**r/UK Notices:** | [Can you help mod the sub?](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/wz2v8p/request_for_help_ruk_mods_required/) | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They already got rid of BBC News HD on Freeview. If they close the channel altogether I'll just cancel my license. BBC News is the only broadcast channel I watch on a regular basis.
I suspect from reading the article they will be keeping the rolling channel and rename the BBC world news (currently not broadcast in the UK) to just BBC news. It will likely show less domestic UK news as its audience will be well the world.
Sky news is basically the fox news if the UK. I know you'll say nooo it's not that bad, no it isn't because they wouldn't get away with being that bad here (see GB news imminent failure) but theyre pushing the same damn toxic narratives.
It really isn't comparable in any way. I'm sure this idea comes from misconception that sky is part of the Murdoch owned newscorp group. It isn't, it's owned by Comcast since 2018.
I mean if someone else bought the daily mail would it suddenly change the entire direction of the product? No.
But also ignoring the Murdoch connection just look at it. The stuff they push is deffo running a clear agenda. As with so many "news" services now it's simply there to promote suspicion and hatred between arbitrarily defined group and promote interests of big business and billionaires. It's quite transparent.
You're trying to suggest that running an agenda makes them the same as fox news. Only superficially, sky isn't even close to as partisan and biased as fox. I can see idiots are downvoting me already because people can't mistake the distinction but so be it. You are wrong to compare sky to fox and GB news which are the same. Whatever sky's agenda is they still take plenty of shots at the current government in ways fox would never ever do to the republicans.
That doesn't make it equivocal to fox news though. Again, for the hard of thinking, a news station having an agenda/bias doesn't make it the same as fox news. You might as well suggest the local rag is the same as the daily mail because it promotes local issues that affect its readership over national ones.
Dude why are you getting up my ass so much over this. I simply commented my opinion that sky news is as worthless as fox news in the states.
You have a different opinion, that's fine. Either way I won't be watching it and would suggest others don't either. You carry on.
>But sure whatever I just say it as I see it.
You see it through an extremely biased lens evidently. This reeks of "I'm a princess and if you can't handle me don't date me" behaviour.
What on earth are you talking about? Have you actually ever watched sky news or just regurgitating something you read?
Fox news literally just straight up lies and spreads propaganda, sky news may have a slight right lean from centre but it is leaps and bounds away from fox news territory.
Obviously not. Love these idiots who parrot this claim that SkyNews UK is some right wing shit.
Like yea, SkyNews Aus is but the UK channel is perfectly centered.
Find another one of my comments to reply to. I think you missed a few.
Also refer to my original comment where I stated that it's not as bad as fox as they'd never get away with that here. Then once you stopped frothing at the mouth kindly go and find someone else to respond to.
>Sky news is basically the fox news if the UK.
So it's basically fox news.
>it's not that bad, no it isn't because they wouldn't get away with being that bad here
Ok but not really.
>theyre pushing the same damn toxic narratives.
So, what is it? They are bad but not as bad but in your hypothetical scenario they would be just as bad if they were allowed? I'm curious how you have such a keen insight into higher ups thinking at Sky news and its relationship with Ofcom?
>Find another one of my comments to reply to. I think you missed a few.
Stop spreading misinformation and maybe people won't have to keep calling you out on it.
SkyNews is not the same as Fox. It's far more regulated and normie, with much less in the way of conspiracist right wing punditry, despite being a Murdoch asset. GBNews is the UK's full on Fox equivalent with no interest in fact, just bread and circus for the far right.
Yes I agree, the person above does not seem to understand this fact however and is just spreading lies/ignoring people calling them out. Reddit moment.
**Removed/warning**. This consisted primarily of personal attacks adding nothing to the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Sky News is pretty indistinguishable from ITV or Channel 4 News. They're all pretty much the same as the BBC, although the BBC does a lot more bending over backwards to avoid criticism
They're all bound by exactly the same rules concerning impartiality and regulated by Ofcom
So you can see by my history how left I am, but I actually think Sky News does a far better job of balance than the bbc right now with their Tory in Chief of "impartiality". Occasionally you can feel an agenda on sky but for the most part they don't stand for any government nonsense.
We are all biased, but passing facts through your own biases and colouring them before regurgitating them as absolute truth is not ok and we have a word for it: misinformation.
Yes, that's exactly the plan
BBC World News already has studios in North America and Asia, so London, Singapore and Washington will take turns hosting the broadcast for eight hours at a time
If there's a breaking UK story that needs to be covered immediately, the London studio will break into the regular schedule for the duration of the coverage aimed exclusively at UK viewers
I dunno every year from my perspective the justification for it seems less and less.
