No superiority complex
A few weeks ago the Columbia Journalism Review published headlined "Superiority Complex - why the Brits think they're Better" which examined the growing popularity of British-based journalism in the US. It was a good piece, apart from the headline, which (I hope) was written with a fair amount of tongue-in-cheek. We have big plans for the US market, but we certainly don't think we're superior.
Yesterday the latest stage of those plans became public when we announced who would be the Executive Producer for our new newshour to be broadcast at 7pm EST (midnight in the UK). Rome Hartman joins us from CBS News, where his previous role was launching Katie Couric's ""... and prior to that he had worked for many years at the legendary .
So why do we think we can do well in one of the most crowded television markets in the world? Rome put it neatly yesterday when he said: "More and more Americans are seeking smart and sophisticated coverage of the world; coverage the 91Èȱ¬ is uniquely capable of providing." So it's that combination of a demand (among a certain section of the audience) for a greater level of international coverage at a time of globalisation and complexity, combined with the scale of the 91Èȱ¬ - we have more than 40 news bureaux around the world and a fantastic tradition of providing high-quality, independent journalism for global audiences.
The new programme will air on , our sister channel in the US which reaches 55 million homes, and around the globe on , where we reach more than 270 million homes. 
Rome starts with us in a couple of weeks, and then the real planning will begin. The formula will be largely familiar to audiences of 91Èȱ¬ World - we'll be taking the best of our international coverage and presenting it in a way that we hope will be closer, more relevant to American audiences. It will be a programme of real substance, but it will also have style and energy. It'll be broadcast from our Washington Bureau, from where we already do two nightly newscasts aimed at US audiences, but expect to see contributions from our correspondents in Delhi and Beijing and Nairobi and Brussels and all the other places which don't often make it on to the US news agenda.
So what do you think? What will make you watch? We'd love to hear what you think...
Comments
Can it also be broadcast on News 24 or streamed online? I live in the UK, and a blog like this is rather useless to me unless I can watch it.
As the (UK) state funded broadcaster why on earth have you got big plans for the US market?
The 91Èȱ¬ does not exist to compete with other broadcasters, it exists to provide a quality service for those who pay for it, namely UK licence fee payers.
Excellent news - the lack of a 91Èȱ¬ News presence on 91Èȱ¬-A has long been a cause of some puzzlement to me on trips to the US.
Nice to see the 91Èȱ¬ doing well in the US.
It's a shame though that the news coverage is out done in the UK by Channel 4, which is markedly better than the 91Èȱ¬'s, but that's OK.
Also a shame that shows like Panorama are now nothing more than tabloid-news programs these days, but again..it's what the audience wants. Oh wait, it actually isn't as viewing figures have dropped...but again that's OK.
For a while now I have only payed 3 months worth of license fees a year, as I don't see the point in paying any more for the shoddy organisation the 91Èȱ¬ has become. Now that branching out to the States and world-wide seems to be a priority, I think I'll keep that part of the license fee aswell.
Well done to everyone at the 91Èȱ¬; Style over substance and forgetting who pays (or in my case, used to pay) your wages.
Does this mean that if you make a profit overseas we will get a TV tax rebate here in the UK?
91Èȱ¬ superior to PBS, C-Span, and the array of other sources related to specific topics like business, sports, etc the America viewer has available? You must be kidding. Your brand of propaganda may sell well to left wingers around the world and even to some screwball elites in the US like the Columbia University crowd but it will never capture the US market to any significant degree, especially after the novelty wears off. PBS and even some American cable operators might want to carry it because they are always looking for something novel but were 91Èȱ¬ to have to compete as a commercial station relying on maintaining viewer ratings to survive it would die a quick death in the US. In fact if it had real competition on a fair and equitable basis in the UK without subsidies, I'm not sure it would even survive there either.
Rockingham;
"91Èȱ¬ World is the 91Èȱ¬'s commercially funded, international 24-hour news and information channel, broadcast in English in more than 200 countries and territories across the globe."
We ain't paying for it. ;-)
Rockingham #2
Yes exactly. How is it in our interests? Will be 91Èȱ¬ make a good profit out of this? If so will we see a reduction in our license fee?
