BBC News and BBC World to merge

[nhk]

To add to the flurry of "crap decision" posts...

Many of the people around me are extremely causal television watchers - they watch Love Island and I'm a Celebrity when they come around each year, and that is genuinely it. Everything else is done on Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime etc., so the only television services I actually ever see them use are the news channel - and only at a time of breaking news.

At 12 midday last April I received a notification on my phone alerting me of Prince Philip's death. First instinct - the news channel. Straight onto BBC News to find out what's happened. When the Manchester Arena bombing occurred in 2017, the first port of call was the BBC News channel to find out what's happened. Major news stories are the only time that I find the general public really finds value in a 24/7 news channel, as they know it's a service that will immediately be there, and unlike the fragmented whirlwind of info and rumours on Facebook and others, a reputable news organisation like the BBC will give you a well-rounded reliable summary of events to the highest standard - that you can trust.

By changing the structure into this new service, specifically with breaking news being presented from a little green broom cupboard, and having a presumably smaller team than at present on the News Channel, I fear the quality of the BBC's usually excellent breaking news coverage will be severely impacted and no longer be the level-headed and sensible voice of reason that people find in it today. I believe if the news of the Prime Minister's resignation had broke under this new service (where it is not of much interest to the rest of the world), it would be a lot harder to produce a quality and in-depth programme with this breakaway team that, again I presume, will not have the full resources available to the continuing network channel.

As an aside, I am also not a fan of changing the name to 'BBC News'. News 24 or News Channel clearly signifies the seperate channel, whereas BBC News could be the website, the evening or late news, the news channel, the radio service, the app - there's nothing wrong with News Channel as it is.

[Scratch_Perry]

I like the point of "unlike the fragmented whirlwind of info and rumours on Facebook and others, a reputable news organisation like the BBC will give you a well-rounded reliable summary of events to the highest standard - that you can trust"; that is particularly true, especially when it comes to reporting deaths, where reputable news outlets make sure that it is 110% verified that a particular person has died.

I remember last year when a footballer "died"; it was "all over Twitter", but reputable outlets were not running the story as it was not officially confirmed, but it was 48 hours later when the death was officially confirmed and the reputable media outlets ran the story.

[headliner101]

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.

I don’t think anyone is implying here that News 24 is the BBC’s crown jewel, not even its news department. Those who want BBC News can still get it on Radio 4 (today), 5Live, the BBC news websites, and apps. You’ll just have to get used to reading or listening to it.

World is unscathed because of its funding model.  World is answerable to advertisers and pay-TV operators, not the UK government.  So it does not have to worry about retribution if any.  

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.

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.

I also forgot Channel 4.  Then there is Denmark’s TV2 which is technically public but acts more ITV1. So so many public broadcasters taking a quasi-commercial approach to funding.

[AxiosBrit67]

As an aside, I am also not a fan of changing the name to 'BBC News'. News 24 or News Channel clearly signifies the seperate channel, whereas BBC News could be the website, the evening or late news, the news channel, the radio service, the app - there's nothing wrong with News Channel as it is.

The merged channel will still officially named BBC News Channel, but branded as 'BBC News' for on-screen, same as currently is.

[headliner101]

To add to the flurry of "crap decision" posts...

Many of the people around me are extremely causal television watchers - they watch Love Island and I'm a Celebrity when they come around each year, and that is genuinely it. Everything else is done on Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime etc., so the only television services I actually ever see them use are the news channel - and only at a time of breaking news.

At 12 midday last April I received a notification on my phone alerting me of Prince Philip's death. First instinct - the news channel. Straight onto BBC News to find out what's happened. When the Manchester Arena bombing occurred in 2017, the first port of call was the BBC News channel to find out what's happened. Major news stories are the only time that I find the general public really finds value in a 24/7 news channel, as they know it's a service that will immediately be there, and unlike the fragmented whirlwind of info and rumours on Facebook and others, a reputable news organisation like the BBC will give you a well-rounded reliable summary of events to the highest standard - that you can trust.