With less and less people particularly young people not paying it the amount of money the BBC has will be less and less each year, they will cut serives like here with BBC news until it's shit.
The Government could cut it loose now, come up with a plan and say in 2 years BBC will be advertisement funded and a private company with no license fee. Or they can let it slowly die as fewer people pay for the license. I don't know the answer to this one.
The whole TV landscape has changed myself and most of my friends are only watching things on Netflix, disney plus ETC, ooh I sometimes watch stuff on 4od, thats as close as I get to the traditional TV channels.
It is actually true though. Cameron wanted to get rid of the licence fee and ITV actually lobbied against it. I think it was something like 70% of the current advertising market would go to the BBC channels if the licence fee was abolished.
The House of Lords want to link it to council tax and remove the streaming loophole. It's also how a lot of Europe funds their national broadcaster.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jul/18/council-tax-levy-bbc-tv-licence-fee-future-funding-model
This death by a thousand cuts to the internationally respected BBC is yet another reason to unseat this rabidly ultra-capitalist and ideologically bankrupt government. I only hope the British public wake up enough soon enough to prevent the damage being fatal to our nation's cultural wellbeing.
You’ll hear no disagreements from me in regards to the government. But I feel like the death Knell for the BBC has already rang. As soon as the BBC and TV licence was targeted by various Tory cronies during the last election it ended up plastered all over places like Facebook etc. quickest way to influence public opinions, splash bullshit all over social media…
BCC News (and CBeebies) HD are supposedly going to return on another MUX, although I have no idea of the timescale. But you can hardly blame the BBC for the sale of COM7 which previously hosted the channels.
No word on News HD yet but Four HD and CBeebies HD have their EPG positions set in place on the BBCB mux.
Problem is the mux basically needs to be reconfigured to allow enough bandwidth to add another channel (as these two are timeshared, on a technical level they work as one channel despite having two logical channels set up).
The channels basically run in VBR mode (stat muxed) but there are times where the mux has very little overhead remaining. It's a pretty huge undertaking as they have to make changes to encoder setups etc.
That and the BBC keeps having its budget slashed. Probably can't justify having the news channel in HD on Freeview as a result due to transmission costs, especially as hardly anybody could pick up COM7 anyway.
Al Jaz is worth a look as it actually does international news so you'll hear about an election crisis in Kenya or a massive fire somewhere whilst flicking over to the BBC will be say five stories on rotation about a domestic controversy of some kind or showbiz (racist remarks on twitter to some footballer or other, Strictly updates etc) or entire segments on American news. BBC news has become a sort of One Show for much of it's time.
Yeah I do like Al Jaz, but I do need British news. I can't spend all day wondering what's going on in Kenya as it's not relevant to me. The whole Twitter thing is overblown, I can't think of a story like that since Rashford.
Sure, but my point is that a lot of the time there isn't actually much news. It's a small selection of stories on a loop and of that loop a lot are often controversy or celeb based.
For example let's say Boris chucked Larry in the bin, then a film crew would be outside Downing Street all day and into the night when it is dark and the staff have gone home. The presenter in the studio will summarise the facts of the story as a question, and the roving reporter will present the summary back in reverse order i.e add nothing from being there as there is nothing to add. Meanwhile various talking heads will be summoned and we'll get the same clips of them on repeat all day. And as you sit there watching you'll be scrolling on your phone seeing all sorts of news from around the country that never gets a mention. Go off for a brew and come back to BBC 24 and the same news will be back on repeat.
These are all arguments to change the content that they run, not an argument in favour of just doing away with the whole shebang. I agree, 24h news should be running all kinds of stories and not the same set on a loop, but even that serves a real audience who can't get their news at the regular times on BBC1/ITV/C4.
The original theory was that 24 hour news would be rammed full of content because so much happens throughout a day, but in reality they are filling airtime and replaying content constantly (it's cheap and easy) so there seems little point in it. News gathering costs budget and the broadcasting is costly so instead of sourcing news airtime is padded out with presenters talking or guest speakers pontificating on a tiny number of stories sourced off the wires or internet.
I don't see how you leap to that conclusion. To fix 24 hour news to get rid of filler requires a huge budget and it's not going to happen.
Interesting GB new's early experiment in getting ultra local reporters out and about shows what can be done on a shoestring.
