BBC News and BBC World to merge

[Omnipresent]

The government could take back funding for items that have been passed to the BBC over the years: All of the World Service, S4C, free TV licences for the over 75s etc.  It has added back some funding for the World Service both permanently and on ad-hoc basis for Ukraine coverage. 

Regardless of who is in power the Treasury is the Treasury so it's very unlikely to be willing to take on hundreds of millions of pounds of expenditure if it doesn't have to.

The sad reality is by the end of the 2027 licence fee settlement there will have been 17 years of deep cuts to the BBC.

I've said it before but Tony Hall should not have folded on free TV licences for the over 75s.  I would have used all means possible - both legal and PR - to stop the government from transferring what was a social policy on to the BBC.

[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?

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.

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

Sure a licence fee rise during the CoL crisis is suicide.  But I am assuming normal circumstances when more people could afford it.  I’m just asking how soon funding arrangements could manifest.

But thanks for clarifying that even if (for the sake of argument) legislation to raise BBC funding is approved tomorrow, it’s unlikely to be sufficient to save News 24 in its current form.

[Brekkie]

Blaming the BBC for the cost of living crisis when freezing the licence fee is saving households £10 a year compared to the £10 a time extra people are paying at the pump when they pay for fuel or the £1500+ extra people are paying in energy bills is distraction politics in play.   Indeed the argument should be that funding the BBC properly with as little as £10 extra a year could save you money on subscribing to watch the content the BBC can currently not afford.

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

I agree, but it's the other elements where the BBC funding are things that were previously funded by the government where an impact can be made in the short term - noteably World Service, S4C and crucially the over 75s free licences. That could make a significant difference to the BBC budget for what in terms of the government budget is actually a minimal amount - hundreds of millions compared to the billions being proposed in tax cuts.

[Radio_man]

But thanks for clarifying that even if (for the sake of argument) legislation to raise BBC funding is approved tomorrow, it’s unlikely to be sufficient to save News 24 in its current form.

Are you aware that "News 24" has not existed for 14 years? "News 24" ceased to exist in April 2008 (and the last person to present the last shift on the old "News 24" was......Martine Croxall) It's been known on-air as BBC News and off-air as the BBC News Channel ever since.

[News48]

https://twitter.com/pruszm10/status/1548051556414603268

[JamesWorldNews]

But thanks for clarifying that even if (for the sake of argument) legislation to raise BBC funding is approved tomorrow, it’s unlikely to be sufficient to save News 24 in its current form.

Are you aware that "News 24" has not existed for 14 years? "News 24" ceased to exist in April 2008 (and the last person to present the last shift on the old "News 24" was......Martine Croxall) It's been known on-air as BBC News and off-air as the BBC News Channel ever since.

100% correct. But I did chuckle when the late, great Harry Gration would persist in speaking of News 24 endlessly when he would appear on-air with Simon McCoy. In fact, Harry’s on-air singing attempts were littered with references to News 24 in the improvised lyrics.

I know a few other people who still call it News 24. Harmlessly.

[Mr Q]

The government could take back funding for items that have been passed to the BBC over the years: All of the World Service, S4C, free TV licences for the over 75s etc.  It has added back some funding for the World Service both permanently and on ad-hoc basis for Ukraine coverage. 

Regardless of who is in power the Treasury is the Treasury so it's very unlikely to be willing to take on hundreds of millions of pounds of expenditure if it doesn't have to.

The sad reality is by the end of the 2027 licence fee settlement there will have been 17 years of deep cuts to the BBC.

I've said it before but Tony Hall should not have folded on free TV licences for the over 75s.  I would have used all means possible - both legal and PR - to stop the government from transferring what was a social policy on to the BBC.

The Treasury doesn't just resist spending for the sake of it. The natural inclination of the civil servants working there would be to critically evaluate different proposals: how do the benefits stack up versus the costs? Can the benefits be obtained at lower overall cost? But they do not have it as a mission to run around throwing proverbial stokes in wheels. At the end of the day, ministers (and parliament) make decisions. The civil service's role is to inform those decisions and then execute them once made.

As far as the BBC goes: politicians have made decisions about what level of funding a public service broadcaster needs in the 21st century. If voters don't like those decisions, they're welcome to elect a different group of politicians to make different decisions. But I suspect the appetite for increasing the licence fee or injecting additional taxpayers dollars into the BBC today is pretty low, and that most people have other issues that they consider priorities for government. Meanwhile, the BBC will continue to change and adapt -- both in response to funding decisions, and to changing consumer patterns in terms of the media environment.

This is not the 1950's. The media environment is more diverse, more competitive. The BBC doesn't need to be everywhere trying to do everything.

[headliner101]

The government could take back funding for items that have been passed to the BBC over the years: All of the World Service, S4C, free TV licences for the over 75s etc.  It has added back some funding for the World Service both permanently and on ad-hoc basis for Ukraine coverage. 

Regardless of who is in power the Treasury is the Treasury so it's very unlikely to be willing to take on hundreds of millions of pounds of expenditure if it doesn't have to.

The sad reality is by the end of the 2027 licence fee settlement there will have been 17 years of deep cuts to the BBC.

I've said it before but Tony Hall should not have folded on free TV licences for the over 75s.  I would have used all means possible - both legal and PR - to stop the government from transferring what was a social policy on to the BBC.

The Treasury doesn't just resist spending for the sake of it. The natural inclination of the civil servants working there would be to critically evaluate different proposals: how do the benefits stack up versus the costs? Can the benefits be obtained at lower overall cost? But they do not have it as a mission to run around throwing proverbial stokes in wheels. At the end of the day, ministers (and parliament) make decisions. The civil service's role is to inform those decisions and then execute them once made.

