BBC News 24 seems to have gone American

[Peter Sarf]

Last night (after about 23:00) I was watching News 24. The main news anchor was American and some of the correspondents were. More than usual and not just talking about American subjects.

The BIG problem I had with this was the accent. The young bearded male Anchor was very presentable BUT I could not hear him properly. He was burbling his words and tailing off volume for the last words of a sentence. That is a problem I have endured on TV before often leading to the sentence being meaningless. I had to concentrate more than usual even though there was unusually no background noise in the house. On News 24 sometimes the words are drowned out by the signature tune particularly the drum beat. Last night I also began to realise the sound was compressed as well. It did seem most of the program was from Washington.

Today the main news reader is - American.

Am I suddenly going deaf ?. Has something actually changed or is it just a series of chance encounters.

I googled around and on 3 April 2023 the BBC, without fanfare, merged is UK and foreign news operations, dropping the foreign (US iirc ?) version if I understood it correctly. Its all to do with a shrinking pot of money from the licence fee apparently. Auntie Beeb is under pressure since the fee was fixed just before all this inflation.

Is my latest experience the manifestation of further changes ?. Have all the UK presenters gone down with a mystery virus and been replaced from abroad ?. Are the UK presenters on strike over something ?.

The best thing about the BBC for me is the lack of adverts. and the interesting non fiction programs.

 

[swt_passenger]

The best thing about the BBC for me is the lack of adverts. and the interesting non fiction programs.

Oops. A nice Americanism at the end there. Must be catching…

 

[Richardr]

Not that it has been BBC News 24 since 2008

However, in April the UK BBC News channel merged with their BBC World News channel which up to then had been a channel for outside of the UK.

The effect is that in UK daytime it is introduced from the UK, but at other hours from Washington DC or Singapore. In the UK it opts out to simulcast some of the news programmes on BBC One or BBC Two (and Radio 5 Live in the morning, but that is also on BBC Two) [and can opt out if something important is covered in the UK], but the channel is now mainly a world channel, not a UK one.

 

[birchesgreen]

I stopped watching BBC News years ago because it was too obsessed with America, seems like even more now wow.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Oops. A nice Americanism at the end there. Must be catching…

Oops missing "me" !. My excuse is I used to write programs for computers .

Not that it has been BBC News 24 since 2008

However, in April the UK BBC News channel merged with their BBC World News channel which up to then had been a channel for outside of the UK.

The effect is that in UK daytime it is introduced from the UK, but at other hours from Washington DC or Singapore. In the UK it opts out to simulcast some of the news programmes on BBC One or BBC Two (and Radio 5 Live in the morning, but that is also on BBC Two) [and can opt out if something important is covered in the UK], but the channel is now mainly a world channel, not a UK one.

Oh back in the days it was freeview channel 40 iirc, then 80 now 231 - thats three digits I have to key in before it guesses I mean 2 or 23 .

Come to think of it I have noticed it flitting around studios. So its getting more obvious then.

I stopped watching BBC News years ago because it was too obsessed with America, seems like even more now wow.

Oh the agony of the US elections. UK would start reporting it in the UK over a year before the actual election. I can only feel sorry for Americans in America because when I was there is was on all the time - they must get even more of it than us.

---

One other bit of "progress" I have encountered is the threatened demise of the BBC text service. It was threatened with the chop one or two years ago but reprieved - I was glad as I found it a quick way to digest the news, weather and travel. However few months ago we ended up with a new to us TV. Its a hand me down from a stepson. The missus wanted it and decree was enacted. It is a smart TV that she cannot cope with but the worst is it does not have text !. I now realise how much I used the text service. I kept looking for it. Now I hardly turn on the TV. So perhaps that why I have not noticed the changes.

I don't follow much TV, been like that since childhood. When I am at a loose end I look for something to watch but get fed up quite quickly with the adverts on many channels - some of them end up wasting 20 minutes out of every hour of my life. I am looking at you Yesterday !. So I always head for BBC channels first. I did have a hard drive recorder with the old TV. I really don't have an idea what is on and when as I don't care. So I needed to be able to record two programs at a time and watch them consecutively or go to bed.