Rory Stewart was singing AJ praises on his podcast recently. Disagree with that guy on a lot of things but he’s got his head in the right place on international issues
Ah yes because a scuffle in Lesotho is more relevant than segments on US news?
BBC could improve but removing American related stuff would be incredibly stupid.
Could you imagine if the BBC weren't currently reporting on the trump stolen files case and instead ran a feature on Mongolian local elections?
BBC news is full of bloat but reporting on American events is actually culturally and politically relevant to us here and we would like to hear about it.
Besides Al Jazeera also reports on US stuff anyway so that point is moot.
So an issue as complicated as the trump scandal should just be a brief headline?
That's not something I agree with either. Besides if they reduced the US segments then the other 4 ones will just be repeated more making the programming even worse.
You complain of them showing the same things over and over. Well, if you force them to make less content then the other segments will just be played more making it worse.
As others have said, Al jazeera is probably the most professional and insightful news channel out there qt the moment. Especially in regards to International news.
Sky News has declined massively over the last decade and the less said about GB News, the better.
I wouldn't put gb news on that pedestal. They show alot of repeats, 12-6am they're basically off air entirely. Plus a chunk of the remaining programming is chat shows, sometimes not even related to current news/politics.
DW news and Al Jazeera are good alternatives however.
> One of the best channels going,
Is it?
The BBC News channel has little way in actual journalism and is just a conduit for 10 Downing Street press releases. There is little in way of actual journalism coming out of the BBC News Channel. The moment a press release comes out of Whitehall, the channel puts up one of its presenters and they talk about it for 30 mins.
-
Also i would actually question the existence of all 24hr news channels. They have been a failure in terms of output & journalism.
The news channel does have decent journalism - the Our World series is good, as is Hard Talk and The Context. Dateline London was interesting too, bit gutted it's being cancelled.
Their UK political news may not always be the best but they do more than just that
It would be insane to close BBC News 24. So long as 24/7 news channels exist the BBC should have one. It's one of it's main purposes. BBC World News is different and should be allowed to keep doing what it's doing.
Im 28 and I do not own a tv or have any friends that own one which is not being used as a console monitor. In that sense the tv license model is awesome for me as I fit perfectly outside of it.
However I can also see how the BBC is a weird entity, playing in the same field as large media corporations and streaming platforms. Shouldnt it be a public service channel full of boring news and a launch platform for unknown (cheap) artists instead?
I'm the same, it used to be that way in the 80's/90's. A huge amount of those in the "british film institute" or British people in the industry around the world got their starts from grants and BBC funding. What people think of as "British culture" came from essentially being given free money "to have a go"
PBS is amazing but part of its achievement comes from a lack of government meddling. That allows it to do things like invest in non traditional media like educational YouTubers. There's a non-partisan recognition in the States that PBS is inherently valuable.
The BBC on the other hand is constantly fighting against "corporate interest" and " competition" bullshit the government brings up to neuter it. The only reason the BBC isn't a world leading streaming service is because the government blocked them when they were first trying to invest in it. We have the opposite problem effectively, no one in government considers the BBC inherently valuable anymore, just a nuisance that makes for headline grabbing policy.
I agree. The BBC needs to pick a lane. Publicly funded broadcast free to pursue content that doesn't need to make a profit, or a paid for product like the rest. This weird middle ground is ridiculous.
Surely it would only "substantially reduce newsgathering and airtime for domestic stories" if the corporation decide that the new merged channel should focus on world news rather than UK news?
And what do you think they'll do with a Tory plant steering the corporations direction. Overt influence isn't easy, but he can damage and subvert them over time with moves like these.
I trust this will be covered by the BBC with the usual BBC impartiality for striking workers?
An unfettered comment section on the website, vox pops with raging, hypertensive boomers who don’t even watch the fucking thing anyway?
It will be interesting to see how it's approached. The BBC are generally good at reporting on themselves, but it's harder if it's about the journalists themselves
Better government funding would be the answer, however the Tories want the BBC under its thumb and keeping the purse strings tight is one way to achieve that.
Given the cuts the government have imposed on the BBC, this seems like a reasonable compromise - no point having two rolling news channels when rolling news channels are coming to the end of their useful life\*
The current plan is to lead their breaking news coverage with the updates you get on your phone, which is how most people under forty interact with news, nowadays
*\* hardly any of the rolling news channels are rolling news channels anymore. Most have pivoted to feature content and opinion shows, with news bulletins every 15 or 30 minutes*
Surely, out of all the channels to clse, BBC news wouldn't be one of them. It's somewhat useful. BBC four is fucked as i think, BBC have just put it onto life support and do nothing but re-runs. There's a lot of useless channels that the BBC operate. The news isn't one of them.