As far as the BBC goes: politicians have made decisions about what level of funding a public service broadcaster needs in the 21st century. If voters don't like those decisions, they're welcome to elect a different group of politicians to make different decisions. But I suspect the appetite for increasing the licence fee or injecting additional taxpayers dollars into the BBC today is pretty low, and that most people have other issues that they consider priorities for government. Meanwhile, the BBC will continue to change and adapt -- both in response to funding decisions, and to changing consumer patterns in terms of the media environment.

This is not the 1950's. The media environment is more diverse, more competitive. The BBC doesn't need to be everywhere trying to do everything.

You can't blame them when they have almost half a dozen other viable alternatives to iPlayer that cost less per month than the monthly licence fee (keeping in mind that you pay for two months on your first six months of the licence fee 'subscription').  Disney+, Netflix, Prime Video, BritBox, NowTV (especially the entertainment pack), itv Hub, Discovery Plus.

[DTV]

Just to return this thread back to the merger, rather than broader points about BBC funding, I've taken a look at the proposals and attempted to visualise them.

At present, as far as I can work out, BBC World News uses eight or nine London-based news presenters on the average weekday (excluding Focus on Africa) and the BBC News channel uses five (excluding the Six and Ten). That's at least thirteen presenters per day across the two channels. The BBC's initial proposals for the merged channel aim for a total of just thirteen London-based presenters in total for the channel (five as sole presenters, eight as presenter-reporters). My expectation is that these plans envisage a presenter pattern something like this...


...it's not particularly unreasonable for the World side of the channel and only requires nine London presenters to be rostered per week. The problem, of course, comes with the UK side of the channel. Not just are there the inherent problems with mixing domestic and international news, but the hours that domestic are losing (primarily 11:00-18:00) fall within several key peak time slots for other parts of the world (this is when BBC charges a premium adverstising rate in those territories for BBC World News, so weakening the service would be a no-no). This has rightly frustrated some forumers, even if their consequent counter-proposals have been poor.

But there is actually clear wriggle room in the proposals for a better service for the UK with little additional cost (likely as part of a negotiating strategy on the part of the BBC). Below is the current weekday set-up for the two channels, the current 'as proposed' set-up and two potential options for the UK version to improve domestic coverage with limited extra cost.


...unless something odd is planned for the News at One, you are going to have an extra presenter and gallery team in the building for a sole half-hour newscast (though I expect this is the team that would also be used for the possible opt-out). Instead they could be used to provide an afternoon of UK-oriented news coverage, leading into a visualised PM programme at 17:00. This would not mean any extra staffing relative to the already announced proposals and would only cut three hours of UK news per day (compared to seven-and-a-half at present).

With just a sole additional presenter per day, it would be possible to reduce the cut to just the single evening hour. Having two UK-only shifts between 11:00 and 17:00 would leave the UK version of the channel with a level of UK-only output similar to the pre-Covid channel, while still seeing reductions in staffing levels (which is obviously unfortunate, but does seem to be a central thrust of the unavoidable cuts). To me, this seems like the closest to a 'best of both worlds' set-up given the circumstances and I would not be surprised if the final plans end up in this direction.

PS, if you are going to quote this post - crop it!

[Moz]

Just to return this thread back to the merger, rather than broader points about BBC funding, I've taken a look at the proposals and attempted to visualise them…

Think you’ve missed that they’re planning to simulcast Newsnight.

The whole thing is just terrible. They should scrap BBC World News and just simulcast the UK aimed News Channel.

[m_in_m]

How do they get from the end of Newsnight into the news going out on World? That feels like an awkward opt in point as presumably Newsnights end time varies slightly night to night? Unless they are going to have a sports bulletin followed by weather and then just use trailers and/or the countdown to hit the half hour point.

[owenj20]

Newsnight is currently shown on World News, just not live.

[Radio_man]

Just to return this thread back to the merger, rather than broader points about BBC funding, I've taken a look at the proposals and attempted to visualise them…

Think you’ve missed that they’re planning to simulcast Newsnight.

The whole thing is just terrible. They should scrap BBC World News and just simulcast the UK aimed News Channel.

So what we'll end up with is a channel that simulcasts most of the BBC's TV news & current affairs output from BBC 1&2 - Breakfast, all of the network BBC 1 bulletins, Newsnight (which has been done before and didn't work) might as well throw in Politics Live and Laura K's Sunday political show as well. Plus simulcasts of 5 Live and possibly PM on R4. With bits of World News simulcasts to fill the gaps. What a mess.

Apart from the weekday 1, 6 & 10, I really don't see the point in putting BBC news or current affairs shows from other TV & radio channels on the news channel. If someone wants to watch Breakfast, or the News at 10, they put on BBC 1. If someone wants to listen to Nicky Campbell's phone-in, they tune into 5 Live. If someone wants to watch Newsnight, they put on BBC 2. They don't go to the News Channel.

[DTV]

How do they get from the end of Newsnight into the news going out on World? That feels like an awkward opt in point as presumably Newsnights end time varies slightly night to night? Unless they are going to have a sports bulletin followed by weather and then just use trailers and/or the countdown to hit the half hour point.

I haven't seen the Newsnight simulcast confirmed in any official releases, but it makes sense. I suppose you could extend Newsnight by fifteen minutes and incorporate a newspaper review on the end (making up for the loss of The Papers).

[Brekkie]

Think you’ve missed that they’re planning to simulcast Newsnight.

Not seen that mentioned.

FWIW I would use the network presenters for additional shift (9-11, 2-4, 8-9) to give the core hours between bulletins a UK focus.   Simulcast Politics Live and PM and you're pretty much down to 2 hours of World content during the day.

Personally I'd shift Newsnight to 11pm so it can be simulcast but now BBC3 is back I'm not sure that extra half hour is as useful to BBC2 as it might have been a few years ago.