BBC News and BBC World to merge

[Newsroom]

It wouldn't surprise me if the 'overnight' 12am to 6am programming change first.  As far as I'm aware both channels simulcast during this time, so there's minimal worries about UK opt-out, apart from a couple UK specific items during ad breaks.  In addition 12-2am already comes live from Singapore (from 11pm on World News), with Newsday in the front half hours.  If 2-6am also came from Singapore I doubt many people in the UK would notice the difference, especially if the content of that timeslot was the same (at least for now).

I'm guessing 2am onwards will come from Washington if I'm reading the press release right, which partly explains the extra 20 jobs there.   Seems odd not to have anyone on duty in the UK should news break overnight though - would be the first time since N24 launched.

What is actually produced in Washington nowadays?   The listings only seem to list World News America at 10pm/5p ET for half an hour but I thought they produced an hour long version for some PBS stations too.

Yup, Washington does produce extra hours for PBS. 

It’ll be great to see more of the Washington set in use, and for extra hours that’s for sure. They seem to be caught off the hot foot when major news breaks and we end up with Laura Trevelyan presenting from a box in NYC.

[DTV]

All the talk about negotiation tactics has made me wonder if the UK might end up with a separate afternoon shift in the end. Unless they are doing something radical with the News at One, you are going to have an extra presenter and gallery crew with little else to do. You might as well have them stay on for a few hours to do a UK rolling news shift. This would also be the optimal time for a permanent UK opt as it is when most UK news breaks and is also India/South Asia primetime - which the World team wouldn't want compromised given the size and importance to the BBC of that market. If you followed that with a visualised PM programme, you are only losing a few hours of UK-only content compared to now.

Also been thinking that Today in Parliament could be a good shout for another visualised radio simulcast. Due to BBC Parliament cuts, they recently lost the TV equivalent and there would be very little problem in visualising it.

[UTVLifer]

I'm guessing 2am onwards will come from Washington if I'm reading the press release right, which partly explains the extra 20 jobs there.   Seems odd not to have anyone on duty in the UK should news break overnight though - would be the first time since N24 launched.

What is actually produced in Washington nowadays?   The listings only seem to list World News America at 10pm/5p ET for half an hour but I thought they produced an hour long version for some PBS stations too.

Yup, Washington does produce extra hours for PBS. 

It’ll be great to see more of the Washington set in use, and for extra hours that’s for sure. They seem to be caught off the hot foot when major news breaks and we end up with Laura Trevelyan presenting from a box in NYC.

Although this did happen before, I'd say that the amount of times that WN has been caught on the hot foot when major US news has broken has certainly increased since Katty Kay left and she wasn't replaced per se and the US presenting team went down to just Laura Trevelyan and Jane O'Brien. 

Presumably with more hours coming from Washington from next year, they'll end up bringing in a third DC anchor to share the increased workload out (unless they get Katty back in the studio)

[Aplus1]

To be in the situation we are today is entirely a reflection of how dangerously and recklessly the Culture Secretary (and govt) are handling the BBC's very existence.

In that context, these changes, for me, represent a practical (but ghastly) solution. To be frank: better to have a form of BBC News rather than none at all.

I sympathise with your position, but is it wrong to feel that surely the BBC must accept the major part of the responsibility itself? It doesn't have to cut news at all - it's still receiving billions of pounds a year from the licence fee, and it could easily afford to, and choose to, protect the spending on news and current affairs.

If the first response to the prospect of receiving a little less money is to make significant cuts to what (I think we can agree) are the truly essential licence-fee-funded services like news, rather than looking elsewhere - maybe just one episode of EastEnders a week instead of four? - then is it really unfair to observe that maybe the major danger is in what the BBC itself is choosing to cut, and what to prioritise?

[Omnipresent]

Appreciate the BBC's hands are tied, but it is going to lose a lot of good people because of this - both established names and rising stars.

When you add up the impact of voluntary redundancy exercises, poachings by Global and departures due to moving teams outside of London the losses of staff BBC News over the past few years are huge.

[London Lite]

If the first response to the prospect of receiving a little less money is to make significant cuts to what (I think we can agree) are the truly essential licence-fee-funded services like news, rather than looking elsewhere - maybe just one episode of EastEnders a week instead of four? - then is it really unfair to observe that maybe the major danger is in what the BBC itself is choosing to cut, and what to prioritise?

EastEnders is cheaper to produce by making more episodes than by reducing them. It may not have the pulling power it used to have, but it still remains one of the BBC's key methods of introducing PSB storylines to the masses.

[scoobiesnacks]

I see talk on here of running a few adverts to fund the News channel. That would raise almost no money whatsoever. GBNews and SkyNews have loads of adverts, they both make a loss.

[harshy]

Appreciate the BBC's hands are tied, but it is going to lose a lot of good people because of this - both established names and rising stars.

When you add up the impact of voluntary redundancy exercises, poachings by Global and departures due to moving teams outside of London the losses of staff BBC News over the past few years are huge.