Or is this just a alternative to getting extra money from license payers after your demands for more money were turned down?
If this takes off maybe this should spur the 91Èȱ¬ to become fully independant thanks to these revenues.
Then i will no longer be forced to pay for a partisan left wing biased broadcaster who wastes thousands of pounds of my money trying to stop the Balen report being released.
Incidently i assume as the 91Èȱ¬ obviously no longer approves of the freedom of information act that it no longer makes its own FOI requests?
Afterall blocking a FOI request whilst continuing to make your own would be the hieght of hypocrisy would it not?
I think the UK news coverage is more accurate and complete. Whenever we want the real store and not news entertainment my wife and I watch the 91Èȱ¬ news. Please continue your efforts for the US market.
In reply to Rockingham's point, the 91Èȱ¬'s overseas broadcasting, such as 91Èȱ¬ World & 91Èȱ¬ America are profit-making and self-sustaining. The licence fee is used just as you describe - to fund public service broadcasting in the UK. By maximising the use of the broadcast output of the Beeb and earning revenue in the process, the 91Èȱ¬ are actually keeping the licence fee down from a level it would otherwise be at.
Also though, the vast majority of Brits have passports and millions of us live or travel abroad each year. I've lost track of the number of times I've got to a hotel in the middle of nowhere and have been able to keep in touch with events back home through 91Èȱ¬ World, rather than having to rely on lower-quality American news channels or local channels whose language I sadly don't understand.
91Èȱ¬ superior to PBS, C-Span, and the array of other sources related to specific topics like business, sports, etc the America viewer has available? You must be kidding.
Mark #6
No there not kidding hence why the 91Èȱ¬ is so popular in the USA. I think the 91Èȱ¬ is bias and i resent paying for it but it is far superior to any American offering and far less bias. Hence why you are here.
If i'm wrong why are you here? Your an American? You don't need to look at the 91Èȱ¬ news do you? But yet i see you post every day.
You love the 91Èȱ¬.
As a repatriated American who lived in the UK for a number of years, I still turn to the 91Èȱ¬ for online news, finding it superior to anything the Americans are offering. If the 91Èȱ¬ continues to be motivated by providing quality, factual news instead of by market forces (as the American news services appear to be), then it should continue to do very well wherever it appears.
My husband and I have given up on the news provided by the major American broadcasters. When you add in the time for commercials (adverts) the time allocated for news is about 22 minutes. The first 10 are usually taken up by the latest media frenzy topic, then there's time spent on health or other lifestyle topics, a minute or two to catch us up on Iraq,then the broadcast ends with some nice "feel good" story. To me, the most telling example of the trend the US news is on is the fact they will advertise what's coming up on the next night's news. How can you advertise what's going to be news before it happens?
We rely on the 91Èȱ¬ news on 91Èȱ¬ America to find out what's happening in the rest of the world, and to get more indepth reporting on important topics particulary Iraq. But I'm alarmed that you're bringing in an American Executive Producer who's going to make the news "more relevant to American audiences", and the claim that the news will now "also have style and energy". I don't turn on the news for "style and energy", I'm looking for coverage of the important events of the day. As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke why fix it"?
I love the 91Èȱ¬ and wish the American networks would use the 91Èȱ¬ as their model for how to broadcast news. Most of us want less fluff and more hard news. There has been too much corporate consolidation of the media in the US and too much "info-tainment" in recent years. The mingling of hard news and celebirty news has left a society that doesn't know the difference between breaking news and important news. I am more concerned with global climate change, water disptues in the Middle East, civil war in Iraq, and starvation in Africa than whether Pairs Hilton is back in jail. This is why the 91Èȱ¬ should do very well here.
As an American who goes to 91Èȱ¬.com often for real news--NOT Paris Hilton, for instance--I'm thrilled that this will be offfered. It would indirectly benefit Britain (and the rest of the world) if Americans became more informed about world news, especially when the next presidential election takes place.
I'm paying $3 extra to my cable company here in Canada to watch 91Èȱ¬ World, though 91Èȱ¬ World's EST 6pm half hour news bulletin is already rebroadcast by Canada's CBC and America's PBS but that's not enough for me.
