The BBC has two English language news channels - one domestic, one international - but is apparently considering "merging" them.
This would save some money, which presumably is the main reason for doing so. Trouble is, merging them would be a disaster for both.
I claim considerable knowledge here. I edited every minute of every day on the BBC News Channel (News 24 as it then was) in six years as an editor on it. I then did the same thing for five years on its international sister, BBC World News.
So, surely news is news and you can put in a bit from the UK, something from around the world and have a product that works for all markets?
I'm afraid not. Anyone who has paid the slightest attention over the last few years will know that the brands being fast-tracked to oblivion are those with an insufficiently well-defined identity.
The best way to ensure that both BBC news channels go the way of BHS would be to blend them in a uniform shade of news beige. Domestic rivals (Sky) and international rivals (CNN, Al Jazeera and a growing list of others) which offer more clearly defined news channels focusing on the domestic and international news markets will then hoover-up your market share.
Then there's the argument about what you say. BBC World News uses US dollars, the closest we have to a global currency. BBC News Channel uses pounds of course. George Osborne is the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, internationally he's the UK finance minister (as that means something to a global audience).
But the real clincher is about the news agenda. Floods in Gloucester are a very big deal for a domestic news channel. Put them up against floods in Pakistan and you're looking silly. Indonesia's general election might be your global lead. It's unlikely to be your domestic one. And don't even get me started on snow.
There are plenty of other reasons why this is a bad idea. But the fact that it would make both channels much worse is the clincher.