 

[dangie]

…..I can only feel sorry for Americans in America because when I was there is was on all the time - they must get even more of it than us….

That is between all the adverts from pharmaceutical companies. Every other television advert is for one drug or another.

 

[Peter Sarf]

That is between all the adverts from pharmaceutical companies. Every other television advert is for one drug or another.

Having endured TV in other parts of the world I have grown to value the TV licence fee and the freedom from all those adverts it brings on BBC. It is said we even have fewer and better adverts on commercial TV in the UK because they have to compete with the BBC which has no adverts. So there is a huge incentive by decision makers to get rid of this BBC that undermines the huge revenue to be made from limitless advertising.

I do note that the BBC has more trailers etc than it used to have and I wonder if we are being weaned off pure TV ?.

My missus has started realising that the wonderful and free YouTube is also getting more and more cluttered with advertising. Not much in life can be for free so the choice is being able to pay to save my time or waste my time and save money. But that choice seems to be being eroded. We are heading towards our time being wasted enduring more and more adverts.

 

[brad465]

I stopped watching BBC News years ago because it was too obsessed with America, seems like even more now wow.

Maybe you need to be obsessed with there in order to actually get enough content to fill rolling news coverage (except when the Monarch dies then that's more than sufficient here it seems).

 

[birchesgreen]

Maybe you need to be obsessed with there in order to actually get enough content to fill rolling news coverage (except when the Monarch dies then that's more than sufficient here it seems).

There is plenty of news they could fill the time with, though the BBC (like the Establishment in general) are only really interested in what happens in US politics.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Maybe you need to be obsessed with there in order to actually get enough content to fill rolling news coverage (except when the Monarch dies then that's more than sufficient here it seems).

Actually you are making me wonder. What is really going on in the UK that we are not hearing about ?. ULEZ slipped through ?. Ukraine imploded (or nuked) ?. Serious food crisis in the third world due to Putins "special operation" aka "WAR" leading to even more migrants ?. New master plan for the railways ?.

 

[brad465]

Actually you are making me wonder. What is really going on in the UK that we are not hearing about ?. ULEZ slipped through ?. Ukraine imploded (or nuked) ?. Serious food crisis in the third world due to Putins "special operation" aka "WAR" leading to even more migrants ?. New master plan for the railways ?.

I do certainly believe that there are stories that certain interests would rather not get out. Sometimes it's stories that concern the behaviour of high-up individuals, however I also think there are stories regarding events from other parts of the world that are of interest but if the population were aware, may lead to the asking of uncomfortable questions and/or inspiration to do stuff that "the establishment" doesn't like.

For example, the situation in Yemen doesn't get much coverage, where if it did more questions will be asked regarding UK arms' sales to Saudi Arabia. Certain protest movements also don't get covered; we saw this with the Indian farmer's protest which succeeded after several months, maybe if this were covered more there'd be greater inspiration to "rise up" elsewhere? An exception to this is unrest in France, presumably because it's something the French are just known for anyway, and/or it's too close geographically to ignore. An example of a possible story at home that efforts are potentially being made to cover up are what's behind Boris Johnson giving a 30 year old intern with very little career experience the right to vote on UK laws for the rest of her life?

However, I do think more often than not the best place to find out the truth of one's country is in the press of a foreign country. This is most especially the case regarding dictatorships, but even democracies to an extent. For this reason I wonder if the BBC covering the US so much leads them to informing us more about what's going on there than US citizens themselves know?

 

[duncanp]

I do note that the BBC has more trailers etc than it used to have and I wonder if we are being weaned off pure TV ?.

It is noticeable that the trailers on BBC TV are all pushing us to watch the program being advertised on BBC IPlayer, similarly with the BBC Sounds App by BBC Radio.

