The big one
Last time I wrote about a 91Èȱ¬ World publicity campaign, I was told it wasn't the sort of thing we should be reading on The Editors. It didn't involve an editorial dilemma, or an explanation of a controversial decision.
So I'm treading a little carefully this time. You see, we've been getting ourselves noticed again. This time in the USA - the big one, the one we've wanted to crack for years, the original home of the news channel. At long last, 91Èȱ¬ World has some full-time distribution there. Everybody involved in the channel is very exicted about it...and I just wanted to explain why.
Why so significant? Because until now, you can only watch 91Èȱ¬ World either through the half-hour bulletins shown by PBS stations in the States, or through our morning transmissions on 91Èȱ¬ America (recently extended to a full three hours). But now, if you live in New York, you can watch the channel 24 hours a day. I'm not sure I'd recommend that to anyone (although my colleague Steve Williams, recently the father of twins, is doing his best to maintain a viewing marathon while he feeds his babies night after night). 
It's taken many years to get this far. The cable networks in the US took the view that they didn't need any more news networks. But our PBS broadcasts have been attracting very healthy audiences - more than CNN can claim for almost all of their programmes. And it's maybe a sign of the times that some American audiences want to see a channel which has a serious commitment to international news, and which doesn't see everything from a Washington or New York perspective. We don't profess to replace any other network, but we think we can offer something extra to the market. And we hope the New York deal is the first of many.
George Alagiah was in Times Square promoting the channel and his new news hour last week. World News Today will air from 0700-0800 EST (ie midday here) every weekday, and we intend to showcase the extraordinary range and depth of 91Èȱ¬ Newsgathering resources. The hour will be targeted towards America, but that doesn't mean its agenda will be American - because that's not why people will be watching us. Equally, however, it would be daft to miss opportunities to explain how the world sees America - but that's not difficult when you consider the current news agenda. And, as ever with 91Èȱ¬ World, we'll have to remember that while it's the morning for one audience, it's the middle of the evening for another.
Distribution in the US is the last big link in the chain. You can currently see the channel 24 hours a day in around 140 million homes around the globe, but until now all that growth has been outside the biggest TV market in the world. In terms of profile and revenue (because don't forget, we are commercially funded), this is the one we've been waiting for. So yes, we're very excited.
Comments
Good luck. But isn't there a risk that the 91Èȱ¬ will put so much energy into taking on America that it will take its eye off the ball - ie being what it has been to the rest of the world for so long? America will look after itself.
Of course Editors can blog about whatever they wish on their blog.
But this is still not an editorial dillema or issue.
I think "issues and dilemmas" was meant to be illustrative, rather than definitive. Personally I think Richard's posting highlights a crucial issue for the future of 91Èȱ¬ News.
It may be a very important strategic issue. But what's the editorial dillema?
If the 91Èȱ¬ wants to trumpet its sucesses is this blog the right place to do it?
Wouldn't the press office site be a better place?
Oops...I wasn't trying to trumpet our success Nick, I was trying to explain why US distribution was such a big deal. I'm not sure that everyone in the 91Èȱ¬ fully understands why that matters so much to World...so I thought this was a useful forum for sharing that information (and hearing what people think about it).
Passing thought: I'd noticed that the "London Times"' launch in America similarly that offering an international perspective would bring something new to the market:
"The Times has one of the largest international networks of any newspaper in the world and U.S. readers want and need sophisticated global political and economic coverage," said Robert Thomson, editor of the Times.
But I've read to the 91Èȱ¬'s plans than to the Times'.
If this is indicative - "state" broadcasters being suspected of imperiousness more than corporate media, then it's an interesting phenomenon, but it could of course just be the skewed sample you get when you look at the blogs...
This piece goes some way to explain why the company Omis (or whatever it is) with its ridiculous 'exercise horse' (or whatever it is) had adverts on 91Èȱ¬ World every 10 minutes last month. The US home-shopping channels must be wondering how you got in on their act. Mind you, the girls are real puurrddy...