News Channel to move online (speculation)

The later part of the article where it quotes James Harding suggests to me that they'll be looking at more innovative ways to take 24/7 news forward. I dont think simply putting the channel online is enough in terms of saving or really adds value to the viewer.

As people more and more get their news from social media platforms and online they need to look at ways to enhance that experience whilst also having a facility to run rolling news during big breaking news events. The article says about the need to do that on the news channel and one of the main channels but I don't see the need for that, if something big happened they would break into BBC One and aslong as they have a good mechanism for that then I think that works. It's perhaps more of a problem for smaller breaking news issues or when the picture is unclear but those things can be problematic on a rolling news channel anyway.

I can't see how social media and online can replace a 24 hour news channel. I can't see full coverage of news events, full analysis of breaking news etc in a one line tweet on Twitter.

I think The Guardian, Times etc would probably disagree with you

Perhaps, the BBC is trying to do their equivalent of CBS News's CBSN digital news channel, which is live daily 0900-0000 EST. http://www.cbsnews.com/live/

That would save literally no money for the BBC, BBC News takes BBC World News and BBC Breakfast between 0000 and 0830 so BBC News's entire output would be going out anyway. Plus, the 0830-0900 presenter is in anyway, so it would save no money.

I don't see why Newsnight can't be simulcast, and perhaps even the first half hour of The Daily Politics. The former would definitely not degrade quality and the latter would still be streets ahead of VD!

Simulcasting Newsnight would mean 10 minutes of filing after the 10 and would also look pretty messy on BBC 1 in any region that failed to opt out - doesn't NN start just before the regional opts end, so potentially the opening could go out on BBC 1 and 2 if a region was having problems.

If you're looking for savings, I guess you could consider whether the Papers is worthwhile with two contributors who are presumably paid a fee (quite reasonably) for doing it.

"....full analysis of breaking news...." ? There's none of that, nor ever has been, on the linear news channels, often just hours and hours worth of shaky camera coverage of a doorway, or sealed off street, with wild speculation by a series of renta-experts.

Proper analysis comes hours, even days later once all the dust settles, and that's mostly the preserve (and always has been) of print journalism,

Try and think beyond Tweets, anything a newspaper can do on line, can be done by a broadcaster, (but as ever it'll cost)

I don't think that potential issues on a sustaining service only seen when something goes wrong would be high up the priority list in the current climate.

You could quite easily fill the gap between the end of the network Ten and Newsnight with a short version of "The Papers", which would be easy to time.

From reading the article it feels like nothing more than a rehash to Guido Faulkes' speculation. There's no new facts or reliable sources mentioned in the article.


I guess one option would be to alter the BBC 1 bulletin so that the regional opt-out began at 10:30pm and have Newsnight start at 10:30pm prompt.

Another option would be to move Newsnight to 10:45pm and give it a fixed 45 minute slot throughout the week, instead of being 50 mins Mon-Thurs and 30mins Fri. (Admittedly that would still mean filling from 11:30pm until whenever it handed over to World.) This would give a bit more flexibility between the channels, as the paper review could be used to fill the time as required. With increased cost cutting I wouldn't be surprised if simulcasting Newsnight has at least been considered.

(Edit: I was writing this very slowy and noggin posted in the meantime.)

Couple of stray observations:

- This would presumably put greater financial pressure on BBC World News, who presumably benefit from the NC contributing to Dateline London, Click and possibly also HardTalk, not to mention breaking news and international coverage resources.
- The BBC News at One would still require a full broadcast team regardless of whether or not there was a NC, unless they plan to bring it to an end (highly unlikely, if only because Tony Hall and James Harding's sense of 'relevant' seems to be based on mid-2000s ideas that network bulletins are flagship, new +1 channels are needed etc.)
- Over recent years they've already reduced costs by merging BBC 1 and NC operations, so I can't see much opportunity for cost savings like studio mothballing that were possible back in 2008
- BBC Two would be left with 2 hours 15 minutes each weekday to either fill with more daytime repeats (are there re-transmission fees for daytime TV?) or World News, or to fund news programming like Victoria Derbyshire (out of what budget?)


Based on some of the comments I've read here and elsewhere, could a re-imagining of the NC allow it to stay on TV as a useful service that costs significantly less? If there was a breaking news team on standby anyway (one of the suggestions in The Guardian), could it be possible to take a lot more World News bulletins but insert UK-based stories by opting-out? Between the network bulletins, Breakfast and the regions the NC already has a wealth of packages available at no cost to itself. I don't see any reason the NC must be a continuous version of the BBC One bulletins - Breakfast, Victoria Derbyshire, Newsnight and Radio programmes all find their own agendas from the news day, yet the NC seems to aim to be an expansion of the BBC One running order. More international news (from World News) would surely be value-adding in a time of cost-cutting?

Similarly, much more radio content should make it on TV. You'll notice the several cameras dotted around the Today programme studio that allows them to film prominent interviews either for use on TV or the web. Given the number of significant interviews produced by BBC Radio 4 and BBC Five Live throughout the day, why can't more of these (filmed in HD) replace the NC's own interview on the story? This applies with correspondents too - I often hear Norman Smith or Chris Mason on PM saying very similar things to a colleague on with Huw: why one of these couldn't be pre-recorded five minutes earlier, or us watch the PM version live on the NC, I'm not sure.

Which leads me on to my big point - recorded content. Taking the idea of a VOD carousel type setup, why could the NC not output the same 30 or 60 minute broadcast with recorded links and packages, updating them as needed throughout the day? The NC has never been designed to be watched for hours on end, so why does it need to be 'live' provided the output is always up to date? Surely a smaller team could sustain that, especially with the content mentioned in the above paragraphs, at a lower cost than needing a fully staffed team producing full content between 9:00-00:00 each day.

Regardless, I think a new criteria should be introduced when creating NC content - are we duplicating something already being produced? Why does the NC need Norman Smith at Westminster for PMQs when the daily politics already offer a comprehensive analysis that could easily be simulcast? Could the schedule not creatively reuse content in a way that might be useful, such as a later airing of Newsnight (say 11pm) for those who might have missed it? Likewise for the Daily Politics re-airing its first half hour at 13:30, perhaps.

In other words I do think there's a place for a News Channel, but the current non-breaking news content probably isn't the most cost-effective way of doing it.


[note: these are the half-baked thoughts of a sick person trying to stimulate ideas, not make a coherent argument]

On this point, would there be savings in producing joint BBC News Channel / BBC Five Live programming? While I accept that TV and radio are different broadcast media, it surely isn't inconceivable that general rolling news coverage could be produced for TV and simulcast on radio.

As for the idea of BBC News Channel being online only: I think if that happens, it won't be a 24/7 channel as now, but a rolling carousel of updates and packages, interspersed with occasional live programming for key bulletins (Breakfast, 1/6/10 and perhaps some BBC World News simulcasts). And realistically, that might not be a bad model - I don't think TV is the go-to destination for breaking news that it was even just a few years ago.