I've seen your correspondents like Matt Frei have a good knowledge of American issues, and I don't know why you are hiring an American. I'm afraid it might Americanise 91Èȱ¬. I watch 60 Mins where Hartman is coming from, but that is American style. I hope you will keep your 91Èȱ¬ style and only take American subjects rather than making 91Èȱ¬ to look like "one of the other American" networks.
But keep in mind that competition is coming: IWT Real News (therealnews.com) is launching soon!
First of all you charge me for the privelege of simply owning a tv, and then you expand into America where they dont have to pay to watch some of the same news I have paid for.
Can someone explain why this is, if it is indeed an accurate summary.
I think that this is a good idea. For those thinking that it costs us, UK taxpayers, money, see somebody's comment above about 91Èȱ¬ World being commercially funded. I think that it is a good idea. We may not want to be big headed and say 91Èȱ¬ is better than other networks, but the 91Èȱ¬ does have a history for being one of the most respected and trusted news organisations in the world. It is good, reliable news and I think that it will gather a wide audience in the US, whats more, if 91Èȱ¬ make it available online it will be useful also to us UK citizens and the many people worldwide who turn to the 91Èȱ¬'s website for news anyway. Whats more, we may also begin to see more contributions as Richard Porter says, from 91Èȱ¬ correspondents around the world, who may not necessarily appear on UK news as the story may not be relevant, but at least we could possibly have the option of viewing it, if it is going to be broadcast in America anyway.
Please keep up the efforts; the 91Èȱ¬ offers news that is far more 'real' and relevant here than what American offers us.
US news is in freefall
On TV, Fox News has caused a race for the bottom which is dragging many other providers into mind-numbing superficiality and stunning levels of political bias.
The 91Èȱ¬ world service, especially as rebroadcast by NPR, is playing a critical role - particularly in explaining the back stories and why the players in the various conflicts, confrontations and competitions do what they do in an even handed and detailed way which US news providers typically seem unable or unwilling to do.
Due to the way that public radio is funded here, they cannot fund their own overseas reporters in volume and hence rely on the 91Èȱ¬ to provide broadly based international news and analysis to the US public - and its highly valued by many people here (and provides a high return to the UK)
Providing such high quality content into the US is not only, or even primarily, a commercial matter - its a matter of quiet and urgent diplomacy.
The 91Èȱ¬ continues to be THE trusted voice in news and the best advertising UK PLC could ever have in its major overseas market.
Supporting the delivery of news and analysis into the US should be a major plank of UK diplomatic and trade strategy.
The cost is far less than the impact of a poorly thought through US foreign policy decision, and the upside better than any trade programme. It should be 70% strategy, 30% commercial considerations - its about informing people, not just selling DVD's
But keep the quality high and focus on the key listener/viewer segments rather than just volumes. THis is how the UK punches above its weight
Post #17: If you'd bothered to read some of the posts above you'd know this has no financial attachment to the TV License.
I would really like to see availability of 91Èȱ¬ World extended. The market is there I believe, and I think it could be profitable, and that people would pay a fee just to see it on their home television screens.
I think expanding into America is an excellent idea, but I fear the Americanisation of the 91Èȱ¬. I prefer the news to come from the London office, not the one based in Washington. As for the producer, I feel there will not be that much of a problem as long as the 91Èȱ¬ focuses on international news, and not simply revolve around the American domestic issues. If the 91Èȱ¬ can keep its quality, and retain its British character, then it could be a success. But this is America after all, and anything foreign will be looked upon suspiciously; although you will aquire a niche audience.
As an American living in Africa with friends scattered across the globe, I've found that the only way I can keep up with what's going on here and elsewhere is to forget about American news coverage an log on to the 91Èȱ¬. US world news coverage is so Americentric, as if nothing in the world matters unless it directly involves America. That's why many Americans think that I live in a country governed by Idi Amin and wouldn't know Sarkozy from Brown. I just hope the 91Èȱ¬ doesn't give in to this trend to make its news relevant to American audiences...we don't need another producer of American international news in America, we need more real world news.
What will make us watch?
The same thing that makes us read this site rather than cnn.com or foxnews - the perception that the 91Èȱ¬ provides a less biased source for accurate news coverage that focuses on the news that is most important, rather than most entertaining.
