshy]

So this channel is launching next month this new bbc news channel?

[chris]

The theory was presenters used to omit the BBC - “You’re watching News 24” - which is difficult to do with just BBC News.

The irony that this rebrand seems to happily call things “iPlayer” and “Sounds”. How times change.

[harshy]

It is a big call to get rid of the bbc world news brand , it’s been around since 1991, 31 years really, does seem like are a very bloated and big organisation they can’t even sort out their new bbc news logo properly.

[IndigoTucker]

With World being financed by Worldwide, isn't it a case of BBC News 24 closing and saving money by showing the 'free' international version with some UK inserts for the main bulletins? Very strange.

[Moz]

I’ll be launching an online competition to choose a new user name for me.

The winner gets a prize.

Surely you'll just be JamesNews?

[Kunst]

Can't see anything other than BBC News, for the new merged service.

Of course some opt outs will still be needed, as I can't see BBC One promos on BBC News Intl. and so on.
That will mean less "fillers" and likely no adverts for the World News service anyway, but really, I don't think it's too much of an issue; BBC World News' audience outside of English-speaking countries, is too "niche" for that.

Let's see what'll happen with Breakfast; maybe it'd be better to have a news programme for all the UK and the rest of the world

[Mr Q]

The more I think about the consolidation of the news channel and BBC World News, the more I like it. It's not as if there's a lack of news channels in the UK now, but the BBC's point of difference is that it has an unmatched global network of correspondents able to bring news and perspective from around the world. So, focus on that. Let BBC News (channel) be the UK's window to the world.

And where there are breaking domestic stories that warrant an opt-out, piggyback off the existing domestic resources for Breakfast and the bulletins on BBC One. ITV News is able to produce coverage of major breaking news without having a news channel; there are also plenty of examples of overseas broadcasters that do it well (Sweden's SVT often does it, including for online-only coverage; Norway's NRK routinely crosses to its radio studios for TV broadcasts). I can't see why this would be mission impossible for the BBC.

A lot of major events that world require dedicated domestic coverage are typically known in advance - or at least moderately foreseeable. Elections, for example, would no doubt require a higher degree of specialised UK coverage - I would imagine there would be more domestic opt-outs during such a period. Even natural disasters, which might warrant more intensive coverage, do not (in the UK at least) typically come out of the blue: anything weather-related is usually highlighted in forecasts, which would allow for planning (even if the worst-case scenarios don't materialise). And if something like a major earthquake or a volcano (!) were to suddenly strike the UK, I'm pretty sure there'd be global interest at such a remarkable event.

There will inevitably be a large range of stories that today result in the "breaking news" banner being rolled out, which in future will not get rolling coverage on BBC's TV output. They will still be covered elsewhere -- whether live on the BBC's website and/or radio, or summing up after the event on the flagship news bulletins. I don't see this as a loss. Much of what gets labelled breaking news is just filler: something that will mostly be forgotten a couple of days (or even hours) later, but which injects a bit of variety from hour to hour on a rolling news service. In my estimation, the category of substantial and truly breaking (ie. unexpected/unplanned) news that is relevant only to a UK audience is small, and manageable enough to deliver on an exceptional basis as needed.

[Newshound47]

I wonder if they should run two tickers permanently. That would allow the domestic interest only stories to at least be seen on screen if not actually mentioned

[chris]

The more I think about the consolidation of the news channel and BBC World News, the more I like it. It's not as if there's a lack of news channels in the UK now, but the BBC's point of difference is that it has an unmatched global network of correspondents able to bring news and perspective from around the world. So, focus on that. Let BBC News (channel) be the UK's window to the world.

And where there are breaking domestic stories that warrant an opt-out, piggyback off the existing domestic resources for Breakfast and the bulletins on BBC One. ITV News is able to produce coverage of major breaking news without having a news channel; there are also plenty of examples of overseas broadcasters that do it well (Sweden's SVT often does it, including for online-only coverage; Norway's NRK routinely crosses to its radio studios for TV broadcasts). I can't see why this would be mission impossible for the BBC.

A lot of major events that world require dedicated domestic coverage are typically known in advance - or at least moderately foreseeable. Elections, for example, would no doubt require a higher degree of specialised UK coverage - I would imagine there would be more domestic opt-outs during such a period. Even natural disasters, which might warrant more intensive coverage, do not (in the UK at least) typically come out of the blue: anything weather-related is usually highlighted in forecasts, which would allow for planning (even if the worst-case scenarios don't materialise). And if something like a major earthquake or a volcano (!) were to suddenly strike the UK, I'm pretty sure there'd be global interest at such a remarkable event.

There will inevitably be a large range of stories that today result in the "breaking news" banner being rolled out, which in future will not get rolling coverage on BBC's TV output. They will still be covered elsewhere -- whether live on the BBC's website and/or radio, or summing up after the event on the flagship news bulletins. I don't see this as a loss. Much of what gets labelled breaking news is just filler: something that will mostly be forgotten a couple of days (or even hours) later, but which injects a bit of variety from hour to hour on a rolling news service. In my estimation, the category of substantial and truly breaking (ie. unexpected/unplanned) news that is relevant only to a UK audience is small, and manageable enough to deliver on an exceptional basis as needed.

I suppose editorially the stories they’ll need to make a careful judgement on are things like the Plymouth shootings in August 2021. Unforeseen, big breaking news in the UK, with little interest for the wider world. 

Instinctively you’d want them to opt but in reality I think World viewers will have just suck it up. And even if it has more of an international agenda, it will be hard for those journalists in NBH watching Sky go to town on their coverage to say no.

[harshy]

As long as they don’t get rid of the branded programmes like Impact, Global maybe re-mod it with a Uk news emphasis then that would be great, it will be terrible if it’s plain old bbc news like it is on the news channel presently,

[Rob]

I hope that once merger between BBC News and World News happened, they could implementing chameleon branding with BBC logo at top corner and NEWS at bottom corner. BBC News logo should be boxless instead of red boxed logo that we seen now and mishmash old and new brandings.

Could you please stop mentioning the new logo in every single post you make. You've made your point now, several times, and there's no need to keep repeating yourself.

Thank you.

[Mr Q]

I suppose editorially the stories they’ll need to make a careful judgement on are things like the Plymouth shootings in August 2021. Unforeseen, big breaking news in the UK, with little interest for the wider world. 

Instinctively you’d want them to opt but in reality I think World viewers will have just suck it up. And even if it has more of an international agenda, it will be hard for those journalists in NBH watching Sky go to town on their coverage to say no.

I think that's exactly the type of story which would warrant a domestic opt-out. I'd imagine that it's the sort of story that would break on (global) BBC News first - a mass shooting isn't irrelevant to an international audience, as we've (unfortunately) repeatedly seen in the context of the US. Then, after a period, you would pull in the necessary resources to be able to continue with rolling domestic coverage as required.

[harshy]

I suppose editorially the stories they’ll need to make a careful judgement on are things like the Plymouth shootings in August 2021. Unforeseen, big breaking news in the UK, with little interest for the wider world. 

Instinctively you’d want them to opt but in reality I think World viewers will have just suck it up. And even if it has more of an international agenda, it will be hard for those journalists in NBH watching Sky go to town on their coverage to say no.

Why should world viewers suck it up? it goes out to more then 10 people, makes money (I think)and keeps the licence fee low, if people want just Uk news just go on the app or watch the bulletins on the new and improved studio b