I think it’s a huge mistake bbc world news has been going since the early 90s, for it to disappear along with the now established presenters is purely insane.

[DTV]

I sympathise with your position, but is it wrong to feel that surely the BBC must accept the major part of the responsibility itself? It doesn't have to cut news at all - it's still receiving billions of pounds a year from the licence fee, and it could easily afford to, and choose to, protect the spending on news and current affairs. 

If the first response to the prospect of receiving a little less money is to make significant cuts to what (I think we can agree) are the truly essential licence-fee-funded services like news, rather than looking elsewhere - maybe just one episode of EastEnders a week instead of four? - then is it really unfair to observe that maybe the major danger is in what the BBC itself is choosing to cut, and what to prioritise?

Budgets from every department and channel across the BBC have been cut, this isn't some case of BBC News being specifically targeted, rather BBC News taking its fair share of cuts and responding to them in the way they feel appropriate. BBC News cuts just seem more visible because it has the most permanent staff, one of the largest budgets and is the only department with its own channels.

The EastEnders budget is roughly half that of the BBC News Channel and, as LondonLite points out, doesn't work in the way that reducing the number of episodes by 75% would save 75% of its budget. I also imagine that there would be something of an uproar if one of the BBC's most popular shows was effectively sacrificed to save a little watched channel that is by no means the only outlet for BBC News. The BBC News channel hardly is, nor has it ever been, the jewel in the crown of BBC News.

---

I think it’s a huge mistake bbc world news has been going since the early 90s, for it to disappear along with the now established presenters is purely insane.

It would be insane. That's probably why BBC World News is not disappearing. It's getting a new name and some longer presenter shifts, but it is largely unscathed by the proposals.

[Mouseboy33]

I know the funding models are vastly different but ....

CBC Canada runs limited adverts similar to the BBC in that its funded by the government:
The CBC's federal funding is supplemented by revenue from commercial advertising on its television broadcasts. The radio service employed commercials from its inception to 1974, but since its primary radio networks have been commercial-free.

PBS in the US has "sponsored by" promos leading into a specific programmes (no adverts or advert breaks). So there's that.

[London Lite]

What springs to mind with the Nicky Campbell simulcast on the UK feed is are they trying to get back a Victoria Derbyshire style format in the mid-morning slot on the cheap?

However while Derbyshire got her own team and editorial agenda with packages for underserved audiences, this is a cheap way of filling airtime on BBC Two and BBC News with a phone-in.

[all new Phil]

To be in the situation we are today is entirely a reflection of how dangerously and recklessly the Culture Secretary (and govt) are handling the BBC's very existence.

In that context, these changes, for me, represent a practical (but ghastly) solution. To be frank: better to have a form of BBC News rather than none at all.

I sympathise with your position, but is it wrong to feel that surely the BBC must accept the major part of the responsibility itself? It doesn't have to cut news at all - it's still receiving billions of pounds a year from the licence fee, and it could easily afford to, and choose to, protect the spending on news and current affairs. 

If the first response to the prospect of receiving a little less money is to make significant cuts to what (I think we can agree) are the truly essential licence-fee-funded services like news, rather than looking elsewhere - maybe just one episode of EastEnders a week instead of four? - then is it really unfair to observe that maybe the major danger is in what the BBC itself is choosing to cut, and what to prioritise?

Preach. 

Seen a few comments about the government and more specifically the Culture Secretary. I’m interested to know - do posters think the license fee should be increased? That appears to be the only thing that the government can influence. With economic pressures as they are, is increasing household expenditure even further really a sensible suggestion?

[Brekkie]

In the context of everything else rising so much is £10-£15 a year on the licence fee going to be noticed compared to the almost doubling of energy prices and the spiralling fuel prices. The licence fee isn't what is behind the cost of living crisis, but some people will always paint it as such.

It's also not just about funding the BBC, but about funding one of the key components of our democracy which has been central to holding governments to account for much of it's 100 years on air.

[headliner101]

I know the funding models are vastly different but ....

CBC Canada runs limited adverts similar to the BBC in that its funded by the government:
The CBC's federal funding is supplemented by revenue from commercial advertising on its television broadcasts. The radio service employed commercials from its inception to 1974, but since its primary radio networks have been commercial-free.

PBS in the US has "sponsored by" promos leading into a specific programmes (no adverts or advert breaks). So there's that.

Also, many European public broadcasters like France Televisions, RAI, ARD, and ZDF fund their channels partly through ads.

[Internationalman]

I know the funding models are vastly different but ....

CBC Canada runs limited adverts similar to the BBC in that its funded by the government:
The CBC's federal funding is supplemented by revenue from commercial advertising on its television broadcasts. The radio service employed commercials from its inception to 1974, but since its primary radio networks have been commercial-free.

PBS in the US has "sponsored by" promos leading into a specific programmes (no adverts or advert breaks). So there's that.

Also, many European public broadcasters like France Televisions, RAI, ARD, and ZDF fund their channels partly through ads.

Don't forget the Netherlands! They have that STER thing, I believe. Loeki de Leeuw is kinda cute.