I agree with Ms. Czajkowski. I watch 91Èȱ¬ News on PBS because it is different and better than the American alternatives. Please don't fix what's not broken! Just look at the American version of The Office or What Not To Wear. The American versions *stink*.
I read the 91Èȱ¬ online edition almost daily to get a better world view, without ads, than I can get from the US newspapers.
As for the 91Èȱ¬ news on television, I don't know. I have totally given up on televised news in the US. A few moments of light news spots surrounded by endless ads and come-ons for what's coming up next leave me cold – a total waste of time. I can get more real news in 30 minutes listening to PBS or reading the 91Èȱ¬ news on line than I could get in watching a day of CNN.
I'll give you a try though; but not live. I never watch anything in real time as life is too short to waste any watching ads.
Andrew in Post #17, we too in America have to pay to access 91Èȱ¬ News via cable television. I live in Chicago and enjoy 91Èȱ¬ World and bbc.com, though the 91Èȱ¬ does have certain biases I find puzzling. I agree with all the posts describing the low quality of American news broadcasts. But even with the addition of the availability of 91Èȱ¬ World I still find it necessary to supplement my broadcast and print news reports with various internet news and blog sites. In my opinion there is not a single news outlet that deserves a whole lot of praise.
To #17-Andrew, as others have explained, the 91Èȱ¬ News you pay to watch in the UK is a separate entity from 91Èȱ¬ World, and is not broadcast anywhere but the UK. 91Èȱ¬ World is funded by global sponsors/advertisers, not UK citizens, so they are more or less allowed into any market that will accept them.
Also, in the United States, 91Èȱ¬ is not a public (free) channel. You'd have to purchase digital cable or satellite service and pay a monthly fee to view that channel, which means that in order to view it, Americans WOULD have to pay a fee to their cable or satellite provider. Nothing is "free" here. You're talking about a capitalist society - the money comes from somewhere. Even "public" channels have to pull their regularly scheduled broadcasts to run a solid week of donation drives once per year, because the subsidies they receive from the US Government (which come from income taxes) aren't enough to cover the operating costs.
As far as the 91Èȱ¬ goes, I have completely given up on the news media as a whole. I read articles with a grain of salt, and never EVER watch the news on television. All publicly owned and corporately sponsored news services have an agenda/bias, and quite frankly I've gotten to the point that I don't believe the half of it anymore, even from the 91Èȱ¬.
So in essence, as long as you continue to post articles on your website, I'm content with assuming the words are not slander, but that there are most likely some relevant facts missing in places.
Sincerely yours,
American non-viewer
"More and more Americans are seeking smart and sophisticated coverage of the world" - Rome Hartman
WHOA! Has this guy really been living in the US? Does he watch TV?
Quick test: ask Rome whether the word "Paris" indicates a city in France or the drunken subject of about half our "smart and sophisticated" US news coverage? Seek medical help.
As an American who has lived abroad previously, I am constantly embarassed by the US network's "World News" reports. They often cover what I consider "soft" stories while important world issues and conflicts get a brief mention-- if that! I welcome the 91Èȱ¬ with open arms and think they have something very different to offer the American market. Lord knows it's greatly needed and appreciated!
Welcome. I can't say I will watch it since it is an American doing it, and the whole point of me watching/reading foreign news is to get an foreign opinion (no matter how idiotic or biased it is). I would much rather see Matt Frei or Jonathan Beale rather than someone from the overrated 60 Minutes.
Oh, and to the Brits complaining (surprise!:)), I assume advertising is paying for this.
First, 91Èȱ¬ World is a separate entity, one not funded by the public of the UK through their tv licenses. Second, we do pay to see it - we may not have a tv license, but we do have to pay monthly access charges to our cable provider. Third, any news source will be biased in one way or another - the best option is to choose several, and go from there; 91Èȱ¬ is one of several other news sources I rely upon, and I believe that anyone who thinks they are well-informed yet only relies upon one major news source is sadly mistaken.