It is also noticeable that the slogan for BBC Radio 2 is now "...on your smart speaker, and on the BBC Sounds App, this is BBC Radio 2..." whereas it used to be "....online, on digital and on FM, this is BBC Radio 2....".

So we seem to be quietly getting pushed into consuming BBC Radio and TV via online channels, rather than via any medium that doesn't require an internet connection, such as Freeview for TV, or FM for radio.

Once everyone is watching/listening using online platforms, they will switch off the Freeview and FM signals, which will then enable them to introduce a subscription service in place of the TV licence.

 

[dosxuk]

Once everyone is watching/listening using online platforms, they will switch off the Freeview and FM signals, which will then enable them to introduce a subscription service in place of the TV licence.

Or, more accurately, allow the government to flog off the released radio spectrum to the mobile phone companies.

The BBC has no plans to introduce a subscription service. The government does have plans to release the spectrum currently used for terrestrial broadcast.

 

[Forty29]

It is noticeable that the trailers on BBC TV are all pushing us to watch the program being advertised on BBC IPlayer, similarly with the BBC Sounds App by BBC Radio.

It is also noticeable that the slogan for BBC Radio 2 is now "...on your smart speaker, and on the BBC Sounds App, this is BBC Radio 2..." whereas it used to be "....online, on digital and on FM, this is BBC Radio 2....".

So we seem to be quietly getting pushed into consuming BBC Radio and TV via online channels, rather than via any medium that doesn't require an internet connection, such as Freeview for TV, or FM for radio.

Once everyone is watching/listening using online platforms, they will switch off the Freeview and FM signals, which will then enable them to introduce a subscription service in place of the TV licence.

Yes at 5.55am they show trailers with people screaming and shouting i.e the new Catherine Tate programme. Don't want that at that time of the morning!

 

[Peter Sarf]

It is noticeable that the trailers on BBC TV are all pushing us to watch the program being advertised on BBC IPlayer, similarly with the BBC Sounds App by BBC Radio.

It is also noticeable that the slogan for BBC Radio 2 is now "...on your smart speaker, and on the BBC Sounds App, this is BBC Radio 2..." whereas it used to be "....online, on digital and on FM, this is BBC Radio 2....".

So we seem to be quietly getting pushed into consuming BBC Radio and TV via online channels, rather than via any medium that doesn't require an internet connection, such as Freeview for TV, or FM for radio.

Once everyone is watching/listening using online platforms, they will switch off the Freeview and FM signals, which will then enable them to introduce a subscription service in place of the TV licence.

Yes I have noticed this creeping change. Furthermore the demise of the freeview Text will drive many towards the internet. I find the internet to be a bit of a wild place. No structure that I can discern. Via MSN I encounter too much click bait, Shaggy dog stories and over extended stories. Many are rather poorly written as well but the standard on the BBC text have demised as well.

The internet just seems too slow and fiddly compared to the TV Text.

Back to TV I notice the Amarican influence brings more punchy (sensationalist) stories that sometimes seem shallow maybe. I just get an uneasy feeling.

 

[GusB]

I wouldn't say that BBC News channel is becoming more American, although I did note that there was a female presenter who had a north American accent the other day. It does tend to have a more international leaning, but it has done for years; World Business Report has had co-hosts based in Singapore for some years and there's an annoying Aussie bloke who does the daytime reports, although I think he's in the UK.

The BBC is a global organisation, so it's inevitable that someone who works in one of the satellite offices might actually want to work here.

 

[tomuk]

there's an annoying Aussie bloke who does the daytime reports

Aaron Heslehurst?
There does seem to be a thing about oddball male business reporters Richard Quest, Paddy O'Connell and then all the really nutz American ones.

 

[birchesgreen]

To be honest i have nothing against non-UK presenters on BBC News, its the content i have issues with.

 

[A0]

Oh back in the days it was freeview channel 40 iirc, then 80 now 231 - thats three digits I have to key in before it guesses I mean 2 or 23 .