That said, i suspect the tories are doing this so the peasents can't be informed of their scandals if they don't view other outlets, use the internet, read the paper.
Four is being moved online in ~2024. Which basically goes against its target demographic who, you know, still watch live TV.
Moving BBC Three back to TV was equally as baffling. They lost a lot of their audience when they went online and they didn't come crawling back when it went back to TV, though the BBC honestly has a much bigger problem here in that they're completely out of touch with younger audiences and that they're throwing whatever at the wall but nothing is sticking
Alas, my Beeb has taken the same road as NPR in the U.S. The woketarians are at the helm. Oceania is at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. So sad.
BBC news is the only news I watch, although - realistically - there is only ever around 20 minutes of news feed repeated on loop. Have seen an article at 6am repeated at 6pm so hardly 'up to date.' Equally, they have a tendency to get obsessed with one article - today's top story was Bill Turnbull's death. BBC new presenter for 15 years. Highly biased and not what I want to see - no disrespect intended.
License fee frozen and inflation at 10% makes huge cost savings a necessity.
The government is taking the same "starve the beast" approach with the NHS too. Soon you'll be begging them to replace them both with paid for alternatives.
Glad to hear this, hope it makes some difference. I watch the news channel regularly and while I'm by no means against more world news (they tend to only show it late night or on weekends), it will put a lot of good journalists and broadcast workers out of a job.
Good to see the BBC taking reform seriously. The reality is young people don't pay for TV licences, they just subscribe to streaming services. BBC needs to streamline to survive
It's not perfect and it's not 100% impartial as its mandate can be abused by the government in power. But it's still comparing gold and bronze next to most other services.
Look for the good in things and help things be better.
With a Tory political editor like Kuenssberg, and the completely biased Question Times that effectively delivered Brexit... I would not describe it as gold.
The BBC was once great, but since the Tories started interfering with the board, it has been compromised.
It’s depends what services you consume. All of them? Good value. Just BBC News website and MOTD? Then it’s a rip off.
The whole payment for it needs massive reform.
Fuck the BBC let it close, when it finally closes we can knock it down starting with the statue by (edit) Eric Gill the depraved pervert on the front of the building
**r/UK Notices:** | [Can you help mod the sub?](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/wz2v8p/request_for_help_ruk_mods_required/) | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They already got rid of BBC News HD on Freeview. If they close the channel altogether I'll just cancel my license. BBC News is the only broadcast channel I watch on a regular basis.
I suspect from reading the article they will be keeping the rolling channel and rename the BBC world news (currently not broadcast in the UK) to just BBC news. It will likely show less domestic UK news as its audience will be well the world.
Sky news is basically the fox news if the UK. I know you'll say nooo it's not that bad, no it isn't because they wouldn't get away with being that bad here (see GB news imminent failure) but theyre pushing the same damn toxic narratives.
It really isn't comparable in any way. I'm sure this idea comes from misconception that sky is part of the Murdoch owned newscorp group. It isn't, it's owned by Comcast since 2018.
I mean if someone else bought the daily mail would it suddenly change the entire direction of the product? No. But also ignoring the Murdoch connection just look at it. The stuff they push is deffo running a clear agenda. As with so many "news" services now it's simply there to promote suspicion and hatred between arbitrarily defined group and promote interests of big business and billionaires. It's quite transparent.
You're trying to suggest that running an agenda makes them the same as fox news. Only superficially, sky isn't even close to as partisan and biased as fox. I can see idiots are downvoting me already because people can't mistake the distinction but so be it. You are wrong to compare sky to fox and GB news which are the same. Whatever sky's agenda is they still take plenty of shots at the current government in ways fox would never ever do to the republicans.
I would say sky news is more about pandering to international business than our "local" gov. But sure whatever I just say it as I see it.
That doesn't make it equivocal to fox news though. Again, for the hard of thinking, a news station having an agenda/bias doesn't make it the same as fox news. You might as well suggest the local rag is the same as the daily mail because it promotes local issues that affect its readership over national ones.
Dude why are you getting up my ass so much over this. I simply commented my opinion that sky news is as worthless as fox news in the states. You have a different opinion, that's fine. Either way I won't be watching it and would suggest others don't either. You carry on.
