But to all intense and purposes it is ‘business as usual’. You say they have slashed the budgets, but I don’t see a difference watching the news channel today then 10 years ago.
Well, for example, I would imagine technological advances mean they can do the same stuff now for less than they could back then.
If there has been a downgrading of the news channel due to slashed budgets I don’t see it, does anybody else?
Isn't that a "good thing"?
There are still two presenters, will the world come to an end if they slashed the budget and only had one?
Ignoring the ridiculous hyperbole, logic and common sense should tell you why you really do need two people for a 24-hour news channel most of the time.
Why can’t the presenter read out the weather, do they need to have all these weather presenters up and down the land at considerable cost?
Does it all come out of the same budget? I'm not sure. But I'd rather a qualified person told me about the weather than giving the news presenters more to do.
Can’t reporters multi task? Does the BBC need to send an army of reporters to cover the same story for its different platforms.
Again, logic and common sense should tell you why they need to do this.
I personally think the news channel should be closed down...
Thereby removing probably one of the most "PSB" elements of the BBC. So no, not the best idea, really.
BBC News Channel continues with Linda Yeuh show while Sky & CNN cut to breaking news of Japanese hostage being beheaded. Not sure why they haven't cut away,
Any reason it couldn't wait until the top of the hour? Perhaps the BBC were double-checking the facts first?
8.54pm
CNN - interviewing a specialist on ISIS behaviour
Sky News - Breaking News about Japanese beheading
BBC News - Linda Yueh "please send in pictures of what's in your fridge send them to bbc.co.uk and goto bbc.co.uk/terms for rules on sending your pics".
So, no reason it couldn't wait another 5 mins then.
Ignoring the ridiculous hyperbole, logic and common sense should tell you why you really do need two people for a 24-hour news channel most of the time
So, no reason it couldn't wait another 5 mins then.
It was a smart remove to rename 'News 24' the 'News Channel' a few years back.
When you add in duplication with World, duplication wit network bulletins, and fillers like 'Click' it is more like 'BBC News ten and a half'
It wasn't only 5 minutes behind the others. It was about 20. The poster merely pointed out what was on at 8.54- so a decision not to break in to the scheduled filler meant they were 20 minutes behind the rest. I thought the whole point of a filler was just that- it could be easily dispensed with if there was major breaking news.
Any reason it couldn't wait until the top of the hour? Perhaps the BBC were double-checking the facts first?
So, no reason it couldn't wait another 5 mins then.
That was my thoughts, initially it would probably just be that there reports that he had been murdered which could go on the news ticker at the bottom of the screen. Even now there is little more news about it and not likely to be, just lots of predictable reactions from people.
So, no reason it couldn't wait another 5 mins then.
The news had broken 20 minutes earlier and both CNN and Sky had been reporting it I think a beheading is more important than asking people to send in photos of what is in their fridge.
The news had broken 20 minutes earlier and both CNN and Sky had been reporting it I think a beheading is more important than asking people to send in photos of what is in their fridge.
Maybe, but had it been CONFIRMED twenty minutes earlier? Which is better, break into a filler show ten minutes in and announce "We are getting unconfirmed reports that......, or wait till the top of the hour, by which time you've had confirmation that the reports are accurate, and then announce "Within the last ten minutes sources have confirmed that.......".
Not withstanding the above, if the BBC had CONFIRMATION at 8.40 then yes, they would have been justified at breaking in to the filler show in that situation.
Maybe, but had it been CONFIRMED twenty minutes earlier? Which is better, break into a filler show ten minutes in and announce "We are getting unconfirmed reports that......, or wait till the top of the hour, by which time you've had confirmation that the reports are accurate, and then announce "Within the last ten minutes sources have confirmed that.......".
Not withstanding the above, if the BBC had CONFIRMATION at 8.40 then yes, they would have been justified at breaking in to the filler show in that situation.
The news was not even a surprise, there was very little doubt about the outcome.
Across the day the BBC News channel averages about double the audience of Sky News.If there was a case for closing a channel it would be Sky.
If it was all about audience share nearly every news channel would have closed by now. Most of them only pull in small ratings and are funded by rich backers, be that Mr. Murdoch (Sky), the Russian government (RT) or Qatari wealth (Al Jazeera).
Not withstanding the above, if the BBC had CONFIRMATION at 8.40 then yes, they would have been justified at breaking in to the filler show in that situation.
Justified but pretty pointless as nothing was happening "live", which would be the only reason to break in. (Only in my opinion, of course.)
Across the day the BBC News channel averages about double the audience of Sky News.If there was a case for closing a channel it would be Sky.
But the people who watch Sky News are not being forced to pay for it are they.
As someone who doesn’t mind paying the licence fee I, like many others think the BBC are digging their own grave the way they are spending money as if its going out of fashion.
Will the world come to an end if the BBC was forced to cut back to a couple of channels? There are plenty of other news channels out there to watch.
The BBC should not think that it has a god given right to have its fingers in every pie. Don’t get me started on how much it is spending of our money in its relentless quest to dominate the World Wide Web.
Just out of interest, given a typical day during the week, let’s say a Thursday, how many people are actually watching the BBC News Channel at the following times, 08.00 – 11.00 – 15.00 – 19.00 – 23.00hrs?
