Well I tuned in at random the other morning, as I often do to catch up on the day's news events and Victoria magazine-show Derbyshire was spouting something about nothing, and she was on for 75 bloody minutes - right through the top of the hour. Ridiculous on a rolling news channel and for the first time in months, I was forced to catch up from Sky flipping News.
It's a ludicrous scheduling decision and the sooner the format is ditched the better. I want news on the hour every hour from a news channel, at least for the first half hour of it, not breakfast-style magazine rubbish.
What major breaking news story did they miss out on because of her programmes?
I would think that most overnight news has been covered earlier and election press conferences will happen later in the morning for the lunchtime news (not that most election 'news' is particularly important, tends to be the same stuff being regurgitated).
I would think that if anything important happened BBC News would cover it whilst her programme would continue on BBC2.
What major breaking news story did they miss out on because of her programmes?
I would think that most overnight news has been covered earlier and election press conferences will happen later in the morning for the lunchtime news (not that most election 'news' is particularly important, tends to be the same stuff being regurgitated).
I would think that if anything important happened BBC News would cover it whilst her programme would continue on BBC2.
Well, just after the VD show launched, Tony Blair was giving an important speech on Europe, the News Channel did not cover it live, whilst Sky News did. I posted about it on the VD thread at the time:
And as I pointed out a bit later on in post 59 of that same thread, Sky News even delayed the 11am headlines so that they could cover all of the speech
Well, just after the VD show launched, Ed Miliband was giving an important speech, the News Channel did not cover it live, whilst Sky News did. I posted about it on the VD thread at the time.
They only broadcast a small part of Tony Blair's speech too which turned out to be the main news story of the day.
They only broadcast a small part of Tony Blair's speech too which turned out to be the main news story of the day.
Sorry, I corrected my mistake in my post when I mistakenly referred to Ed Miiband giving the speech instead of Blair.
But yes, it was a shameful editorial decision, one which I never thought I would see on the News channel, having previously defended simulcasts on the NC and BBC one or BBC Two for the very reason that the NC is free to break off to cover important news stories.
Sorry, I corrected my mistake in my post when I mistakenly referred to Ed Miiband giving the speech instead of Blair.
But yes, it was a shameful editorial decision, one which I never thought I would see on the News channel, having previously defended simulcasts on the NC and BBC one or BBC Two for the very reason that the NC is free to break off to cover important news stories.
Not a ''shameful'' decision but simply the wrong one which no doubt the editor regrets.
I doubt there was any great conspiracy about it just a major error of judgement.
One last word as this is indeed off-topic - I did not imply any conspiracy, just a shameful error of judgement on something that should have been blatant for all to see.
Anyway, back to the news website - too focussed on videos, a lack of readable content, and I really miss the news ticker.
Anyway, back to the news website - too focussed on videos, a lack of readable content, and I really miss the news ticker.
Yes, quite agree. It seems that they don't want to write text reports any more, just rely on people looking at the videos, which I just cannot be bothered with. As for the layout, it doesn't worry me so much as it does others.
Yes, quite agree. It seems that they don't want to write text reports any more, just rely on people looking at the videos, which I just cannot be bothered with. As for the layout, it doesn't worry me so much as it does others.
I'm wondering if the level of text has been reduced to stave off complaints from newspapers (and in many cases, their incredibly wealthy, incredibly annoying Australian owners)...
I'm wondering if the level of text has been reduced to stave off complaints from newspapers (and in many cases, their incredibly wealthy, incredibly annoying Australian owners)...
I know one newspaper group owned mainly by an Australian, who are the other Australians. There is of course one owned by an ex-KGB man, some with Channel Island bases, the Guardian based financially in the Cayman Island ....
I know one newspaper group owned mainly by an Australian, who are the other Australians. There is of course one owned by an ex-KGB man, some with Channel Island bases, the Guardian based financially in the Cayman Island ....
I'm not 100% sure why I pluralised it (clearly an unfortunate late night spelling mistake), I was referring to Rupert Murdoch, who happens to be continuously unhappy at the BBC for a seemingly endless variety of, mostly stupid, reasons.