I think having an American on board will make you more competitive within the American market. However, I also believe that making such statements as, "Americans are seeking smart and sophisticated coverage of the world," and neglecting to mention any of the news providers we have in the U.S. is somewhat of a blunder - going in with such an attitude might be something that alienates you from your target audience. I would hesitate to say that there are no sophisticated and smart news organizations within the States; rather, I would say that the 91Èȱ¬ newshour will be included amongst them.
You hired the guy who launched Katie Couric on CBS Nightly News? Wow. Is anyone keeping track of how that worked out?
I have to agree with Mark. I enjoy the 91Èȱ¬, always have, even if the news coverage makes me wince occasionally. But although I can accept the anti-Americanism, most of my countrymen and woman won't, guaranteed. If the 91Èȱ¬ thinks the left wing or NYC and LA represent the opinions of the vast majority of my fellow citizens, they're deluding themselves. The competition will be all over the 91Èȱ¬ like white on rice and will be waiting for every opportunity it can find to slam it. But good luck anyway, I love variety!
1/2 91Èȱ¬ world service news bulletins are available for free on PBS, for 91Èȱ¬ America we have to throw extra money to the cable companies, who charge a darn fortune...
So, no real special favours being done for those of us in the US, aside from providing us with a more earnest, critical and informed news broadcast, which as earlier comments have pointed to is desperately needed.
It sounds quite promising to me for 91Èȱ¬ World to have recruited someone like this to tailor a programme for the US market. I think this could help to present yourselves as a credible alternative.
As for the criticisms from others, I fail to see how a strong 91Èȱ¬ World can be anything other than good news for the rest of the 91Èȱ¬ and indeed the UK (read more closely how it is funded). Of course if the FCO would extend the grant to cover it, it would make a lot of sense...
I have been watching 91Èȱ¬ World on PBS stations and 91Èȱ¬ America for years. Can't wait for the new changes.
Sam #11
I get news from many different sources every day including 91Èȱ¬, and Fox, and CNN, and MSNBC, and others. But the best by far for news coverage is PBS nightly news. They are not only not biased the way 91Èȱ¬ so obviously is, they present expert opinion on all major issues and stories and allow them to express the different points of view in a dispassionate objective manner. They let the viewer decide for themselves what to believe. 91Èȱ¬ coming from a culture which has a long history of authoritarian rule still having a monarchy, a state religion, an officially recognized aristocracy, an upper legislative house which is chosen exclusively from that elite, and a highly class conscious culture prefers to dictate what its viewers should think and skews its reporting in so many ways, some very subtle, and some overt towards that end. I reject the view that 91Èȱ¬ is a superior news source many would like to believe and which it once was. But that was then, this is now and while it is lavishly funded, it is not fair, not objective, and often incomplete providing little or no background and not fully and fairly representing all points of view on major issues.
As for other items there are far better souces in American TV journalism as well including C-Span, the History Channel, CNBC for financial news and many others covering specialized topics far more completely than 91Èȱ¬ ever could.
That's not an accurate summary Andrew.
Credibility is the watchword for this enterprise; that and brevity. In fact breviity is probably the more important as the American attention span is extremely short but they do love a good voice and clear diction. "Gee I just love your accent," invariably accompanied my change at check out counters, and I was always asked to read at writing workshops.
Credibility though has to be it because thinking Americans trust their media even less than they trust their government. So Alastair Yates delivering accurate information free from hype will stop most Americans in their tracks; they will be moving because Americans don't sit down to watch the news - TV is background in America.
One more thing; be sure to include a map for every item. Few Americans know The North Pole is in the northern hemisphere, and practically none that South Africa is a country.
Good Luck
But the 91Èȱ¬ TV news is fluff
compared to the World Service where
they know what the important stories
are and "don't need no steeking piktures"
to tell a story.
I'd rather have the 91Èȱ¬ WS back
in North America on shortwave mit kultures.
I now that cultural programmes cost
more than a stringer with a a phone, but
they were more attractive than
a repeat, repeat of the same newscasts
after hour.
Best of British luck to you, but I wouldn't
be surprised if your license is lifted
by the U.S. FCC one day, while your
vacant shortwave facilities could have
sent programmes over their shoulders.
