Nothing is stopping people watching news on TV, There is news on the main channels at certain points of the day and every half hour or so on the radio.
yes, and that's why a rolling news channel is important to some - they don't have to wait for three, four or more hours for one of those bulletins - the news will be there every 15 or 30 mins, ready for the viewer (that's the point of a rolling news channel). And radio news, although it has its place, sometimes cannot convey the same pictures (literally).
The less said about Sunday opening hours the better and 24 /7 for that matter.
It is the BBc who are complaining they are short of money, if that is the case then shut the 24/7 news channel down, it is not required. Also there are plenty of other news channels on TV.
It is not required in your opinion, an opinion which, as I recall, is based upon you not watching live TV, then having a licence, then deciding not to have one again and get a refund for the unused months. So maybe your opinion on this matter carries rather less weight than that of those who DO watch live TV.
And plenty of other news channels on TV? Well, fine if you have satellite, or pay-tv,, otherwise there is but one - Sky News.
The BBC News channel has never been a true 24 hour rolling news service. The programme at breakfast time has for a long time been a lightweight sofa-based magazine show, which gives a nod in the direction of news but leans more than a little towards entertainment. Now, the news channel doesn't start until 11 as it carries the disastrous (in my opinion) Victoria Derbyshire programme which might be very worthy but has no place on a news channel. There are more and more programmes elsewhere in its schedule which do not qualify as rolling news under any definition of the term. Whilst there were always a few of these, principally at weekends and holiday time and generally only in the second half of any hour, they have now expanded to a point where one has to question any use at all of the description of the channel as providing 24 hour rolling news.
The BBC News channel has never been a true 24 hour rolling news service. The programme at breakfast time has for a long time been a lightweight sofa-based magazine show, which gives a nod in the direction of news but leans more than a little towards entertainment. Now, the news channel doesn't start until 11 as it carries the disastrous (in my opinion) Victoria Derbyshire programme which might be very worthy but has no place on a news channel. There are more and more programmes elsewhere in its schedule which do not qualify as rolling news under any definition of the term. Whilst there were always a few of these, principally at weekends and holiday time and generally only in the second half of any hour, they have now expanded to a point where one has to question any use at all of the description of the channel as providing 24 hour rolling news.
Spot on.
The question is...... Is the BBC being crass, or is it responding to the curve? There may be elements of both in the case of domestic rolling news, but its clear tat he race is on to find a sustainable model.
The BBC News channel has never been a true 24 hour rolling news service. The programme at breakfast time has for a long time been a lightweight sofa-based magazine show, which gives a nod in the direction of news but leans more than a little towards entertainment. Now, the news channel doesn't start until 11 as it carries the disastrous (in my opinion) Victoria Derbyshire programme which might be very worthy but has no place on a news channel. There are more and more programmes elsewhere in its schedule which do not qualify as rolling news under any definition of the term. Whilst there were always a few of these, principally at weekends and holiday time and generally only in the second half of any hour, they have now expanded to a point where one has to question any use at all of the description of the channel as providing 24 hour rolling news.
Then, rather than axing it, maybe the logical approach would be to give the news department a bit more cash and refocus it back onto 24-hr rolling news (except for the early hours). News should be one of the main planks of PSB. The BBC have been wrong to cut news budgets as much as it has.
The question is...... Is the BBC being crass, or is it responding to the curve? There may be elements of both in the case of domestic rolling news, but its clear tat he race is on to find a sustainable model.
As the BBC is not subject to commercial pressures, then "sustainability" does not really come into it. Maybe value for money, maybe being fit for purpose, but not sustainability.
I prefer the BBC News channel as I think their output along with ITV News is much better and much more professional compared to the likes of Sky News.
The output of Sky News imho is largely gone more blander than ever. I used to watch the channel regularly on UPC analogue cable in Ireland until 2008. Then I had FTA satellite in late 2012. I then watched the channel on there up until a good few months before the channel had their rebrand. But now whenever I watch it outside of my home now as it is not a priority when It is on in a restaurant or in a pub that has a TV on while going about my business around Dublin.
