BBC News and BBC World to merge

[Joe]

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.

You’re killing me   Some of these posts are gold

[BBCMeridian]

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.

Not surprised and I don't blame her.

[Aplus1]

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.

If the BBC has to make cuts, why don't they make them in the very nice but less essential parts of their output?

The quality of the BBC's news programming, its arts programming, its children's programming, are the major reasons used to justify the idea of a licence fee in the first place - yet it's the first thing they cut. I've mentioned EastEnders already but why not just save a fortune and cut that - or something LIKE that - instead? Why news, arts and children's first of all? The very things that we so often hear that the BBC does best, the things that the commercial channels would never touch, or could never equal the quality of? Why are those the first to go?

Yes, of course some people would miss EastEnders, but I'm sure that a buyer could be found, or maybe the BBC could continue it on their own advertising and subscription-funded channels like Dave and W, for example. Even so, if the BBC has no choice but to make these "savage" cuts, then why are the high-rating mass-audience programmes seemingly immune?

[mdta]

Entertain (EastEnders, Dramas, Strictly etc)
Educate (Arts, Children, Bitesize, OU, Documentaries, Panorama etc)
Inform (News, Radio, Sport)

[XIII]

Typical of the news junkies on here to want to cut scripted programming in favour of news. Some of the biggest shows on iPlayer are dramas and unlike news which is one and done has value down the line.

[headliner101]

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.

If the BBC has to make cuts, why don't they make them in the very nice but less essential parts of their output?

The quality of the BBC's news programming, its arts programming, its children's programming, are the major reasons used to justify the idea of a licence fee in the first place - yet it's the first thing they cut. I've mentioned EastEnders already but why not just save a fortune and cut that - or something LIKE that - instead? Why news, arts and children's first of all? The very things that we so often hear that the BBC does best, the things that the commercial channels would never touch, or could never equal the quality of? Why are those the first to go?

Yes, of course some people would miss EastEnders, but I'm sure that a buyer could be found, or maybe the BBC could continue it on their own advertising and subscription-funded channels like Dave and W, for example. Even so, if the BBC has no choice but to make these "savage" cuts, then why are the high-rating mass-audience programmes seemingly immune?

I believe it's for the same reason that World is going to be more or less intact: many of these programmes are made not by the BBC itself (i.e. the mother company) but by its commercial subsidiaries.  The licence fee is not their only source of funding but also income from sales to other broadcasters and platforms.

[Spencer]

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.

I thought the BBC News channel was already officially called BBC News, with the ‘channel’ reference only added when needed to differentiate it from the BBC One bulletins or website.

Surely they’ll have to use the word ‘channel’ on occasions if directing viewers to the service. If Huw says ‘there’s live coverage of that right now on BBC News’ during a BBC News bulletin, it’s not going to make much sense.

[DTV]

If the BBC has to make cuts, why don't they make them in the very nice but less essential parts of their output?

The quality of the BBC's news programming, its arts programming, its children's programming, are the major reasons used to justify the idea of a licence fee in the first place - yet it's the first thing they cut. I've mentioned EastEnders already but why not just save a fortune and cut that - or something LIKE that - instead? Why news, arts and children's first of all? The very things that we so often hear that the BBC does best, the things that the commercial channels would never touch, or could never equal the quality of? Why are those the first to go?

Yes, of course some people do watch the show and would miss it - I'm sure that a buyer could be found, or maybe the BBC could continue it on their own advertising and subscription-funded channels like Dave and W, for example - but even so, if the BBC has to make these "savage" cuts, then why are the high-rating mass-audience programmes seemingly immune?

Has any question ever answered itself more easily than 'why are the high-rating mass audience programmes seemingly immune'? Even if, of course, such programmes have had their budgets reduced over the last decade. The BBC News channel's real-term content budget cut since 2010 has been 8%, BBC One's has been 17% and BBC Two's 44%.

Aside from that, the licence fee and the BBC's legitimacy as a public service rest on producing programming for as many people as is practicable. You can't reasonably ask people to fork out for a broadcasting service that only produces worthy programmes they aren't interested in. Programmes like EastEnders are part of the deal the BBC make with the public - the mass audience gets enough entertainment that can justify the budget to subsidise programmes that aren't for a mass audience (arts, children, etc.). You can say other elements are more public servicey, but ultimately mass appeal programming is just as essential to the survival of the BBC. I'm sick of the elitist opinion that forgets the third part of the Reithian bargain.

BBC News is actually the department that has arguably most favoured axing less popular, 'worthy' content over the past two decades. News output on BBC One and BBC News online have basically been ringfenced as they are the version of the BBC News service that are mass audience.

[headliner101]

If the BBC has to make cuts, why don't they make them in the very nice but less essential parts of their output?

The quality of the BBC's news programming, its arts programming, its children's programming, are the major reasons used to justify the idea of a licence fee in the first place - yet it's the first thing they cut. I've mentioned EastEnders already but why not just save a fortune and cut that - or something LIKE that - instead? Why news, arts and children's first of all? The very things that we so often hear that the BBC does best, the things that the commercial channels would never touch, or could never equal the quality of? Why are those the first to go?

Yes, of course some people do watch the show and would miss it - I'm sure that a buyer could be found, or maybe the BBC could continue it on their own advertising and subscription-funded channels like Dave and W, for example - but even so, if the BBC has to make these "savage" cuts, then why are the high-rating mass-audience programmes seemingly immune?

Has any question ever answered itself more easily than 'why are the high-rating mass audience programmes seemingly immune'? Even if, of course, such programmes have had their budgets reduced over the last decade. The BBC News channel's real-term content budget cut since 2010 has been 8%, BBC One's has been 17% and BBC Two's 44%.