By changing the structure into this new service, specifically with breaking news being presented from a little green broom cupboard, and having a presumably smaller team than at present on the News Channel, I fear the quality of the BBC's usually excellent breaking news coverage will be severely impacted and no longer be the level-headed and sensible voice of reason that people find in it today. I believe if the news of the Prime Minister's resignation had broke under this new service (where it is not of much interest to the rest of the world), it would be a lot harder to produce a quality and in-depth programme with this breakaway team that, again I presume, will not have the full resources available to the continuing network channel.

As an aside, I am also not a fan of changing the name to 'BBC News'. News 24 or News Channel clearly signifies the seperate channel, whereas BBC News could be the website, the evening or late news, the news channel, the radio service, the app - there's nothing wrong with News Channel as it is.

People are migrating to these services are spending fewer quid per month than with paying the licence fee so maybe that's one thing that BBC bosses are taking their cue from.

[natashajacobs]

I think a lot of people are really overreacting here. If there was major breaking news in the UK they would cover it whether it went out worldwide or not. I see a lot of talk about this CSO studio but nobody has actually confirmed this have they?

[DTV]

To add to the flurry of "crap decision" posts...

At 12 midday last April I received a notification on my phone alerting me of Prince Philip's death. First instinct - the news channel. Straight onto BBC News to find out what's happened. When the Manchester Arena bombing occurred in 2017, the first port of call was the BBC News channel to find out what's happened. Major news stories are the only time that I find the general public really finds value in a 24/7 news channel, as they know it's a service that will immediately be there, and unlike the fragmented whirlwind of info and rumours on Facebook and others, a reputable news organisation like the BBC will give you a well-rounded reliable summary of events to the highest standard - that you can trust.

By changing the structure into this new service, specifically with breaking news being presented from a little green broom cupboard, and having a presumably smaller team than at present on the News Channel, I fear the quality of the BBC's usually excellent breaking news coverage will be severely impacted and no longer be the level-headed and sensible voice of reason that people find in it today. I believe if the news of the Prime Minister's resignation had broke under this new service (where it is not of much interest to the rest of the world), it would be a lot harder to produce a quality and in-depth programme with this breakaway team that, again I presume, will not have the full resources available to the continuing network channel.

But this just, once again, shows how ill-considered a lot of these 'it's terrible' reactions are. All the news events that people have listed as examples of the value of a rolling news channel are all events that BBC World News covered with rolling news. Terrorist attacks in the UK are going to be covered. Deaths of royals are going to be covered. Resignations of Prime Ministers are going to be covered. These are all top-tier news stories that have significant news value in the UK and internationally - indeed most of these are BBC One Newsflash level stories where the BBC senior presenter is brought in as soon as possible.

When it comes to separated coverage, they are talking about things like party leader speeches, reactions to by-elections, UK weather events, the resignation of a single cabinet minister - stories that are big in the UK, but have limited international news value (especially in South Asia peak, UK politics is more acceptable in Euro evening slot). I don't know where the CSO cupboard rumour has come from, but it wasn't mentioned in any of the BBC's press releases. As I said yesterday, unless something radical is happening to the One, I wouldn't be surprised if the final plan involves the One presenter doing a permanent afternoon UK opt-out from Studio B. If you've got a separate presenter and gallery team in for that, it wouldn't make sense not to.

[BBCMeridian]

I think a lot of people are really overreacting here. If there was major breaking news in the UK they would cover it whether it went out worldwide or not. I see a lot of talk about this CSO studio but nobody has actually confirmed this have they?

But they said they would cover breaking news in the UK stream only and not on the channel, so no we're not overreacting, you can see the backlash that it's received especially from unions and staff.
Also I don't know if anyone's mentioned this but will the presenters still say Good Morning, Afternoon and Evening and what time it is in the UK or will that be dropped. That's why merging the News channels is the biggest mistake and one that is unforgivable.