There are a number of other things I don't think like about Sky News in the manner in which it is funded through commercial advertising when a major story breaks on the channel and a adbreak cuts a small amount of it or during a press conference or whatever on live TV. I know that this operation doesn't have a flexible choice in that regard because it is owned by the likes of Murdoch but I prefer not to be interrupted by ad breaks on live TV whenever a major news story breaks at a certain point in time.
I have had experienced that issue on a number of occasions on Sky News and that bugs the hell out of me that I have to watch another news channel to watch a news story uninterrupted.
Another thing I don't like about Sky News is that I have it in SD only on satellite in where I would have to pay a HD subscription on Sky where as on the other hand BBC News HD is available FTA on the same platform as it's funded by the BBC LF.
The presenters on BBC News however are a lot more professional and to the point when reading their news. Some of the presenters on Sky News are becoming less professional by the day by being more bland by reading their news.
I think BBC News should not go online only as it greatly devalue the nature of the channel. It would probably be reduced to an RTE News Now style news channel from Ireland in where it has rolling loops of repeated news with programmes coming in from the BBC news department from BBC WN.
One thing I can point out is that the BBC will have resources to output live news whenever possible. Where as RTE News in Ireland cannot have a hope of mastering that job properly.
There are a few samples of programmes and idents from RTE News Now here on youtube of what could be the new interpretation of the new online BBC News channel for the future
yes, and that's why a rolling news channel is important to some - they don't have to wait for three, four or more hours for one of those bulletins - the news will be there every 15 or 30 mins, ready for the viewer (that's the point of a rolling news channel). And radio news, although it has its place, sometimes cannot convey the same pictures (literally).
But why? The BBc want to save money, so get rid of the news channel, anyway thinking about it, there is the red button, I presume that still works and got news on it.
TBH, news is depressing these days anyway, the same thing, people blowing other people up, people dying trying to get to another country and that is about it,.
It is not required in your opinion, an opinion which, as I recall, is based upon you not watching live TV, then having a licence, then deciding not to have one again and get a refund for the unused months. So maybe your opinion on this matter carries rather less weight than that of those who DO watch live TV.
So who said I was going to get a refund? I am just going to carry on until it ends, which should be about another 4-5 months after I cancelled the payment.
And plenty of other news channels on TV? Well, fine if you have satellite, or pay-tv,, otherwise there is but one - Sky News.
You have Russia today
Al Jazeera
Sky news as you said
Arise news, what ever that is
So that is four.
I am not bothered, I do not watch the news on TV, I get it online, TV news is boring.
And we used to manage without Sunday shopping, without major supermarkets being open 24x7, without supermarkets even. We also used to manage without the internet!
But times change, expectations change.
Yes, it seems some people would prefer not to have any progress at all. Why not go the whole hog and live in caves and cook on open fires and have a life expectancy of 34 years. That would please the licence fee haters, they wouldn't have to pay any tax at all then!
But why? The BBc want to save money, so get rid of the news channel, anyway thinking about it, there is the red button, I presume that still works and got news on it.
TBH, news is depressing these days anyway, the same thing, people blowing other people up, people dying trying to get to another country and that is about it,.
So who said I was going to get a refund? I am just going to carry on until it ends, which should be about another 4-5 months after I cancelled the payment.
You have Russia today
Al Jazeera
Sky news as you said
Arise news, what ever that is
So that is four.
I am not bothered, I do not watch the news on TV, I get it online, TV news is boring.
You do talk so much rubbish with ridiculous platitudes. If making sweeping statements was a crime you'd be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
"News is depressing"
"TV News is boring"
"people blowing other people up, people dying trying to get to another country and that is about it"
Astounding lack of maturity. I presume you are an adult?
Well to me that is a bit of an understatement. I did like having Sky News on the analogue cable in Ireland; but that was the only channel I had back then for rolling UK news mainly because of a lack of choice in the TV package. The only other news channel I had was CNBC and therefore had to rely on bulletins from RTE, BBC and ITV News instead.