That was a re-order driven by Freeview, not the broadcasters and was done to put certain types of channels into 'blocks', so the HD channels went into a block starting 101, News channels into a block 23x and so on. Basically following the approach that other transmission companies (e.g. Virgin, Sky) have with their EPGs.

It is noticeable that the trailers on BBC TV are all pushing us to watch the program being advertised on BBC IPlayer, similarly with the BBC Sounds App by BBC Radio.

It is also noticeable that the slogan for BBC Radio 2 is now "...on your smart speaker, and on the BBC Sounds App, this is BBC Radio 2..." whereas it used to be "....online, on digital and on FM, this is BBC Radio 2....".

So we seem to be quietly getting pushed into consuming BBC Radio and TV via online channels, rather than via any medium that doesn't require an internet connection, such as Freeview for TV, or FM for radio.

Once everyone is watching/listening using online platforms, they will switch off the Freeview and FM signals, which will then enable them to introduce a subscription service in place of the TV licence.

In part that's being driven by the uplift in radio listening on line - the RAJAR figures from Q3 2022 had the following split for radio listening:

DAB 39%
AM/FM 34% (of which the majority of that is FM).
Online 24% (website and apps and within that 24% the split is 57% smart speakers 43% website / apps).

Smart speakers have been on the market less than 10 years yet have already made a significant impact and that's climbing every year.

https://www.rajar.co.uk/docs/news/RAJAR_DataRelease_InfographicQ32022.pdf

On the Freeview and FM signals - need to split that in terms of future use.

I'm not sure that the FM band (88-108 mhz) or the DAB band (215-230mhz) are suitable for mobile phone usage - lower frequencies allow a greater area to be covered, but fewer users, whereas higher frequencies do the opposite. Mobile frequency usage is currently at the higher end of the spectrum - the USA uses the 800mhz band, in Europe and Japan the original GSM allocation was the 900mhz band and then the 1800mhz band. 5G is using 410mhz - 7125 mhz and 24.25ghz - 71ghz. So FM radio will be around for a long while yet and when 88-108mhz is vacated it's unlikely to be used for mobile communications. Similar for DAB.

Turning to Digital Terrestrial TV (aka Freeview) that uses 470mhz - 800mhz, though it's being trimmed down to 700mhz with 700-800mhz being reallocated for mobile phone use. The issue for terrestrial TV is high definition transmissions takes up additional bandwidth - you can see this by comparing the multiplexes (MUXes) used currently on Freeview. The PSB 1 (SD tv) has 6 TV channels and ~10 radio stations (depending on area) whereas the PSB 3 MUX which carries HD can only handle 5 TV channels. UHD requires even more bandwidth than HD and as people are moving to larger screens, HD and UHD become more critical, because the picture quality of SD channels on a 50" + screen looks absolutely horrible.

So Freeview will have less content on over time, but that's because of bandwidth constraints driven by the need to increase the number of HD and UHD services. The loss of 100mhz of spectrum isn't significant - it uses the 100mhz in separated 8mhz blocks - so at best it would create 12 slots, but it's not that simple, because frequencies are allocated by international agreement so as to avoid interference with neighbouring transmitters and even countries - people who lived on the south coast or east coast will be familiar with 'co channel interference' which occurred at certain times of the year due to atmospheric conditions allowing signals to carry much further than intended. The loss of that 100mhz has only resulted in the loss of a couple of MUXes and at that ones which were lower power to avoid interference with neighbouring transmitters.

 

[tomuk]

That was a re-order driven by Freeview, not the broadcasters and was done to put certain types of channels into 'blocks', so the HD channels went into a block starting 101, News channels into a block 23x and so on. Basically following the approach that other transmission companies (e.g. Virgin, Sky) have with their EPGs.



In part that's being driven by the uplift in radio listening on line - the RAJAR figures from Q3 2022 had the following split for radio listening:

DAB 39%
AM/FM 34% (of which the majority of that is FM).
Online 24% (website and apps and within that 24% the split is 57% smart speakers 43% website / apps).