[DTV]

But they said they would cover breaking news in the UK stream only and not on the channel, so no we're not overreacting, you can see the backlash that it's received especially from unions and staff.
Also I don't know if anyone's mentioned this but will the presenters still say Good Morning, Afternoon and Evening and what time it is in the UK or will that be dropped. That's why merging the News channels is the biggest mistake and one that is unforgivable.

The UK stream is the UK version of the channel.

These are early plans, don't be surprised if the final plan allows for a greater UK opt that than the initial suggestions. The BBC will have known that there would have to be negotiations with unions, these will be a 'hard' start point to allow for a 'compromise'.

During simulcast hours with BBC News (World), they will not be using time signifiers. Obviously.

Saying it is the biggest mistake BBC News has made is overreacting.

[natashajacobs]

I think a lot of people are really overreacting here. If there was major breaking news in the UK they would cover it whether it went out worldwide or not. I see a lot of talk about this CSO studio but nobody has actually confirmed this have they?

But they said they would cover breaking news in the UK stream only and not on the channel, so no we're not overreacting, you can see the backlash that it's received especially from unions and staff.
Also I don't know if anyone's mentioned this but will the presenters still say Good Morning, Afternoon and Evening and what time it is in the UK or will that be dropped. That's why merging the News channels is the biggest mistake and one that is unforgivable.

Unions are of course not going to like it if their members are redeployed or made redundant but unfortunately it’s the situation the beeb is in at the minute. I’d much rather this solution than chopping out newsnight for example. I doubt most people care if they say good morning lol!

[Brekkie]

I think a lot of people are really overreacting here. If there was major breaking news in the UK they would cover it whether it went out worldwide or not. I see a lot of talk about this CSO studio but nobody has actually confirmed this have they?

The criticism isn't about the major breaking stories - it's about the minor ones that matter to local audiences and crucially the time available to the BBC to properly scrutinise politicians and their policies being put through Parliament.   I can't see a world focused channel spending time analysising a health bill for example.

[Newsroom]

As an aside, I am also not a fan of changing the name to 'BBC News'. News 24 or News Channel clearly signifies the seperate channel, whereas BBC News could be the website, the evening or late news, the news channel, the radio service, the app - there's nothing wrong with News Channel as it is.

The merged channel will still officially named BBC News Channel, but branded as 'BBC News' for on-screen, same as currently is.

No it won't. It'll be called BBC NEWS. 'Channel' 'World' are going.

[DTV]

The criticism isn't about the major breaking stories - it's about the minor ones that matter to local audiences and crucially the time available to the BBC to properly scrutinise politicians and their policies being put through Parliament.   I can't see a world focused channel spending time analysising a health bill for example.

But is there a lot of this at the minute? Maybe I just catch the wrong hours, but I don't recall the last time I saw the BBC News channel dissect policy in a way distinct from the way it is covered on network bulletins. Sure this isn't a particular problem with the channel, a lot of UK journalists seem to view policy as an unhelpful distraction from the Westminster soap opera, but I'm just not aware of it being something that is regularly done in any depth.

[RR]

The BBC is having to make severe cuts due to the licence fee being frozen, a situation made worse as inflation rises.

They have already said that they are proposing in the future to close the broadcast of BBC Four and CBBC. They have already just about eliminated any spend on new content for the former.

They have also announced cutbacks on regional news, including eliminating two regions, and reducing substantially non-shared local radio content.

More cuts to licence fee funded output are required to fit in with their real cuts in licence fee income. In many ways, cutting back on the BBC News channel means that resources can still be there for the news requirements of the linear channels, which will include regional and national news and also breaking news when relevant, and radio equivalents, and to an extent, there is still money for other content on those channels.

[Rolling News]

You can tell Martine isn't happy at all about this. What with some of the indirect comments she was making during the 5pm hour on Thursday, and now this afternoon opening the hour with "Good afternoon and welcome to the BBC News Channel" which no one ever does.