There is 17 channels available on that package which makes the choice of TV stations very limited. And in an much earlier time cable TV in Ireland was more common in the past with a peak of 90% of households in Dublin alone in the 1990's. That figure is much lower now because of people having Sky, evision, Saorview, freesat or having Netflix as an alternative.
The other thing of note is that all the analogue cable channels in Ireland are available in SD only. So not one of them is available in HD at all which is still very poor by today's broadcasting standards.
The only opportunity I watched BBC News on cable was in my uncle's apartment about 10 years ago and from his current home in Dublin when he moved out a few years later. I would also have watched a small amount of it on BBC One during the night on the analogue cable.
For me having free satellite TV and Saorview gives me more choice anyway in what I can watch. I was getting fed up watching Sky News as I wanted a change in my viewing habits. At least having free satellite and Saorview gives me the choice of stations in HD as well as SD.
So who said I was going to get a refund? I am just going to carry on until it ends, which should be about another 4-5 months after I cancelled the payment.
As I recall, you said that you were going to in a post on this forum. I do recall that you had said that you had got a licence, and then after seeing hat was available and how little interest it was, you were going to give it up & get a refund. Perhaps I misunderstood?
You have Russia today
Seriously?? For honest coverage of news without any bias to Russia? You have to be kidding!
Al Jazeera
I'll give you that, however, it's fine for world stories, but not much use for UK stories (see comment below)
Arise news, what ever that is
It's another World News channel. The last that I heard regarding Arise is that it was in some difficulty, and was also broadcasting repeated bulletins from the day before with other bulletins appearing only sporadically. It's also only available on the DVB-T2 temporary mux (so not everyone can receive it) http://www.a516digital.com/2015/07/is-arise-news-struggling-to-stay-on-air.html
So that is four.
Only one of which gives any real coverage to UK news (which is what the BBC News channel does, and is what the main news bulletins do, and is probably what most people watch for)
I am not bothered, I do not watch the news on TV, I get it online, TV news is boring.
Ah, the old "I don't watch it so it is not needed" approach that is so often quoted on DS
You do talk so much rubbish with ridiculous platitudes. If making sweeping statements was a crime you'd be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
"News is depressing"
"TV News is boring"
"people blowing other people up, people dying trying to get to another country and that is about it"
Astounding lack of maturity. I presume you are an adult?
I take it you do not see the news then, When I have flicked to the news, they are normally on about Migrants and the U.S doing a air strike in a country they should not be in. You may get the odd other bit now and again. News is depressing, what have been on the news in the last couple of weeks that is good news?
As I recall, you said that you were going to in a post on this forum. I do recall that you had said that you had got a licence, and then after seeing hat was available and how little interest it was, you were going to give it up & get a refund. Perhaps I misunderstood?
I am just going to cancel the direct debit and then let it run until it runs out. Getting a refund is a pain, I tried that the last time and by the time they get around to it, you are halfway through another month and they do not do refund for part of a month.
Which is a bit hypocritical on their part since I remember seeing somewhere that Watchdog was on about not getting a part refund on the car tax when they changed to the new system.
Seriously?? For honest coverage of news without any bias to Russia? You have to be kidding!
A mate thinks they are great, really show what the west is up to and how we are being the fighting in Ukraine.
I'll give you that, however, it's fine for world stories, but not much use for UK stories (see comment below)
It's another World News channel. The last that I heard regarding Arise is that it was in some difficulty, and was also broadcasting repeated bulletins from the day before with other bulletins appearing only sporadically. It's also only available on the DVB-T2 temporary mux (so not everyone can receive it) http://www.a516digital.com/2015/07/is-arise-news-struggling-to-stay-on-air.html
Only one of which gives any real coverage to UK news (which is what the BBC News channel does, and is what the main news bulletins do, and is probably what most people watch for)
just saying that there are more news channels and according to some people on these forums we should all be able to receive content on DVB-T2 as we should all have HD tuners.
Ah, the old "I don't watch it so it is not needed" approach that is so often quoted on DS
No, it is the I do not watch it, so I do not really care. But surly it is best to do something a bit more useful with a channel space than 24/7 news if you are struggling with money which the BBc are?