Are the figures available, or are the audience numbers so low that they have to round them up weekly to make it look better and justify this expensive vanity project?
But the people who watch Sky News are not being forced to pay for it are they.
And neither is anyone else who watches any other channel. You only need a TVL under one specific circumstance and there is plenty of stuff available which does not require one.
As someone who doesn’t mind paying the licence fee I, like many others think the BBC are digging their own grave the way they are spending money as if its going out of fashion.
As someone who doesn’t mind paying the licence fee, I do my research and know what I'm talking about and know that they're actually not doing that at all.
Will the world come to an end if the BBC was forced to cut back to a couple of channels?
Nonsense and pointless argument.
There are plenty of other news channels out there to watch.
Also plenty of other TV channels.
The BBC should not think that it has a god given right to have its fingers in every pie.
Huh? They're doing what their Charter says they have to do. "God" has nothing to do with it.
Don’t get me started on how much it is spending of our money in its relentless quest to dominate the World Wide Web.
Oh please stop the hyperbole Another load of nonsense. But yes, the BBC's website is the most-visited non-search-engine non-social media site in the UK. What does that tell you?
Just out of interest, given a typical day during the week, let’s say a Thursday, how many people are actually watching the BBC News Channel at the following times, 08.00 – 11.00 – 15.00 – 19.00 – 23.00hrs?
Why those specific times?
Are the figures available, or are the audience numbers so low that they have to round them up weekly to make it look better and justify this expensive vanity project?
You mean "this most obvious of their PSB requirement", don't you?
Comments
Except the whole problem with the ITV News channel was it attracted virtually no advertising because it had such a tiny audience share.
Isn't that a "good thing"?
Ignoring the ridiculous hyperbole, logic and common sense should tell you why you really do need two people for a 24-hour news channel most of the time.
Does it all come out of the same budget? I'm not sure. But I'd rather a qualified person told me about the weather than giving the news presenters more to do.
Again, logic and common sense should tell you why they need to do this.
Thereby removing probably one of the most "PSB" elements of the BBC. So no, not the best idea, really.
Any reason it couldn't wait until the top of the hour? Perhaps the BBC were double-checking the facts first?
So, no reason it couldn't wait another 5 mins then.
It was a smart remove to rename 'News 24' the 'News Channel' a few years back.
When you add in duplication with World, duplication wit network bulletins, and fillers like 'Click' it is more like 'BBC News ten and a half'
It wasn't only 5 minutes behind the others. It was about 20. The poster merely pointed out what was on at 8.54- so a decision not to break in to the scheduled filler meant they were 20 minutes behind the rest. I thought the whole point of a filler was just that- it could be easily dispensed with if there was major breaking news.
That was my thoughts, initially it would probably just be that there reports that he had been murdered which could go on the news ticker at the bottom of the screen. Even now there is little more news about it and not likely to be, just lots of predictable reactions from people.
If she wanted the Chase on she should have been at home:p
Maybe, but had it been CONFIRMED twenty minutes earlier? Which is better, break into a filler show ten minutes in and announce "We are getting unconfirmed reports that......, or wait till the top of the hour, by which time you've had confirmation that the reports are accurate, and then announce "Within the last ten minutes sources have confirmed that.......".
Not withstanding the above, if the BBC had CONFIRMATION at 8.40 then yes, they would have been justified at breaking in to the filler show in that situation.
The news was not even a surprise, there was very little doubt about the outcome.
If it was all about audience share nearly every news channel would have closed by now. Most of them only pull in small ratings and are funded by rich backers, be that Mr. Murdoch (Sky), the Russian government (RT) or Qatari wealth (Al Jazeera).
So (as I said) another 5 mins really wouldn't have mattered then
And if there was something happening that couldn't wait, I'm sure they would have done so.
Justified but pretty pointless as nothing was happening "live", which would be the only reason to break in. (Only in my opinion, of course.)
But the people who watch Sky News are not being forced to pay for it are they.
As someone who doesn’t mind paying the licence fee I, like many others think the BBC are digging their own grave the way they are spending money as if its going out of fashion.
Will the world come to an end if the BBC was forced to cut back to a couple of channels? There are plenty of other news channels out there to watch.
The BBC should not think that it has a god given right to have its fingers in every pie. Don’t get me started on how much it is spending of our money in its relentless quest to dominate the World Wide Web.
Just out of interest, given a typical day during the week, let’s say a Thursday, how many people are actually watching the BBC News Channel at the following times, 08.00 – 11.00 – 15.00 – 19.00 – 23.00hrs?
Are the figures available, or are the audience numbers so low that they have to round them up weekly to make it look better and justify this expensive vanity project?
And neither is anyone else who watches any other channel. You only need a TVL under one specific circumstance and there is plenty of stuff available which does not require one.
As someone who doesn’t mind paying the licence fee, I do my research and know what I'm talking about and know that they're actually not doing that at all.
Nonsense and pointless argument.
Also plenty of other TV channels.
Huh? They're doing what their Charter says they have to do. "God" has nothing to do with it.
Oh please stop the hyperbole Another load of nonsense. But yes, the BBC's website is the most-visited non-search-engine non-social media site in the UK. What does that tell you?
Why those specific times?
You mean "this most obvious of their PSB requirement", don't you?