BBC World News moves to Broadcasting House

'a site where we, editors from across BBC News, will share our dilemmas and issues'
Almost a month since the last epic editorial news insight and now this.
You've moved offices. And have a 'new look'.
Nifty.

I can do without: bolder, brighter, more engaging.
I cannot do without independent, objective analytical correspondents, especially when you chose to call your new location: "The World's Newsroom".
I can do without 27 languages, far flung bureaus.
I cannot do without the single, powerful language of unbiased truth.
Good luck, and good reporting.

I can do without live, exclusive reports planned from Syria, China, the US and Burma, etc. but I cannot do without the coin-toss (both sides of the issue), leading ultimately & unfailingly to the facts.
I can do without dynamic looks, robot cameras, improved graphics & high definition screens but if they are they, it must be solely enhance your ability to analyse & mine to understand.

Unfortunately it now looks worse in SD, at least through my provider.

"Our correspondents - expert, brave, tough, determined"

Please provide evidence of this and quantify it in some meaningful way. For instance, perhaps they are regularly awarded medals for 'bravery'? Perhaps they are 'tough' by occasionally having to stay in mere 3 star hotels? Do tell..

To be honest, I have only noticed one improvement, in the unbiased reporting. News correspondent from Paris reporting the French/Mali conflict, disagreed with the slanted questions put by newsreaders. Well done, Sir. Doffs cap.

If you want me to join you, BBC, PLEASE - open more articles for commentary: We are not sops - like thoughtless sponges. We are an audience of intelligent, thinking, opinionated persons who have passion for expressing ourselves. So, why are so few of the most controverisal articles open for comment? Are you afraid we might interject something controversial?

I watched the video and heard the phrase "telling you the truth" which seeing how the BBC is just a mouthpiece for UK/US Pentagon propaganda it is incredible how blatant the lies have now become. For unbiased reporting I look to Russia Today. Thanks.

Put lipstick on a pig, dress it in a wedding gown but it's oinks, snorts, and stinks.Technology can't rescue BBC from depths this once great org has plunged.Time and again what's revealed paints a sad picture of an org that's overbloated, entirely self serving.The biggest mouth in the English speaking world got bigger but it's no less tedious to parse the real news from mountains of junk it spews

Instead of moving to a new building it would have been better to have spent the money on producing more content so we don't have to hear the same stuff over and over and over again.While you're at it, send your reporters to a real journalism school so they can understand the difference between reporting the news and editorializing it."The World's Newsroom", how pretentious.Very British.

Did it not work then?
Just tuned into the beeb 24 hours news channel and it was as blurry as ever.
Couple flicks and i have got a news channel in sparkly HD.
Or did you not mean for this change to benefit licence fee payers.

As long as Alice Bhandhukravi stays with you, all will be well. Alice is a breath of fresh air in the reporting world, she radiates a feeling of 'I can believe this girl'. I just hope she doesn't turn into the run-of-mill, often boring, reporter.

Why can we not get it in the U K?

@Hamlet "Why can we not get it in the U K?"

The channel carries adverts and therefore can't be shown in the UK. Also it would divert viewers from the UK BBC News Channel (ne News 24).

I've just seen the photos of Broadcasting House... Wow! I guess that's one more difference when comparing the BBC and SABC - give the SABC a billion quid for premises and you'd probably still be looking for the building! I think it's a great new digs for what really is a world-class service.

Well it certainly looks like a place I'd be proud to be working in... given the quality of service the BBC does provide (the world!), I believe the staff deserve it.

@Alain Mostert... LOL but hardly a fair comparison

ps: bit disappointing to read so many negative comments here - guess you guys haven't been exposed to the rubbish majority of the world's public broadcasters produce. BBC is a gem!

I just took a look at on Livestation and I must say I am very disappointed. The anchor looks awkward standing up and the graphics and god awful. Please get them back to sitting down at the desk and change the graphics. They look very cheap and took close together as well.

