This thread is going off topic. VD programme - is it going viewers?
I cannot see it lasting as it is - the drain on viewers coupled with what would appear to be negative feelings towards it might cause the BBC to have a rethink and to at least tweak the format if not completely review the whole thing. After all, they reviewed Wimbledon2day
I cannot see it lasting as it is - the drain on viewers coupled with what would appear to be negative feelings towards it might cause the BBC to have a rethink and to at least tweak the format if not completely review the whole thing.
They reviewed Wimbledon2day
Or is that wishful thinking
As I said before, I think they are deliberately running the News Channel in to the ground, so they can move it online.
And a rethink would mean, 'We were wrong'
I know they have done something about Wimbledon highlights, but that was only ever going to be for a fortnight, and doesn't involve ditching an entire production team, and a high profile presenter.
As I said before, I think they are deliberately running the News Channel in to the ground, so they can move it online.
And a rethink would mean, 'We were wrong'
I know they have done something about Wimbledon highlights, but that was only ever going to be for a fortnight, and doesn't involve ditching an entire production team, and a high profile presenter.
She isn't a ''high profile presenter'', they tried her out on Newsnight, the News channel and various other programmes, none of which wanted her.
She seems to get lots of time off, perhaps she couldn't get to BH because of the tube strike.She rarely made it to Salford when her 5Live show was based there.
That's the BBC2 rating. Don't have the News Channel figures I'm afraid, but they'll be tiny.
Thanks for clarification, Bushmills.
So, as far as I can remember it was simply repeats of old stuff on BBC2 before April. Things that it wouldn't really matter if it rated poorly, and probably didn't cost much to put out.
To lose around a third of an already low figure is staggering.
And- if the name of the game is to save money, surely it must be costing BBC2 budget far more than the repeats did. It might (but only because costs are being shared with BBC2) be cheaper for News Channel- but at what cost? Doing severe damage to that channel's credibility, and handing viewers to Sky.
So, as far as I can remember it was simply repeats of old stuff on BBC2 before April. Things that it wouldn't really matter if it rated poorly, and probably didn't cost much to put out.
Yes, before Derbyshire's show started they were showing repeats with sign language and still managed to get more viewers!
As I said before, I think they are deliberately running the News Channel in to the ground, so they can move it online.
And a rethink would mean, 'We were wrong'
I know they have done something about Wimbledon highlights, but that was only ever going to be for a fortnight, and doesn't involve ditching an entire production team, and a high profile presenter.
This is crucial. James Harding would have to admit his failure, which I feel would lead to him "changing job".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy2103
As I said before, I think they are deliberately running the News Channel in to the ground, so they can move it online. QUOTE
This is crucial. James Harding would have to admit his failure, which I feel would lead to him "changing job".
...and collecting an astonishing payout, which is the standard BBC reward for failure.
I'm sure they'll keep trying Derbyshire in a number of different formats until they finally find one which suits her - extremely limited - 'talents'. It's called the 'Clare Balding Formula'.
I saw it for the first time a couple of days ago and thought it was well worth watching. At least it made a break from the mainly repeated rolling news. I'm sure viewing figures are pretty much as they would be for the rest of the time on that channel and in any case they don't really matter. It also generates useful interviews to use snippets of during the main news, so it serves a useful purpose.
I saw it for the first time a couple of days ago and thought it was well worth watching.
But the real question to ask is whether it is a suitable programme for a news channel.
At least it made a break from the mainly repeated rolling news.
That's exactly the concept of rolling news - news stories repeated and updated as necessary over a relative short time frame, designed to be dipped in & out of rather than watched for hours at a time.
This is crucial. James Harding would have to admit his failure, which I feel would lead to him "changing job".
You know perfectly well that BBC managers never admit ''failure'', programmes simply ''evolve'' or someone else is to blame. Don't forget Harding came to the BBC with no experience of broadcasting, clearly an excellent choice for running the world's biggest newsgathering operation.
Comments
Or is that wishful thinking?
As I said before, I think they are deliberately running the News Channel in to the ground, so they can move it online.
And a rethink would mean, 'We were wrong'
I know they have done something about Wimbledon highlights, but that was only ever going to be for a fortnight, and doesn't involve ditching an entire production team, and a high profile presenter.
She isn't a ''high profile presenter'', they tried her out on Newsnight, the News channel and various other programmes, none of which wanted her.
Exactly.
Yep, the Facebook logo feminist makeover, and now onto Deirdre Barlow's Corrie exit.
Real worthy news channel stuff there
(Timeslot average for last 12 months: 164,000)
Thanks.
Is that BBC2 and News Channel combined?
I was wondering if she took today off because of tube strike.
If so, a bit wimpish, as all other presenters and reporters seem to have made it in somehow.
That's the BBC2 rating. Don't have the News Channel figures I'm afraid, but they'll be tiny.
Thanks for clarification, Bushmills.
So, as far as I can remember it was simply repeats of old stuff on BBC2 before April. Things that it wouldn't really matter if it rated poorly, and probably didn't cost much to put out.
To lose around a third of an already low figure is staggering.
And- if the name of the game is to save money, surely it must be costing BBC2 budget far more than the repeats did. It might (but only because costs are being shared with BBC2) be cheaper for News Channel- but at what cost? Doing severe damage to that channel's credibility, and handing viewers to Sky.
Thanks.
Thanks. Looking grim.
Yes, before Derbyshire's show started they were showing repeats with sign language and still managed to get more viewers!
"How did it make you feel?" - by digits!
This is crucial. James Harding would have to admit his failure, which I feel would lead to him "changing job".
Originally Posted by mossy2103
As I said before, I think they are deliberately running the News Channel in to the ground, so they can move it online. QUOTE
Exactly.
...and collecting an astonishing payout, which is the standard BBC reward for failure.
I'm sure they'll keep trying Derbyshire in a number of different formats until they finally find one which suits her - extremely limited - 'talents'. It's called the 'Clare Balding Formula'.
But, because it would look odd if the News Channel went back to normal for a couple of days, I assume she will still be inflicted on the News Channel.
Yes on the News channel and presented by Joanna Gosling on Friday. Might give them an excuse to drop it from BBC2 though.
That's exactly the concept of rolling news - news stories repeated and updated as necessary over a relative short time frame, designed to be dipped in & out of rather than watched for hours at a time.
You know perfectly well that BBC managers never admit ''failure'', programmes simply ''evolve'' or someone else is to blame. Don't forget Harding came to the BBC with no experience of broadcasting, clearly an excellent choice for running the world's biggest newsgathering operation.