TTGN
If the 91Èȱ¬ makes a profit, then that profit should be used either to spend more money on programming for British viewers or to reduce the price of the licence fee. The 91Èȱ¬ has no right to demand a tax from British viewers whilst acting like a ordinary commercial company elsewhere.
* At 11:31 AM on 13 Jun 2007,
* Rockingham wrote:
"As the (UK) state funded broadcaster why on earth have you got big plans for the US market?
The 91Èȱ¬ does not exist to compete with other broadcasters, it exists to provide a quality service for those who pay for it, namely UK licence fee payers."
The foreign office pays towards world broadcast services, and the sales of bbc goods also raises money.
I live in the US and currently watch the 91Èȱ¬ news, both morning and evening, on 91Èȱ¬ America. It is the only news program that isn't owned by the same bunch of folks who brought us the "informa-tion" leading to the Iraq war.
I look forward to your new broadcast.
I listened to the 91Èȱ¬ World Service on shortwave for years and years, until North American service was cut a decade ago or so. Since then I get 95% of my news from news.bbc.co.uk. What I want (need, really) is a source that is reliable and reletively unbiased. Or at least if it is biased that the bias is not a matter of pandering to my prejudices. For US residents, that means the 91Èȱ¬. American versions of UK shows usually do poorly. The audience, left-of-center and highly-educated, get's angry and agitated when shows are dumbed-down for the US audience. And news has to be dumbed down since the mass audience's atention span for international news is shorter than a station identification. I expect that this americianized version of 91Èȱ¬ news will be awful, and I won't be watching.
I think unless the 91Èȱ¬ is aiming solely for an audience of left-wing intellectuals, the are going to have to both soften the news content and take a major jump to the right. Anything that is perceived as anti-American just won't get watched and the advertising revenue will dissapear. And remember Americans take stuff that would be considered regular criticism in Europe to be anti-American. 91Èȱ¬ news as it exists now on TV (and online if it wasn't free) is way too leftwing to succeed in the US commercial market. Personally I will welcome it, but I'm an elite.
I watch 91Èȱ¬ World News on PBS, since my parents don't have Digital Cable for 91Èȱ¬ America (and 91Èȱ¬ World isn't on yet...). I also listen to the 91Èȱ¬ online sometimes as well, to say nothing of searching the website. I agree with what the others have said about the 91Èȱ¬'s emphasis on "hard" news, plus their coverage of US stoies we don't get over here. (Such as Greg Palast's reporting.) Even for those of you who charge political bias, the 91Èȱ¬ still delivers excellent, detailed stories on matters entirely non-political.
I do have two favours to urge you. (Yes, I'm spelling it the British way, even though I normally don't...) First, try and get the cable companies to put 91Èȱ¬ World with the normal programming, or lower-level premium programming. This way, while the profits may not be as much, it would reach greater audiences. (In addition, your new competitor, France 24 (Which I don't see...the 91Èȱ¬ has a better track record.), may be offering their channel for free...))
Second, while this is off the topic of news, the 91Èȱ¬ has a great deal of programming that could be shown on channels besides 91Èȱ¬ World or 91Èȱ¬ America. Perhaps you may want to add an American version of Canada's 91Èȱ¬ Kids (Make sure to include the old Doctor Who reruns!) or broadcast 91Èȱ¬ Food in the USA.
We need, like never before, media that will speak truth to power. The 91Èȱ¬ is certainly better than almost all US media, but when the chips are down, it invariably folds.
I think 91Èȱ¬ and Al Jazeera (both arabic and english) are the best News TV sources. They are not perfect, the have failed many times, but at least they try to do it right and explore other perspectives. American broadcasters have long ago failed in their job to provide a complete non-american biased views of the events.
When the main stream media in the US chose not to report in full Putins speech it says clearly the way news is manipulated. So just what is the point in providing more 'news' to Americans who generally have a very low attention level. They certainly don't appear to be THAT bothered about the death and destruction brought about by their country on others too weak to fight back. Now if the 91Èȱ¬ is going to have a new slant on important stories such as Paris Hilton and American idol then I'm sure it will be welcomed along with the rest of the dross!