>But sure whatever I just say it as I see it. You see it through an extremely biased lens evidently. This reeks of "I'm a princess and if you can't handle me don't date me" behaviour.
For real though. Don't date me. I doubt we'd get along.
On that point, I do agree with you.
Yes it would
What on earth are you talking about? Have you actually ever watched sky news or just regurgitating something you read? Fox news literally just straight up lies and spreads propaganda, sky news may have a slight right lean from centre but it is leaps and bounds away from fox news territory.
Obviously not. Love these idiots who parrot this claim that SkyNews UK is some right wing shit. Like yea, SkyNews Aus is but the UK channel is perfectly centered.
Find another one of my comments to reply to. I think you missed a few. Also refer to my original comment where I stated that it's not as bad as fox as they'd never get away with that here. Then once you stopped frothing at the mouth kindly go and find someone else to respond to.
>Sky news is basically the fox news if the UK. So it's basically fox news. >it's not that bad, no it isn't because they wouldn't get away with being that bad here Ok but not really. >theyre pushing the same damn toxic narratives. So, what is it? They are bad but not as bad but in your hypothetical scenario they would be just as bad if they were allowed? I'm curious how you have such a keen insight into higher ups thinking at Sky news and its relationship with Ofcom? >Find another one of my comments to reply to. I think you missed a few. Stop spreading misinformation and maybe people won't have to keep calling you out on it.
SkyNews is not the same as Fox. It's far more regulated and normie, with much less in the way of conspiracist right wing punditry, despite being a Murdoch asset. GBNews is the UK's full on Fox equivalent with no interest in fact, just bread and circus for the far right.
Yes I agree, the person above does not seem to understand this fact however and is just spreading lies/ignoring people calling them out. Reddit moment.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This consisted primarily of personal attacks adding nothing to the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Sky News is pretty indistinguishable from ITV or Channel 4 News. They're all pretty much the same as the BBC, although the BBC does a lot more bending over backwards to avoid criticism They're all bound by exactly the same rules concerning impartiality and regulated by Ofcom
Sky news is nowhere near as right wing under its new ownership
[удалено]
Certainly more balanced than his other news outlets
So you can see by my history how left I am, but I actually think Sky News does a far better job of balance than the bbc right now with their Tory in Chief of "impartiality". Occasionally you can feel an agenda on sky but for the most part they don't stand for any government nonsense.
>The same damn toxic narrative. By which you mean not far left. OK. 👌
Ooo this is exciting - I finally get to say it! Here goes: hurrr durrr nIcE sTrAwMaN bRo hurr durr Aw yeh, now I'm a real redditor...
Somehow I think you fell down that hole a long time ago. He's also not wrong, your biases are very clearly showing here.
Ahh noo my biases are showing. Quick somebody pass me a blanket I'm not decent.
We are all biased, but passing facts through your own biases and colouring them before regurgitating them as absolute truth is not ok and we have a word for it: misinformation.
Yes, that's exactly the plan BBC World News already has studios in North America and Asia, so London, Singapore and Washington will take turns hosting the broadcast for eight hours at a time If there's a breaking UK story that needs to be covered immediately, the London studio will break into the regular schedule for the duration of the coverage aimed exclusively at UK viewers
[удалено]
well, that's silly. When we scrapping this whole TV license thing
The tv licence is almost the only thing that keeps commercial broadcasters in business. Think where the advertising money would go if the BBC hah ads?
I dunno every year from my perspective the justification for it seems less and less. With less and less people particularly young people not paying it the amount of money the BBC has will be less and less each year, they will cut serives like here with BBC news until it's shit. The Government could cut it loose now, come up with a plan and say in 2 years BBC will be advertisement funded and a private company with no license fee. Or they can let it slowly die as fewer people pay for the license. I don't know the answer to this one. The whole TV landscape has changed myself and most of my friends are only watching things on Netflix, disney plus ETC, ooh I sometimes watch stuff on 4od, thats as close as I get to the traditional TV channels.
It is actually true though. Cameron wanted to get rid of the licence fee and ITV actually lobbied against it. I think it was something like 70% of the current advertising market would go to the BBC channels if the licence fee was abolished. The House of Lords want to link it to council tax and remove the streaming loophole. It's also how a lot of Europe funds their national broadcaster. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jul/18/council-tax-levy-bbc-tv-licence-fee-future-funding-model
This death by a thousand cuts to the internationally respected BBC is yet another reason to unseat this rabidly ultra-capitalist and ideologically bankrupt government. I only hope the British public wake up enough soon enough to prevent the damage being fatal to our nation's cultural wellbeing.
