NBC News, MSNBC, ABC News and others from across the pond

I guess if they have recruited a Brit from ITN because her skills were deemed better than those of US equivalents, they may also believe that their operation would benefit from other support - like Programme Editors, production journalists etc. - also moving across to work with her if she suggests it?

Isn't the Head of News vouching for someone probably the best recommendation you can get?

Quite a lot of the recent press coverage on why US News organisations are recruiting from the UK reflects a difference in mindset between UK and US TV journalism (illustrated by Jeremy Paxman's interview style based on "Why is this lying b**tard lying to me?")

And in the scheme of things, UK production journalists are not high earners, and paying out their contracts will be relatively insignificant in budget terms I suspect.

CBS hired Holly Williams from Sky a year or two ago, and NBC hired Keir Simmons from ITN last year. In both cases there were strong links between the organisations - and NBC's relationship with ITV predates Turness' appointment. You're unlikely to see Mark Austin replace Brian Williams, but it wouldn't be suprising to see some of the executives or producers who helped Turness develop and implement her vision at ITV be brought in at NBC if her new vision is similar. And Americans seem to love Britis onscreen 'talent'.

What I suspect makes British reporters heading to American organisations less likely is few of them have a strong background in presenting/anchoring. Most US reporters have served as reporters and presenters a several local news organisations before joining a national broadcaster, and many go on to serve as substitute anchors before, for some, becoming full-time anchors. These days few reporters at the BBC and ITN make the transition from presenter to reporter, or vice versa, and there seems to be a clear divide in the two pools in many cases.



I had no idea MSNBC employed so many people, but considering each programmes (so basically every single daytime/primetime hour) has its own staff, it's not surprising.




I'd agree with that, Charles. I think Morning Joe's perhaps become a bit too reliant on the same pool of commentators. And it's one thing to have former politicians on, like Harold Ford Jr, but these days it's not unheard of to have three former Obama advisors on in the same morning. And I'm slightly concerned the show won't regain its edge without Chris Licht. Since Alex took over its like the programme's tried to do things differently - like the graphics changes and that the newspapers are only between Joe and Mika away from the desk - without innovating or improving.

Huw Edwards, Jon Sopel, George Alagiah, Matthew Amroliwala, Ben Brown, Jeremy Bowen, Jeremy Paxman, Gavin Esler, the late Brian Hanrahan, Michael Buerk etc. all seem to go against that thesis - and that was just a quick off-the-top-of-my-head list.

There does seem to be a gender divide though? I can't think of as many female presenters who were experienced reporters prior to making the move to presentation?

Yes, although I did try and make a distinction between those who began presenting before 2000s, to those after. Even the likes of Sopel and Amroliwala have been high-profile presenters for years, and I think the broad consensus is that Ben Brown, Cathy Newman and Clive Myrie all made considerably better reporters than presenters.

Most of the women especially, as you say, have had pretty speedy rises. Many of them haven't served as reporters for national broadcasters, and those have like Susanna Reid and Annita Mcveigh spent no time at all in low-profile News Channel positions before becoming full time presenters. And I think several of the NC's female presenters (Hill, Gosling, Croxall) moved fairly quickly from regional programming to the joint overnights? Only Carrie Gracie and Maxine Mawhinney spring to mind as having any notable reporting experience.

Two fairly recent examples who have worked, though, are Marr and Evan Davis. They both seem naturals in and out of the studio, unlike their replacements Robinson and Flanders. And most of the sports reporters/presenters seem fairly verstile, though few transition to news.

The NYT's Brian Stelter reported a couple of weeks back that the Today Show will get a new set later this year, with the show moving to a "temporary summer set" next month so Studio 1A can be gutted. I wonder if thry'll use the same one they used in 2006 and for previous Olympics games, or perhaps something based on the 2012 Games setup? It's strange to think Today's set - so modern and sober compared to GMA and The Early Show's previous incarnations - is now as cold as its presenter's chemistry. What's the bet they go back to wood, like ABC and CBS?

Notably they're “rethinking the plaza experience.” Hmm.

www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/business/media/nbc-replaces-veteran-director-of-today.html?_r=0

And although no changes are expected to the team, I think thry'll replace Natalie Morales with someone like Hoda Kotb soon enough. Natalie doesn't click enough with the rest of the team, unlike Hoda, and the latter is so familiar to the audience there shouldn't be the Ann Curry-type problem. Hoda could still do the 10am broadcast, and Tamron Hall join the 9am broadcast with Willie and Al. I think the lack of chemistry between Matt and Natalie is even more noticable than it was between Matt and Ann when she was news anchor.

NBC Graphics failure ..... residents of New Hampshire annoyed

verbose apology here ……..

VIDEO on NBCNEWS.COM
10-Jul-2013 @ 19:05

Today Show says good-bye to the current look Studio 1A. Really love the look of it.

Hmm - lots of Meredith, blink and you missed Ann Curry (think she was in one shot?) Great way to celebrate 7 years of a studio and a show - edit out a major part of it.

Leaves a nasty taste in your mouth - until they sort that - they're still stuffed.

It really does, it's the elephant in the room. Their current bid to replicate the natural chemistry of the presenters on GMA is also forced beyond belief. Trying way too hard.

To me, that edit just appeared really pointedly to edit-out Ann from the show. Sure you didn't have to feature her hugely, but it looked to me as if they edited it specifically to exclude her, but include one brief shot so they could respond if anyone accused them of doing so. Mean spirited attitudes like that will not gain you viewers.

I don't think the Today show will ever recover from that until Matt Lauer leaves. They really could use a new set and graphics, but I don't think that a new coat of paint so to speak will help them that much. The show is still complete garbage, and it's going to take them a while to overcome their perception problems too.

Over six minutes of sycophantic studio worshipping - makes me angry just watching it. This programme has many issues clearly! Deborah Turness - do everything to sort this rubbish out.

All those presenters just seem so fake and, like everyone says, the chemistry is completely contrived.