BBC News and BBC World to merge

[SuperSajuuk]

Any idea why the BBC is hesitant to make available UK news to international audiences outside of a general election in a way other domestic broadcasters are not towards their respective domestic news outputs?

I guess that's because the BBC go to great lengths to create bespoke international versions for different areas of the World. 

The BBC is a globally respected source of impartial news, not a mouthpiece for UK-esque propaganda.  Many other international broadcasters attempt to push a message to the World, instead of just presenting information.

The BBC's domestic news output often includes regional content which would be of little interest to anyone outside the UK. A yacht catching fire in Torquay is meaningless to someone in Singapore.

Another thing worth pointing out would be sports broadcasting rights. For example, if the BBC bulletin domestically is running a story about F1 or even Eurovision, they have the rights to rebroadcast that footage in the UK only. due to specific rights allowing this (the BBC take snippets of the Sky Sports F1 broadcast thats on Channel 406 on Sky to do this without consequence because the bbc would have an agreement with Sky for this], and Eurovision they have the rights in the uk anyway by being the principal uk broadcaster for it). But if you’re watching the same stories on a world news bulletin, f1 is just still images [either getty images or journalist stills] because they do not have the right to rebroadcast Sky’s content outside the UK and anything from Eurovision is curtailed to the EBU feed.

[JF World]

One thing I hope they bring from World is World Business Report in the back half hours maybe 05:30, 08:30, 11:30, 13:30, 16:30, 18:30, 20:30 & 22:30, after the network bulitens and 16:30 when European markets close. 08:30 & 20:30 extended ones like Business Edition/Business Live/Worklife

[Brekkie]

A dedicated business bulletin every 2-3 hours doesn't exactly scream "cost cutting". Specialist content will be the first for the chopping block - they've made it clear rolling news is at the heart of the new channel.

[JF World]

A dedicated business bulletin every 2-3 hours doesn't exactly scream "cost cutting".  Specialist content will be the first for the chopping block - they've made it clear rolling news is at the heart of the new channel.

Going of the current world timing ones

[headliner101]

I guess that's because the BBC go to great lengths to create bespoke international versions for different areas of the World. 

The BBC is a globally respected source of impartial news, not a mouthpiece for UK-esque propaganda.  Many other international broadcasters attempt to push a message to the World, instead of just presenting information.

The BBC's domestic news output often includes regional content which would be of little interest to anyone outside the UK. A yacht catching fire in Torquay is meaningless to someone in Singapore.

Another thing worth pointing out would be sports broadcasting rights. For example, if the BBC bulletin domestically is running a story about F1 or even Eurovision, they have the rights to rebroadcast that footage in the UK only. due to specific rights allowing this (the BBC take snippets of the Sky Sports F1 broadcast thats on Channel 406 on Sky to do this without consequence because the bbc would have an agreement with Sky for this], and Eurovision they have the rights in the uk anyway by being the principal uk broadcaster for it). But if you’re watching the same stories on a world news bulletin, f1 is just still images [either getty images or journalist stills] because they do not have the right to rebroadcast Sky’s content outside the UK and anything from Eurovision is curtailed to the EBU feed.

Prior to the iPlayer, BBC national bulletins were seen anywhere in the world with an internet connection.  Back them, rights-sensitive footage were routinely blocked and replaced with a ‘red screen’ indicating the footage could not be made available at that moment. When some US local broadcasters show their news programmes, they block the sport segments and replace it with a semi-static graphic, usually with sport scores.

[Rdd]

It may be the case that the content of UK domestic TV news is not relevant to international audiences but that's not the point.  What I don't get is why they are hidden behind a geo-wall in a way that their counterparts in other countries are not.

Because they produce geo-specific news for their international audiences. Why would they need to duplicate UK domestic news elsewhere?

UK Domestic BBC programming is reliant on the licence fee for its funding, and quite rightly for that reason it's geo-locked.

The attitude of the BBC to other broadcasters in “protecting” its programmes for license fee payers is interesting. Now there are very good reasons, rights related and protecting lucrative overseas sales, for geoblocking non-news programming but the “protecting for license fee payers” argument is one that the BBC uses but isn’t really used by other public broadcasters elsewhere. For example RTE takes the view that it should make available it’s news and factual programmes worldwide (ones that have no chance of overseas sales, of course) and justifies this as offering a public service to the diaspora and helping them keep in touch with home, even through Irish license fee payers pay for them. This is pretty much seen by the Irish public (to the extent they are aware of it, that is) as A Good Thing, and there’s no suggestion they should be restricted to ROI or ROI/NI only if they don’t have to be.

[Charles]

I apologize for being late, but I wanted to add my perspective.

The merger's not necessarily a surprise – a lot of people predicted this going all the way back to the News Channel "synergies" back in ~2015.