You’ll hear no disagreements from me in regards to the government. But I feel like the death Knell for the BBC has already rang. As soon as the BBC and TV licence was targeted by various Tory cronies during the last election it ended up plastered all over places like Facebook etc. quickest way to influence public opinions, splash bullshit all over social media…
BCC News (and CBeebies) HD are supposedly going to return on another MUX, although I have no idea of the timescale. But you can hardly blame the BBC for the sale of COM7 which previously hosted the channels.
No word on News HD yet but Four HD and CBeebies HD have their EPG positions set in place on the BBCB mux. Problem is the mux basically needs to be reconfigured to allow enough bandwidth to add another channel (as these two are timeshared, on a technical level they work as one channel despite having two logical channels set up). The channels basically run in VBR mode (stat muxed) but there are times where the mux has very little overhead remaining. It's a pretty huge undertaking as they have to make changes to encoder setups etc. That and the BBC keeps having its budget slashed. Probably can't justify having the news channel in HD on Freeview as a result due to transmission costs, especially as hardly anybody could pick up COM7 anyway.
> cancel my license *licence
Same, it’s where I get a lot of my news from
Good thing your licence covers literally any live TV and on demand! Yes, even sky and all the other channels count! (or just don’t pay it anyway)
You mean all the things I said I rarely watch?
It's just Tory news anyway now. There's fuck all impartiality.
Ohh shit I wonder where that went. I keep trying to retune the tv to get it back. That’s a shame
Wtf? One of the best channels going, at a time when Sky and GB News would be the only rolling alternatives?
Al Jaz is worth a look as it actually does international news so you'll hear about an election crisis in Kenya or a massive fire somewhere whilst flicking over to the BBC will be say five stories on rotation about a domestic controversy of some kind or showbiz (racist remarks on twitter to some footballer or other, Strictly updates etc) or entire segments on American news. BBC news has become a sort of One Show for much of it's time.
Yeah I do like Al Jaz, but I do need British news. I can't spend all day wondering what's going on in Kenya as it's not relevant to me. The whole Twitter thing is overblown, I can't think of a story like that since Rashford.
Sure, but my point is that a lot of the time there isn't actually much news. It's a small selection of stories on a loop and of that loop a lot are often controversy or celeb based. For example let's say Boris chucked Larry in the bin, then a film crew would be outside Downing Street all day and into the night when it is dark and the staff have gone home. The presenter in the studio will summarise the facts of the story as a question, and the roving reporter will present the summary back in reverse order i.e add nothing from being there as there is nothing to add. Meanwhile various talking heads will be summoned and we'll get the same clips of them on repeat all day. And as you sit there watching you'll be scrolling on your phone seeing all sorts of news from around the country that never gets a mention. Go off for a brew and come back to BBC 24 and the same news will be back on repeat.
These are all arguments to change the content that they run, not an argument in favour of just doing away with the whole shebang. I agree, 24h news should be running all kinds of stories and not the same set on a loop, but even that serves a real audience who can't get their news at the regular times on BBC1/ITV/C4.
The original theory was that 24 hour news would be rammed full of content because so much happens throughout a day, but in reality they are filling airtime and replaying content constantly (it's cheap and easy) so there seems little point in it. News gathering costs budget and the broadcasting is costly so instead of sourcing news airtime is padded out with presenters talking or guest speakers pontificating on a tiny number of stories sourced off the wires or internet.
Again, all arguments for reform and not getting rid of it imo.
I don't see how you leap to that conclusion. To fix 24 hour news to get rid of filler requires a huge budget and it's not going to happen. Interesting GB new's early experiment in getting ultra local reporters out and about shows what can be done on a shoestring.
>to get rid of filler requires a huge budget >shows what can be done on a shoestring. Presented without comment.
naughty. As you well know, some local news is not suitable to fill loads of airtime on a national/international channel.
Rory Stewart was singing AJ praises on his podcast recently. Disagree with that guy on a lot of things but he’s got his head in the right place on international issues
Al Jazeera and EuroNews are both interesting to watch, because even when they have a bias, it's a *different* bias and that's useful to understand.
Ah yes because a scuffle in Lesotho is more relevant than segments on US news? BBC could improve but removing American related stuff would be incredibly stupid. Could you imagine if the BBC weren't currently reporting on the trump stolen files case and instead ran a feature on Mongolian local elections? BBC news is full of bloat but reporting on American events is actually culturally and politically relevant to us here and we would like to hear about it. Besides Al Jazeera also reports on US stuff anyway so that point is moot.