Smart speakers have been on the market less than 10 years yet have already made a significant impact and that's climbing every year.

https://www.rajar.co.uk/docs/news/RAJAR_DataRelease_InfographicQ32022.pdf

On the Freeview and FM signals - need to split that in terms of future use.

I'm not sure that the FM band (88-108 mhz) or the DAB band (215-230mhz) are suitable for mobile phone usage - lower frequencies allow a greater area to be covered, but fewer users, whereas higher frequencies do the opposite. Mobile frequency usage is currently at the higher end of the spectrum - the USA uses the 800mhz band, in Europe and Japan the original GSM allocation was the 900mhz band and then the 1800mhz band. 5G is using 410mhz - 7125 mhz and 24.25ghz - 71ghz. So FM radio will be around for a long while yet and when 88-108mhz is vacated it's unlikely to be used for mobile communications. Similar for DAB.

Turning to Digital Terrestrial TV (aka Freeview) that uses 470mhz - 800mhz, though it's being trimmed down to 700mhz with 700-800mhz being reallocated for mobile phone use. The issue for terrestrial TV is high definition transmissions takes up additional bandwidth - you can see this by comparing the multiplexes (MUXes) used currently on Freeview. The PSB 1 (SD tv) has 6 TV channels and ~10 radio stations (depending on area) whereas the PSB 3 MUX which carries HD can only handle 5 TV channels. UHD requires even more bandwidth than HD and as people are moving to larger screens, HD and UHD become more critical, because the picture quality of SD channels on a 50" + screen looks absolutely horrible.

So Freeview will have less content on over time, but that's because of bandwidth constraints driven by the need to increase the number of HD and UHD services. The loss of 100mhz of spectrum isn't significant - it uses the 100mhz in separated 8mhz blocks - so at best it would create 12 slots, but it's not that simple, because frequencies are allocated by international agreement so as to avoid interference with neighbouring transmitters and even countries - people who lived on the south coast or east coast will be familiar with 'co channel interference' which occurred at certain times of the year due to atmospheric conditions allowing signals to carry much further than intended. The loss of that 100mhz has only resulted in the loss of a couple of MUXes and at that ones which were lower power to avoid interference with neighbouring transmitters.

If configured as DVB-T2 each of the six muxes could carry either six HD channels or 18 SD channels at 6.7mbps and 2.2 mbps respectively.

 

[BluePenguin]

Oops. A nice Americanism at the end there. Must be catching…

The main news anchor was American

You mean news caster not anchor if you want to be British lol

 

[Peter Sarf]

You mean news caster not anchor if you want to be British lol

Arrrgh, and I like to think I am pur(ish) British !.

To think I was hesitating about referring to him as a "news anchor", but sadly "news caster" had completely gone from my vocabulary.

 

[Senex]

What's wrong with "newsreader"? But I fear the BBC has had a love-affair with all things USA for years, and that includes linguistic influence — not just things like "news anchor" but also pronunciations like "(n)either" and grammatical features like the pretty well total loss of "might" when sequence of tenses requires that rather than "may". Nevertheless, rather a newsreader or correspondent speaking a form of clear, educated North American English than some of the horrors of British English we are now treated to. (And we could always, of course, argue that British English is now a peripheral dialect of the English language, with American English as the innovating centre as far as change is concerned.)

 

[Peter Sarf]

What's wrong with "newsreader"? But I fear the BBC has had a love-affair with all things USA for years, and that includes linguistic influence — not just things like "news anchor" but also pronunciations like "(n)either" and grammatical features like the pretty well total loss of "might" when sequence of tenses requires that rather than "may". Nevertheless, rather a newsreader or correspondent speaking a form of clear, educated North American English than some of the horrors of British English we are now treated to. (And we could always, of course, argue that British English is now a peripheral dialect of the English language, with American English as the innovating centre as far as change is concerned.)

I do think the world is passing us by. But there are those who think Britain can go back to the glory days (before the rest of the world caught up).