I think this is a move for the worse for viewers outside the UK. When I watch BBC World, I expect a comprehensive roundup of global news. The only competitor in the same league is Al Jazeera, and to a lesser extent CNNI, France 24, and DW-TV. Obviously, being a British news product, there might be some more UK-focused news on BBC World, but I think BBC World has consistently delivered a truly global news product unentangled from its country of origin at much higher success than CNNI, France 24, and DW-TV.

I do occasionally have some interest in UK news. When I do, I watch Sky News International. If I had access to BBC News Channel in the US, I'd probably watch that too. But I consider Sky News to be much more of a UK-focused product, and I don't necessarily turn to BBC World for UK news.

I found a lot of the simulcasts during the pandemic to be rather off-putting. It was so clear to me that they were mostly UK-focused newscasts for a UK audience. It was clear not just from Studio E and the presenters, but also in the story selection. I felt like whenever I tuned in, the first 10 minutes or so would be easily eaten up by very UK-specific covid lockdown coverage, and very little of it rewritten for a global audience (lots of references to "the government" in scripts everywhere.) I maybe had some interest in the UK's handling of the pandemic obviously. But 10 minutes? And more than any other arbitrary country of your choosing?

[DTV]

Another thing worth pointing out would be sports broadcasting rights. For example, if the BBC bulletin domestically is running a story about F1 or even Eurovision, they have the rights to rebroadcast that footage in the UK only. due to specific rights allowing this (the BBC take snippets of the Sky Sports F1 broadcast thats on Channel 406 on Sky to do this without consequence because the bbc would have an agreement with Sky for this], and Eurovision they have the rights in the uk anyway by being the principal uk broadcaster for it). But if you’re watching the same stories on a world news bulletin, f1 is just still images [either getty images or journalist stills] because they do not have the right to rebroadcast Sky’s content outside the UK and anything from Eurovision is curtailed to the EBU feed.

This is why I suspect we might be seeing an end to Sportsday (a BBC News 24 launch programme) when the two channels merge. I doubt they'll produce two sports bulletins, so imagine we'll just get ones that adhere to international rights protocols. To be honest, though, sport is the one area that the differences in UK/World news agenda priorities are significantly lower, so, other than the lack of moving images, I doubt it'll make much difference for audiences.

One thing I hope they bring from World is World Business Report in the back half hours maybe 05:30, 08:30, 11:30, 13:30, 16:30, 18:30, 20:30 & 22:30, after the network bulitens and 16:30 when European markets close. 08:30 & 20:30 extended ones like Business Edition/Business Live/Worklife

The general trend in World Business Report has been fewer and fewer bulletins over the last decade - both for costcutting reasons, but also because there is less demand for those types of market-oriented business programmes in certain markets these days.

[chris]

I found a lot of the simulcasts during the pandemic to be rather off-putting. It was so clear to me that they were mostly UK-focused newscasts for a UK audience. It was clear not just from Studio E and the presenters, but also in the story selection. I felt like whenever I tuned in, the first 10 minutes or so would be easily eaten up by very UK-specific covid lockdown coverage, and very little of it rewritten for a global audience (lots of references to "the government" in scripts everywhere.) I maybe had some interest in the UK's handling of the pandemic obviously. But 10 minutes? And more than any other arbitrary country of your choosing?

I’m not sure that time is a fair assessment of what the new channel will be like. I’m sure most would expect a BBC domestic service to take precedent in an emergency.

[cityprod]

I found a lot of the simulcasts during the pandemic to be rather off-putting. It was so clear to me that they were mostly UK-focused newscasts for a UK audience. It was clear not just from Studio E and the presenters, but also in the story selection. I felt like whenever I tuned in, the first 10 minutes or so would be easily eaten up by very UK-specific covid lockdown coverage, and very little of it rewritten for a global audience (lots of references to "the government" in scripts everywhere.) I maybe had some interest in the UK's handling of the pandemic obviously. But 10 minutes? And more than any other arbitrary country of your choosing?

I’m not sure that time is a fair assessment of what the new channel will be like. I’m sure most would expect a BBC domestic service to take precedent in an emergency.

We already know what the merged channel will be like.  We've been watching it for the past few years.  The only difference is it was called CNN.

[Steve in Pudsey]

This is why I suspect we might be seeing an end to Sportsday (a BBC News 24 launch programme) when the two channels merge. I doubt they'll produce two sports bulletins, so imagine we'll just get ones that adhere to international rights protocols. To be honest, though, sport is the one area that the differences in UK/World news agenda priorities are significantly lower, so, other than the lack of moving images, I doubt it'll make much difference for audiences.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility to have one studio produce two outputs simultaneously, like Studio A used to do for us 8pm update, sending a recorded weather forecast to BBC One HD during the London regional opt.

So for pre recorded packages, make a world-safe and UK version of the same length. For actuality to go with what the presenter is reading, put stills in the main output with the clips for the UK on the secondary output.

[headliner101]

Because they produce geo-specific news for their international audiences. Why would they need to duplicate UK domestic news elsewhere?