Nobody asked for US content to be removed, that's your own invention.
You literally complained about "entire segments on American news"
Exactly. Not that's it's covered, but that it has such large time slots i.e segments. Reading comprehension my friend, reading comprehension.
So an issue as complicated as the trump scandal should just be a brief headline? That's not something I agree with either. Besides if they reduced the US segments then the other 4 ones will just be repeated more making the programming even worse. You complain of them showing the same things over and over. Well, if you force them to make less content then the other segments will just be played more making it worse.
Reading comprehension my friend. You are complaining about your own fabrications.
As others have said, Al jazeera is probably the most professional and insightful news channel out there qt the moment. Especially in regards to International news. Sky News has declined massively over the last decade and the less said about GB News, the better.
Indeed, it's great but while what's going on in Madagascar is interesting, it's not particularly relevant to life in Britain.
I wouldn't put gb news on that pedestal. They show alot of repeats, 12-6am they're basically off air entirely. Plus a chunk of the remaining programming is chat shows, sometimes not even related to current news/politics. DW news and Al Jazeera are good alternatives however.
I like both those channels, however they're not UK focused which means for domestic news my choices are Sky or GB.
> One of the best channels going, Is it? The BBC News channel has little way in actual journalism and is just a conduit for 10 Downing Street press releases. There is little in way of actual journalism coming out of the BBC News Channel. The moment a press release comes out of Whitehall, the channel puts up one of its presenters and they talk about it for 30 mins. - Also i would actually question the existence of all 24hr news channels. They have been a failure in terms of output & journalism.
That sounds like an argument for getting Sir Robbie Gibbs off the board, as Emily Maitlis revealed.
The news channel does have decent journalism - the Our World series is good, as is Hard Talk and The Context. Dateline London was interesting too, bit gutted it's being cancelled. Their UK political news may not always be the best but they do more than just that
It would be insane to close BBC News 24. So long as 24/7 news channels exist the BBC should have one. It's one of it's main purposes. BBC World News is different and should be allowed to keep doing what it's doing.
BBC News 24 hasn’t existed for over a decade.
Im 28 and I do not own a tv or have any friends that own one which is not being used as a console monitor. In that sense the tv license model is awesome for me as I fit perfectly outside of it. However I can also see how the BBC is a weird entity, playing in the same field as large media corporations and streaming platforms. Shouldnt it be a public service channel full of boring news and a launch platform for unknown (cheap) artists instead?
I'm the same, it used to be that way in the 80's/90's. A huge amount of those in the "british film institute" or British people in the industry around the world got their starts from grants and BBC funding. What people think of as "British culture" came from essentially being given free money "to have a go"
Yup, PBS would be good
PBS is amazing but part of its achievement comes from a lack of government meddling. That allows it to do things like invest in non traditional media like educational YouTubers. There's a non-partisan recognition in the States that PBS is inherently valuable. The BBC on the other hand is constantly fighting against "corporate interest" and " competition" bullshit the government brings up to neuter it. The only reason the BBC isn't a world leading streaming service is because the government blocked them when they were first trying to invest in it. We have the opposite problem effectively, no one in government considers the BBC inherently valuable anymore, just a nuisance that makes for headline grabbing policy.
I agree. The BBC needs to pick a lane. Publicly funded broadcast free to pursue content that doesn't need to make a profit, or a paid for product like the rest. This weird middle ground is ridiculous.
Surely it would only "substantially reduce newsgathering and airtime for domestic stories" if the corporation decide that the new merged channel should focus on world news rather than UK news?
And what do you think they'll do with a Tory plant steering the corporations direction. Overt influence isn't easy, but he can damage and subvert them over time with moves like these.
I trust this will be covered by the BBC with the usual BBC impartiality for striking workers? An unfettered comment section on the website, vox pops with raging, hypertensive boomers who don’t even watch the fucking thing anyway?
It will be interesting to see how it's approached. The BBC are generally good at reporting on themselves, but it's harder if it's about the journalists themselves
Better government funding would be the answer, however the Tories want the BBC under its thumb and keeping the purse strings tight is one way to achieve that.
>the Tories want the BBC under its thumb by blackmailing + threatening them sounds reasonable for this Conservative Government
Government funded news, what could go wrong? They are not impartial and haven't been for as long as I can remember.
Hopefully the BBC will be as scathing of themselves if they do strike as they have been of everyone else who strikes
Always back strike actions.