Well I tuned in at random the other morning, as I often do to catch up on the day's news events and Victoria magazine-show Derbyshire was spouting something about nothing, and she was on for 75 bloody minutes...
And did you watch for whole 75 mins and was she "spouting something about nothing" for the whole show? That would be "no" for both questions so stop generalising.
The redesign was supposed to benefit mobile, but I dislike the redesigned mobile app too. I don't need/ want personalisation and I don't want video only stories which aren't particularly useful on mobile devices. I do want content curated by knowledgeable editors. Which is what we used to have.
Right now the app is suggesting I follow dachaigh (which Google tells me is Scottish Gaelic which I don't speak but I guess is at least local) and Australia (which I have no interest in above any other country).
I'm (in part) a web designer and can see how clever parts of this redesign is. The problem is the site worked well as was and the changes to the nature of content are unnecessary.
I'm (in part) a web designer and can see how clever parts of this redesign is. The problem is the site worked well as was and the changes to the nature of content are unnecessary.
Unfortunately other web designers seem to love messing up the design of sites. I used Find My Past for many years, it was the best family history site. Then they redesigned it and people left in droves. I did not renew even though they extended my subscription by three months.
The most annoying thing about the BBC redesign was the complacency of the people behind it.
I thought the same thing when I was on the site today, some of them seemed very low res and grainy.
The site in general looks too static now, a big story at the top, video on the right and it doesn't seem to change often enough to reflect the fluidity of news.
Also dont like the breaking news thing at the bottom, it is small but still seems to get in the way.
Comments
What major breaking news story did they miss out on because of her programmes?
I would think that most overnight news has been covered earlier and election press conferences will happen later in the morning for the lunchtime news (not that most election 'news' is particularly important, tends to be the same stuff being regurgitated).
I would think that if anything important happened BBC News would cover it whilst her programme would continue on BBC2.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=77610301#post77610301
And as I pointed out a bit later on in post 59 of that same thread, Sky News even delayed the 11am headlines so that they could cover all of the speech
They only broadcast a small part of Tony Blair's speech too which turned out to be the main news story of the day.
But yes, it was a shameful editorial decision, one which I never thought I would see on the News channel, having previously defended simulcasts on the NC and BBC one or BBC Two for the very reason that the NC is free to break off to cover important news stories.
Not a ''shameful'' decision but simply the wrong one which no doubt the editor regrets.
Shameful in my opinion, as the News Channel failed in its one single duty - to bring the viewer the latest news and stories.
Edited to remove last para
I doubt there was any great conspiracy about it just a major error of judgement.
Anyway, back to the news website - too focussed on videos, a lack of readable content, and I really miss the news ticker.
I'm wondering if the level of text has been reduced to stave off complaints from newspapers (and in many cases, their incredibly wealthy, incredibly annoying Australian owners)...
and I'm wondering if the level of text has been reduced to save money "all" the news web sites seem to do it nowadays......................
I'm not 100% sure why I pluralised it (clearly an unfortunate late night spelling mistake), I was referring to Rupert Murdoch, who happens to be continuously unhappy at the BBC for a seemingly endless variety of, mostly stupid, reasons.
No. Next!
Better looking websites include Digital Spy and Twitter
All I can say, as a v frequent user of the BBC news site, is that the 'readability quotient' of the revamped version remains abysmally low.
Right now the app is suggesting I follow dachaigh (which Google tells me is Scottish Gaelic which I don't speak but I guess is at least local) and Australia (which I have no interest in above any other country).
I'm (in part) a web designer and can see how clever parts of this redesign is. The problem is the site worked well as was and the changes to the nature of content are unnecessary.
Unfortunately other web designers seem to love messing up the design of sites. I used Find My Past for many years, it was the best family history site. Then they redesigned it and people left in droves. I did not renew even though they extended my subscription by three months.
The most annoying thing about the BBC redesign was the complacency of the people behind it.
The site in general looks too static now, a big story at the top, video on the right and it doesn't seem to change often enough to reflect the fluidity of news.
Also dont like the breaking news thing at the bottom, it is small but still seems to get in the way.