I don't know how much the BBc would save by doing away with the news channel or the Parliament channel, but they will save some money I expect.
A mate thinks they are great, really show what the west is up to and how we are being the fighting in Ukraine.
So completely unbiased then?
And certainly not a Putin mouthpiece either?
No, it is the I do not watch it, so I do not really care.[/quote]But you seem to care enough to suggest that it could be closed 9even though you don't watch it).
But surly it is best to do something a bit more useful with a channel space than 24/7 news if you are struggling with money which the BBc are?
Not if the provision of news is an essential part of PSB, and should be exactly what the BBC should be doing (taking into account the relatively low costs of running the channel).
I don't know how much the BBc would save by doing away with the news channel or the Parliament channel, but they will save some money I expect.
Not much:
BBC Parliament - £10.1 million
BBC News Channel - £63 million**
(£46.2m content, £7.6m distribution, £6.6m content & distribution support, £2.6m general support)
(taken from page 13 of the Annual report 2014/15)
** Included within BBC News channel are production costs of £23.5 million, newsgathering costs of £22.1 million and other costs of £0.6 million (note taken directly from Annual report).
The BBC Trust are saying that the channel will only be thought to be saving about £15 million a year if it did close down and be replaced with mobile streaming.
Good news, and absolutely the right decision (I've always maintained that the provision of news services is a central plank of PSB). Good to see that Tony Hall was directly involved in this decision
I know not everyone has access to the internet but surely enough people do not to justify the move. If we waited until everyone had access to something before launching it then television itself wouldn't have launched until about 1983. Even today there are people without TV. Maybe the BBC should have remained solely a radio broadcaster, arguing it couldn't possibly launch TV channels until everyone had a television set.
If we waited until everyone had access to something before launching it then television itself wouldn't have launched until about 1983.
But everyone does have access to the airwaves and did in 1936 when TV started. So it was, at that time, just a matter of being in range of the only transmitter and choosing/affording to get a very basic TV,
But everyone does have access to the airwaves and did in 1936 when TV started. So it was, at that time, just a matter of being in range of the only transmitter and choosing/affording to get a very basic TV,
Everyone?
I'd doubt if there weren't areas of the country that struggled to get a signal for the first few years, just like what happened with ITV and then Channel 5 years later.
It's the same argument made whenever a case is made for migration from one format to the other.
"But not everyone has....."
I don't understand why that's only a problem now. BBC News Channel itself launched at a time when there were some people unable to get Freeview (or whatever the relevant service was at the time), cable or satellite television due to their location and/or dwelling.
I'd doubt if there weren't areas of the country that struggled to get a signal for the first few years, just like what happened with ITV and then Channel 5 years later.
Yes, everyone. The airwaves are around us all the time and always were, even before anything was being transmitted by man, just static from storms.
As I said above though, in 1936 it was necessary to be in range of Alexandra Palace, which very much restricted where it was available, but that was no reason not to launch.
Removing an important news source whilst an alternative platform was not universally available would have been a totally different matter.
Yes, everyone. The airwaves are around us all the time and always were, even before anything was being transmitted by man, just static from storms.
As I said above though, in 1936 it was necessary to be in range of Alexandra Palace, which very much restricted where it was available, but that was no reason not to launch.
So in 1936 not being available to everyone was a reason not to launch the service but in 2015 the fact a few people don't have good internet connection is a reason to not launch the news service as streaming only?
Presumably you were against the launching of the iPlayer itself as it effectively means that all those with a licence are paying for a service that if they don't have internet connection, they cannot use?
I don't understand why that's only a problem now. BBC News Channel itself launched at a time when there were some people unable to get Freeview (or whatever the relevant service was at the time), cable or satellite television due to their location and/or dwelling.
It's an issue now because you would be removing a service from those who don't have the access. Previously the service was seen as a bonus - everyone still had access to exactly what they had before.
But anyway, it's immaterial as the News Channel is staying as a broadcast channel, pointless rehashing old arguments that are no longer valid .......
Comments
It is not required in your opinion, an opinion which, as I recall, is based upon you not watching live TV, then having a licence, then deciding not to have one again and get a refund for the unused months. So maybe your opinion on this matter carries rather less weight than that of those who DO watch live TV.