Aside from that, the licence fee and the BBC's legitimacy as a public service rest on producing programming for as many people as is practicable. You can't reasonably ask people to fork out for a broadcasting service that only produces worthy programmes they aren't interested in. Programmes like EastEnders are part of the deal the BBC make with the public - the mass audience gets enough entertainment that can justify the budget to subsidise programmes that aren't for a mass audience (arts, children, etc.). You can say other elements are more public servicey, but ultimately mass appeal programming is just as essential to the survival of the BBC. I'm sick of the elitist opinion that forgets the third part of the Reithian bargain.

BBC News is actually the department that has arguably most favoured axing less popular, 'worthy' content over the past two decades. News output on BBC One and BBC News online have basically been ringfenced as they are the version of the BBC News service that are mass audience.

There's also updates on BBC radio (including Four, 5Live, and strangely enough, World Service).

Look, the BBC does quality journalism. No doubt about it. But it does not necessarily have to translate or equate to quantity, i.e. having live rolling bulletins hour after hour when there are alternatives such as putting news content on the internet for people to check out when it suits them and updating it only if warranted. That way the BBC thinks it's too redundant or tedious to have presenters reading the same stories hour after hour.

[DTV]

There's also updates on BBC radio (including Four, 5Live, and strangely enough, World Service).

I'm well aware of this, but they aren't mass audience and both BBC Radio news and BBC World Service English have seen significant budget cuts relative to BBC One news, which, other than background cuts to newsgathering, has largely been unscathed by the last decade.

[Blubatt]

This is a topic that I have been waiting to comment on, until I got a picture of what the Beeb had planned for their 'merger' of BBC News Channel and BBC World News. I want to say that I don't want to see people lose their jobs, its a horrible thing, and it is demoralising to people who those who do good stuff in their field. I, however, sympathise with the people who have to plan this thing out. I think, at the end of the day, whatever form the new BBC News takes is going to disappoint people. Maybe not everyone, mind, but it will certainly disappoint those who want a more BBC News 24 style service, and those who want a BBC World style service, because I think that neither approach will be used.

I do agree with the concept of the merger though. Amalgamation of BBC News makes a lot of sense from a business perspective. The BBC is one of the best news services in the world, and when the public arm of the corporation is being threatened by the removal of the licence fee, these are the cuts that have to be made. Its necessary for survival. Should the BBC have to fight for survival and merge services to remain a sustainable business? Absolutely not, but its the way things are, and we're not in the position to change it.

The new BBC News will be the same high standard of news we've come to expect from the BBC, and if it modernises aspects of the service, then I support that. However, the loss of jobs is going to be a blow, and the execution of the service is going to be paramount.

[Internationalman]

This is a topic that I have been waiting to comment on, until I got a picture of what the Beeb had planned for their 'merger' of BBC News Channel and BBC World News. I want to say that I don't want to see people lose their jobs, its a horrible thing, and it is demoralising to people who those who do good stuff in their field. I, however, sympathise with the people who have to plan this thing out. I think, at the end of the day, whatever form the new BBC News takes is going to disappoint people. Maybe not everyone, mind, but it will certainly disappoint those who want a more BBC News 24 style service, and those who want a BBC World style service,  because I think that neither approach will be used.

I do agree with the concept of the merger though. Amalgamation of BBC News makes a lot of sense from a business perspective. The BBC is one of the best news services in the world, and when the public arm of the corporation is being threatened by the removal of the licence fee, these are the cuts that have to be made. Its necessary for survival. Should the BBC have to fight for survival and merge services to remain a sustainable business? Absolutely not, but its the way things are, and we're not in the position to change it.

The new BBC News will be the same high standard of news we've come to expect from the BBC, and if it modernises aspects of the service, then I support that. However, the loss of jobs is going to be a blow, and the execution of the service is going to be paramount.

Exactly. If we can't fathom the loss of jobs, imagine how the BBC is feeling, while bleeding money from their sides. It must have been a hard, HARD decision.

[headliner101]

Say for the sake of argument that the a BBC-friendly government (or someone willing to raise its budget) gets elected tomorrow. Assuming there are enough MPs ready to support funding rises for the public broadcaster, how soon could that be voted on or implemented?

[Richard]

Say for the sake of argument that the a BBC-friendly government (or someone willing to raise its budget) gets elected tomorrow.  Assuming there are enough MPs ready to support funding rises for the public broadcaster, how soon could that be voted on or implemented?

Funding settlements for the BBC happen over several years. If the government decided that the current settlement was too low and the BBC needed more funding immediately then it could happen, but I think it is more likely when the BBC’s Royal Charter runs out at the end of 2027 whether or not the licence fee is abolished.

I’m not an expert, but even if there was a snap General Election and a different government was elected, they would not raise the licence fee given the current cost of living crisis. The only thing I could see that might have an impact if the government thought that the UK could have more influence abroad by providing more funding for international services. Even if this did happen, extra funding wouldn’t, I believe, stop the BBC News/World News merger - extra funding might be used to stop BBC Four or CBBC leaving linear TV instead.

[Andrew]

Say for the sake of argument that the a BBC-friendly government (or someone willing to raise its budget) gets elected tomorrow.  Assuming there are enough MPs ready to support funding rises for the public broadcaster, how soon could that be voted on or implemented?

No party is going to raise the licence fee during the cost of living crisis. I could imagine a policy where to help the poorest in society more people are moved out of the licence fee resulting in less money at the end, so reading between the lines, it isn’t as clear cut as what I imagine you are suggesting