EM's passing mention of the 91Èȱ¬'s antiAmericanism deserves enlarging upon. I refer to the nearly unthinking variety. As an American resident in the UK for many years, and a dedicated Radio 4 listener, I have heard the blame for all sorts of bad news outsourced to America. The most memorable example was a pit bull terrier mauling of a child story. For a full 24 hours I had to listen to the lead headline 'American pitbull terrier mauls child' at the top of every hour. A British audience may not pick up the slur but an American audience will. Otherwise, a 91Èȱ¬ approach to feature news for American listeners is a refreshing idea. Good luck.
So a man named *ROME will be the new spinmeister of 91Èȱ¬-US? Eh
I've always look forward to my daily dose of 91Èȱ¬'s as it's quite unique. Particularly, your top notch "INTERNATIONAL Version" way back when I was a giddy teenager in South America. Thank you.
PS: *Guess "PARIS" may not be too far behind! Not funny!
I welcome the 91Èȱ¬ coming to the United States and I think a lot of other people would as well. The only problem I could see is that most people I know do not have cable television. We are however, the people I know who would actually watch it. I get most of my news from the 91Èȱ¬ website each day because I cannot stand news from a US perspective. Living here, it's easy to get stuck in a box because the news coverage we have is inadequate. You have to make it a point to search out other sources of information.
One other thing, if you talk to most people in the US, they don't like Katie Couric. The launch of her career in the nightly news was not done well and she is still floundering as an evening news anchor. Just a word of warning I guess.
Its a decent idea, just do me a favor... don't customize it too much based on american media outlets. I really do think the 91Èȱ¬ does offer a more intelligent, better prioritized, and more comprehensive broadcast, but you even do things like graphics, music and overall presentation much better than the 24-hour channels and the three big national newscasts.
The worst of the newscasts is CBS, so i'm a little unsure why the bbc thought it was a good idea to hire someone from that organization.
good luck, and keep it a little 'brit' different.
I watch the 91Èȱ¬ on public t.v. because it is actual news, as compared to American networks which cover Brittney, Paris, and other nonsense.
Hmm I can see that little has changed in terms of comment. Good evening!
He launched Katie Couric??? Fire him.
WHOA!
Mr Potter displays his arrogance and superiority complex by completely ignoring questions on his other blogs regarding the Jane Sandler report on 911.
"Smart and sophisticated"?
This guy has obviously not seen the Six o'clock news.
If smart and sophisticated means overpowering any facts with opinion and choosing controversy over accuracy, well I suppose he is right.
God help America.
if it helps then why not, but don't forget we have no option but to pay. so what are you going to do for us with our money? if you are off to make money elsewhere, then dont you think that the licence should be optional. i mean there's not a lot at all to watch, but chick flick dramas and the odd other dreamy drama, which are crap. come on get more documentaries on, and give our kind our moneys worth. it all begins at home.
As a British citizen now living in the US this is the best news I have heard in years. I know there is already a half-hour news programme on weeknights but this does not give enough time to cover all that is happening in the world. One suggestion though, can we also have this hour on a weekend as well, or does nothing momentous happen during Saturday and Sunday? Most American news programmes only cover local news and weather with very little (if any - unless it's a 9/11 event)national or international news coverage. Even CNN cannot compete with the 91Èȱ¬. I believe I speak for all British ex-patriots when I say "HURRY UP AND GET IT UP AND RUNNING".
congratulations on your success in the US. I'm sure 91Èȱ¬ will be huge in America as alot of people have recently been made aware of the scary amount of control the govenment has over American media, as has been painfully evident with the war, WMD's, terrorism, and nearly every major issue.
I'm sure that 91Èȱ¬ will explode when released to America as people are fast learning just how bias their news is. I'm not saying that 91Èȱ¬ is perfect in their coverage but you are much much better than the corporate-hijacked media in America.
Maybe the 91Èȱ¬ could do the American people the honor of letting their be a sensible debate on 9/11 conspiracy theories, as American media has completely banned all debate on this matter, which has led us into this mess we are in now, with millions and millions of people worldwide believing that Bush ordered 9/11, and all because no media company will debate the pertinent facts that need to be addressed.
I really hope that the 91Èȱ¬ will help the American people address some of the important situations that American media wont ever touch.