And plenty of other news channels on TV? Well, fine if you have satellite, or pay-tv,, otherwise there is but one - Sky News.
Spot on.
The question is...... Is the BBC being crass, or is it responding to the curve? There may be elements of both in the case of domestic rolling news, but its clear tat he race is on to find a sustainable model.
The output of Sky News imho is largely gone more blander than ever. I used to watch the channel regularly on UPC analogue cable in Ireland until 2008. Then I had FTA satellite in late 2012. I then watched the channel on there up until a good few months before the channel had their rebrand. But now whenever I watch it outside of my home now as it is not a priority when It is on in a restaurant or in a pub that has a TV on while going about my business around Dublin.
There are a number of other things I don't think like about Sky News in the manner in which it is funded through commercial advertising when a major story breaks on the channel and a adbreak cuts a small amount of it or during a press conference or whatever on live TV. I know that this operation doesn't have a flexible choice in that regard because it is owned by the likes of Murdoch but I prefer not to be interrupted by ad breaks on live TV whenever a major news story breaks at a certain point in time.
I have had experienced that issue on a number of occasions on Sky News and that bugs the hell out of me that I have to watch another news channel to watch a news story uninterrupted.
Another thing I don't like about Sky News is that I have it in SD only on satellite in where I would have to pay a HD subscription on Sky where as on the other hand BBC News HD is available FTA on the same platform as it's funded by the BBC LF.
The presenters on BBC News however are a lot more professional and to the point when reading their news. Some of the presenters on Sky News are becoming less professional by the day by being more bland by reading their news.
I think BBC News should not go online only as it greatly devalue the nature of the channel. It would probably be reduced to an RTE News Now style news channel from Ireland in where it has rolling loops of repeated news with programmes coming in from the BBC news department from BBC WN.
One thing I can point out is that the BBC will have resources to output live news whenever possible. Where as RTE News in Ireland cannot have a hope of mastering that job properly.
There are a few samples of programmes and idents from RTE News Now here on youtube of what could be the new interpretation of the new online BBC News channel for the future
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeNGN2R2aSg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuwqTiXaPwY.
But why? The BBc want to save money, so get rid of the news channel, anyway thinking about it, there is the red button, I presume that still works and got news on it.
TBH, news is depressing these days anyway, the same thing, people blowing other people up, people dying trying to get to another country and that is about it,.
So who said I was going to get a refund? I am just going to carry on until it ends, which should be about another 4-5 months after I cancelled the payment.
You have Russia today
Al Jazeera
Sky news as you said
Arise news, what ever that is
So that is four.
I am not bothered, I do not watch the news on TV, I get it online, TV news is boring.
Yes, it seems some people would prefer not to have any progress at all. Why not go the whole hog and live in caves and cook on open fires and have a life expectancy of 34 years. That would please the licence fee haters, they wouldn't have to pay any tax at all then!
You do talk so much rubbish with ridiculous platitudes. If making sweeping statements was a crime you'd be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
"News is depressing"
"TV News is boring"
"people blowing other people up, people dying trying to get to another country and that is about it"
Astounding lack of maturity. I presume you are an adult?
Well to me that is a bit of an understatement. I did like having Sky News on the analogue cable in Ireland; but that was the only channel I had back then for rolling UK news mainly because of a lack of choice in the TV package. The only other news channel I had was CNBC and therefore had to rely on bulletins from RTE, BBC and ITV News instead.
There is 17 channels available on that package which makes the choice of TV stations very limited. And in an much earlier time cable TV in Ireland was more common in the past with a peak of 90% of households in Dublin alone in the 1990's. That figure is much lower now because of people having Sky, evision, Saorview, freesat or having Netflix as an alternative.
The other thing of note is that all the analogue cable channels in Ireland are available in SD only. So not one of them is available in HD at all which is still very poor by today's broadcasting standards.
The only opportunity I watched BBC News on cable was in my uncle's apartment about 10 years ago and from his current home in Dublin when he moved out a few years later. I would also have watched a small amount of it on BBC One during the night on the analogue cable.