Whose paying, who is the Editor, how is it financed and what happens to the either side of the desks when the advertisers threaten to withdraw (most large multi nationals I used to use as case studies for my business 'ethics' classes.

Less gush, more bottom please.

Andrew and the rest of BBC Staff:
The new set-up is just beautiful....I was skeptical about the new studios and etc; but, it brings the entire BBC organisation in "one" Central Location...

Great look (better than the last). Hope we get news on the weekends - 'cos I don't consult BBC on Saturday or Sunday - you're all at home. Jury's out. Hoping for more content

As a US citizen returned to his UK roots I find the BBC to remain a bastion of decent journalism. No institution is perfect but the BBC raises a bar so high that commercial TV, even Murdoch's SKY, is acceptable.
After being subjected (brainwashed or brain damaged) to the Murdoch's FOX network I thank the BBC for striving toward excellence.

'16. At 18:48 14th Jan 2013, Mzwelindiwe wrote:'

Guess again (given BBC Editorial, a plus in any reporting application). But I was also not compelled to fund them to get 'uniques' in other areas beyond accurate and impartial information and education too.

Looking forward to better reports on the rapidly changing pace of events in the Middle East. Just one request: could you please replace the actor playing the role of an injured man carried by other so called victims of violence from either the Israelis, Syrian Government and all. I am tired of seeing him in so many report from different countries. I suggest he alternates with a woman 'victim'.

A family in sorry disrepute moved to a new home but it's still the same family.No change.Jimmy Savile shows what BBC is really about.Apologies after the fact are empty words.Management couldn't have changed what happened to prior victims but could have prevented future vicitims had it acted once it was aware.The message to other aware employees, this is how we do things around here.

The test of what people are about is when they act without being aware or considering what they do will become public knowledge later on.When they think their actions will remain private and faced with a choice, a private moral dilemma how will they act?Jimmy Savile shows how BBC management instinctively reacts and no one who knew protested.It's about all of you.

I think BBC might have picked the wrong location for its new headquarters.Given its obsession with the USA it should have picked New York City, Washington DC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Las Veges.Today its focus was Lance Armstrong's interview with Oprah Winfrey, suicide rates in the US military, gun control in the US.What will be its American obsession tomorrow?We'll just have to wait and see

@sieuarlu - a bit unfair to paint the entire BBC in a bad light that because of the Jimmy Savile incident. You'd be hard pressed to find any large corporate without some kind of skeleton garbage in its closet.

I do wonder however whether the extra cash spent on the new home could not have been better spent elsewhere.

Beautiful sight I must say. Caught my eye when I saw the sweet blue background first and was trying to figure out what was different with the news presentation on that day till the presenter mentioned it. For a few moments I started watching the studio and not the news :-)

can someone tell me why the image of possibly one of the worst sex offender in british history should adorn the front page of the bbc website .......am i missing something
its disgusting ......cheers ....former savile fan

I love the BBC but I would much rather have seen the money spent on improving other parts of the service than using it for moving to a flashy location. Still, I suppose for the staff it's a good move.

From the comments above, I think the Savile incident is detracting from what's a positive move for BBC. It's great for the staff and as suggested in the NewsGame post on the new BBC digs, I believe it will foster stronger, much-needed collaboration within the newsroom team if the correct processes are in place there.

Please try some investigative journalism with which your audience could ask some interesting questions. For example instead of repeating Reuters claims since 1969 that the UN granted Indonesia sovereignty of West Papua, the BBC could report what the UN actually said and ask if the 1962 agreement referred to by the General Assembly was a trusteeship agreement as per chapter 12 of the UN charter?

For decades editorial comments have been creeping into news reports, the first job is to investigate and then report the facts and relevant context before padding a news report with opinion or comment. Sometimes that means you have to return to a news story if you make a later news worthy discovery, and those should be the content of current affairs & investigative journalism programs :)