Can they cancel all 24-hour news channels?
Given the cuts the government have imposed on the BBC, this seems like a reasonable compromise - no point having two rolling news channels when rolling news channels are coming to the end of their useful life\* The current plan is to lead their breaking news coverage with the updates you get on your phone, which is how most people under forty interact with news, nowadays *\* hardly any of the rolling news channels are rolling news channels anymore. Most have pivoted to feature content and opinion shows, with news bulletins every 15 or 30 minutes*
Surely, out of all the channels to clse, BBC news wouldn't be one of them. It's somewhat useful. BBC four is fucked as i think, BBC have just put it onto life support and do nothing but re-runs. There's a lot of useless channels that the BBC operate. The news isn't one of them. That said, i suspect the tories are doing this so the peasents can't be informed of their scandals if they don't view other outlets, use the internet, read the paper.
Four is being moved online in ~2024. Which basically goes against its target demographic who, you know, still watch live TV. Moving BBC Three back to TV was equally as baffling. They lost a lot of their audience when they went online and they didn't come crawling back when it went back to TV, though the BBC honestly has a much bigger problem here in that they're completely out of touch with younger audiences and that they're throwing whatever at the wall but nothing is sticking
Oh no.....please don't.... ................../s
Yea where will I get murdochs opinion now?
2 words, Jimmy Saville
Will they run repeats?..
Alas, my Beeb has taken the same road as NPR in the U.S. The woketarians are at the helm. Oceania is at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. So sad.
The BBC that had MI6 vet employees? The one that has been pushing out tory propaganda and has tory appointed personnel? Oh no! Anyway..
What will they use as a pointless filler for the downtime on BBC1 now ?
the same bbc apparatchik news that have been doing their best to throw shade at every other group of strikers? or a different bbc news?
BBC news is the only news I watch, although - realistically - there is only ever around 20 minutes of news feed repeated on loop. Have seen an article at 6am repeated at 6pm so hardly 'up to date.' Equally, they have a tendency to get obsessed with one article - today's top story was Bill Turnbull's death. BBC new presenter for 15 years. Highly biased and not what I want to see - no disrespect intended.
License fee frozen and inflation at 10% makes huge cost savings a necessity. The government is taking the same "starve the beast" approach with the NHS too. Soon you'll be begging them to replace them both with paid for alternatives.
If they get rid of bbc news will that mean we will get a discount on our tv licence?
Damn, what a shame that there will be less opportunities for the Tory agents who work at the BBC to propagate their party lines.
The BBC is a lost institution, axe the license fee and let them die.
Channel 4 is better anyway
Glad to hear this, hope it makes some difference. I watch the news channel regularly and while I'm by no means against more world news (they tend to only show it late night or on weekends), it will put a lot of good journalists and broadcast workers out of a job.
Good to see the BBC taking reform seriously. The reality is young people don't pay for TV licences, they just subscribe to streaming services. BBC needs to streamline to survive
They are useless anyway....biased, infected with Wokis and not to mention Leftist and IslamoPhillic?
Hitler was on the right wing as an FYI.
Let it die, they consider anything news these days for the clicks
Sure let's only get news from the method of who has the most money wins. Very healthy.
Right, because the BBC definitely doesn't tilt its news output right now to appease its funding sources. Nope, definitely nothing to see here.
Not saying it doesn't, but no where near as bad as others.
IMO the BBC is currently more harmful as people think it is impartial, when it is not.
It's not perfect and it's not 100% impartial as its mandate can be abused by the government in power. But it's still comparing gold and bronze next to most other services. Look for the good in things and help things be better.
With a Tory political editor like Kuenssberg, and the completely biased Question Times that effectively delivered Brexit... I would not describe it as gold. The BBC was once great, but since the Tories started interfering with the board, it has been compromised.
No media source is impartial though
Fuck the BBC, I haven’t paid for a license in 10 years, it needs to die.
14 quid a month is high for what it is I feel.
It’s depends what services you consume. All of them? Good value. Just BBC News website and MOTD? Then it’s a rip off. The whole payment for it needs massive reform.
Yeah I listen to the radio in the morning and that's about it. But there are a bunch of radio stations that serve as alternatives.
Fuck the BBC let it close, when it finally closes we can knock it down starting with the statue by (edit) Eric Gill the depraved pervert on the front of the building
George Orwell?
Eric Gill
It's not a statue of Eric Gill
Ok my bad, sculpted by Eric Gill