For me having free satellite TV and Saorview gives me more choice anyway in what I can watch. I was getting fed up watching Sky News as I wanted a change in my viewing habits. At least having free satellite and Saorview gives me the choice of stations in HD as well as SD.
Seriously?? For honest coverage of news without any bias to Russia? You have to be kidding!
I'll give you that, however, it's fine for world stories, but not much use for UK stories (see comment below)
It's another World News channel. The last that I heard regarding Arise is that it was in some difficulty, and was also broadcasting repeated bulletins from the day before with other bulletins appearing only sporadically. It's also only available on the DVB-T2 temporary mux (so not everyone can receive it)
http://www.a516digital.com/2015/07/is-arise-news-struggling-to-stay-on-air.html
Only one of which gives any real coverage to UK news (which is what the BBC News channel does, and is what the main news bulletins do, and is probably what most people watch for)
Ah, the old "I don't watch it so it is not needed" approach that is so often quoted on DS
I take it you do not see the news then, When I have flicked to the news, they are normally on about Migrants and the U.S doing a air strike in a country they should not be in. You may get the odd other bit now and again. News is depressing, what have been on the news in the last couple of weeks that is good news?
I am just going to cancel the direct debit and then let it run until it runs out. Getting a refund is a pain, I tried that the last time and by the time they get around to it, you are halfway through another month and they do not do refund for part of a month.
Which is a bit hypocritical on their part since I remember seeing somewhere that Watchdog was on about not getting a part refund on the car tax when they changed to the new system.
A mate thinks they are great, really show what the west is up to and how we are being the fighting in Ukraine.
just saying that there are more news channels and according to some people on these forums we should all be able to receive content on DVB-T2 as we should all have HD tuners.
No, it is the I do not watch it, so I do not really care. But surly it is best to do something a bit more useful with a channel space than 24/7 news if you are struggling with money which the BBc are?
I don't know how much the BBc would save by doing away with the news channel or the Parliament channel, but they will save some money I expect.
And certainly not a Putin mouthpiece either?
No, it is the I do not watch it, so I do not really care.[/quote]But you seem to care enough to suggest that it could be closed 9even though you don't watch it).
Not if the provision of news is an essential part of PSB, and should be exactly what the BBC should be doing (taking into account the relatively low costs of running the channel).
Not much:
BBC Parliament - £10.1 million
BBC News Channel - £63 million**
(£46.2m content, £7.6m distribution, £6.6m content & distribution support, £2.6m general support)
(taken from page 13 of the Annual report 2014/15)
** Included within BBC News channel are production costs of £23.5 million, newsgathering costs of £22.1 million and other costs of £0.6 million (note taken directly from Annual report).
The Gaurdian has reported today that the BBC have shelved plans to close the NC.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/06/bbc-shelves-plans-to-shut-news-channel
The BBC Trust are saying that the channel will only be thought to be saving about £15 million a year if it did close down and be replaced with mobile streaming.
Everyone?
I'd doubt if there weren't areas of the country that struggled to get a signal for the first few years, just like what happened with ITV and then Channel 5 years later.
It's the same argument made whenever a case is made for migration from one format to the other.
"But not everyone has....."
I don't understand why that's only a problem now. BBC News Channel itself launched at a time when there were some people unable to get Freeview (or whatever the relevant service was at the time), cable or satellite television due to their location and/or dwelling.
As I said above though, in 1936 it was necessary to be in range of Alexandra Palace, which very much restricted where it was available, but that was no reason not to launch.
Removing an important news source whilst an alternative platform was not universally available would have been a totally different matter.
So in 1936 not being available to everyone was a reason not to launch the service but in 2015 the fact a few people don't have good internet connection is a reason to not launch the news service as streaming only?
Presumably you were against the launching of the iPlayer itself as it effectively means that all those with a licence are paying for a service that if they don't have internet connection, they cannot use?
If not, what's the difference?
But anyway, it's immaterial as the News Channel is staying as a broadcast channel, pointless rehashing old arguments that are no longer valid .......