UK Domestic BBC programming is reliant on the licence fee for its funding, and quite rightly for that reason it's geo-locked.

The attitude of the BBC to other broadcasters in “protecting” its programmes for license fee payers is interesting. Now there are very good reasons, rights related and protecting lucrative overseas sales, for geoblocking non-news programming but the “protecting for license fee payers” argument is one that the BBC uses but isn’t really used by other public broadcasters elsewhere. For example RTE takes the view that it should make available it’s news and factual programmes worldwide (ones that have no chance of overseas sales, of course) and justifies this as offering a public service to the diaspora and helping them keep in touch with home, even through Irish license fee payers pay for them. This is pretty much seen by the Irish public (to the extent they are aware of it, that is) as A Good Thing, and there’s no suggestion they should be restricted to ROI or ROI/NI only if they don’t have to be.

Many countries, particularly in the Nordics (especially Denmark and Norway), follow the BBC's funding model.  Yet they make a full version (less rights-sensitive footage where necessary) of their newscasts available worldwide (though it is not possible to see it live but is made available shortly afterwards).

Also, it does not explain why the BBC makes much of its live domestic radio output available without geoblocking.  Surely they are funded by licence fee money too (including World Service which wasn't intended for domestic audiences to begin with).  In general, one thing I don't get is why block domestic TV but not domestic radio services?

[Matrix]

The attitude of the BBC to other broadcasters in “protecting” its programmes for license fee payers is interesting. Now there are very good reasons, rights related and protecting lucrative overseas sales, for geoblocking non-news programming but the “protecting for license fee payers” argument is one that the BBC uses but isn’t really used by other public broadcasters elsewhere. For example RTE takes the view that it should make available it’s news and factual programmes worldwide (ones that have no chance of overseas sales, of course) and justifies this as offering a public service to the diaspora and helping them keep in touch with home, even through Irish license fee payers pay for them. This is pretty much seen by the Irish public (to the extent they are aware of it, that is) as A Good Thing, and there’s no suggestion they should be restricted to ROI or ROI/NI only if they don’t have to be.

Many countries, particularly in the Nordics (especially Denmark and Norway), follow the BBC's funding model.  Yet they make a full version (less rights-sensitive footage where necessary) of their newscasts available worldwide (though it is not possible to see it live but is made available shortly afterwards).

Also, it does not explain why the BBC makes much of its live domestic radio output available without geoblocking.  Surely they are funded by licence fee money too (including World Service which wasn't intended for domestic audiences to begin with).  In general, one thing I don't get is why block domestic TV but not domestic radio services?

International rights is a huge issue for programming, not necessarily news coverage but think about the rights issues associated with programmes like Killing Eve (which has a fairly *wild* distribution agreement) and you begin to see why geo-blocking exists. 

The same sorts of rights issues don’t really exist with radio - although, arguably, the growth of podcasts is a form which can be restricted or limited in a much more systematic way if required. 

So: the answer to the question boils down to £££. In a nutshell.

[DTV]

Many countries, particularly in the Nordics (especially Denmark and Norway), follow the BBC's funding model.  Yet they make a full version (less rights-sensitive footage where necessary) of their newscasts available worldwide (though it is not possible to see it live but is made available shortly afterwards).

Also, it does not explain why the BBC makes much of its live domestic radio output available without geoblocking.  Surely they are funded by licence fee money too (including World Service which wasn't intended for domestic audiences to begin with).  In general, one thing I don't get is why block domestic TV but not domestic radio services?

International rights is a huge issue for programming, not necessarily news coverage but think about the rights issues associated with programmes like Killing Eve (which has a fairly *wild* distribution agreement) and you begin to see why geo-blocking exists. 

The same sorts of rights issues don’t really exist with radio - although, arguably, the growth of podcasts is a form which can be restricted or limited in a much more systematic way if required. 

So: the answer to the question boils down to £££. In a nutshell.

Relatedly due to it being down to £££, there is also a massively different commercial relationship between the World Service and domestic radio and World News and domestic TV. Neither domestic radio or the World Service are money making ventures for the BBC, while World News is. The BBC won't want to undercut their commercial news channel (as well as their distributors) by making similar content freely available online.

[Rdd]

Indeed, and I absolutely acknowledge the very good reasons for geoblocking that content - rights issues and and overseas sales - but “protecting for license fee viewers” is a fictitious argument. For one thing overseas viewers are not license fee evaders - they will often be paying a television license fee in their own jurisdiction or if not, then contributing towards their domestic PSB in some other manner eg general taxation. And unless they move to the U.K. they will never be paying the U.K. license fee or even be allowed to.

And we are talking here the context of a news channel. Generally the only content on news channels that is subject to rights issues is sports news. Unless it’s a dedicated sports news channel, or something like the World Cup or Olympics is going on, this will generally only be a few minutes per hour, and can be relatively easily substituted or covered with an apology screen where required.