TV
Double pres would have been possible if they didn't have the recent round of redundancies. Long hours are common in the industry, so it shouldn't be much of an issue for the presenter. LBC London News radio journalists do up to four hours non-stop on-air with the rolling news format (and then I suspect work in the newsroom afterwards). Where as Ms Beard presented 3.5 hours on-air today with a two hour gap in-between the bulletins probably prepping, booking and greeting guests for the lunchtime bulletin etc with the team she works with.
Ideally what they could do using the same resources is to have a handover at 1300. So the early presenter hands over to the 5.30-7pm presenter who then presents the 1-2 hour of London Live News.
Long hours is becoming the norm. It doesn't make it a good idea. One of the biggest issues in media over the last few years has been the accountants running content. On a spreadsheet, having a full time presenter working around 7 hours on air seems like a smart idea. The reality is that the presenters look and sound tired. You can even see this on the BBC. Often the regional breakfast presenters appear on the lunchtime bulletin. As a broadcaster you need to ask yourself - is it wise to scrimp and save to the point where we lose audience because our presenters look and sound like death warmed up? Does that really send out the right message? The best option is to have a breakfast presenter who comes off-air and helps behind the scenes after the breakfast show.
Absolutely agree but they don't have the staff to make it work any other way as people either leave or are made redundant and I understand a chunk of the team are now only part time. I hear on the industry grapevine that more people are either leaving or have left so ESI might not have to close it down after all as the station will shut itself down because there's no-one left to run it. It's beyond a joke now. So much for the brighter future people were talking about just 12/16 weeks ago.
Whenever I tune in now it just feels like the programming is either filler or something I have seen on the channel already (that's forgetting it's mostly repeats in the first place for the most part). It just feels stale and dated with the odd sporadic attempt at making an effort as it lurches into life for a short period of time. It just has the air of a tyre with a slow puncture.
It coincidentally came up in conversation with some industry friends recently and they've just given up on even wondering what the channel is doing. It's considered a dead duck. It's getting to the point where it will start hurting careers rather than helping them now I fear. I should go back to square one and or just end.
It probably has more to do with the fact that by noon, Alex or whoever is on earlies, is at least 5 hours into their shift and facing the prospect of another 2 hours of hosting solo.
Maybe dual presenting might help or a more even split between presenting shifts. Early presenter does 3.5 hours on air, whereas Late does 1.5 hours, though this is often combined with a bit of reporting from what I can see.
Maybe dual presenting might help or a more even split between presenting shifts. Early presenter does 3.5 hours on air, whereas Late does 1.5 hours, though this is often combined with a bit of reporting from what I can see.
Double pres would have been possible if they didn't have the recent round of redundancies. Long hours are common in the industry, so it shouldn't be much of an issue for the presenter. LBC London News radio journalists do up to four hours non-stop on-air with the rolling news format (and then I suspect work in the newsroom afterwards). Where as Ms Beard presented 3.5 hours on-air today with a two hour gap in-between the bulletins probably prepping, booking and greeting guests for the lunchtime bulletin etc with the team she works with.
Ideally what they could do using the same resources is to have a handover at 1300. So the early presenter hands over to the 5.30-7pm presenter who then presents the 1-2 hour of London Live News.
Long hours is becoming the norm. It doesn't make it a good idea. One of the biggest issues in media over the last few years has been the accountants running content. On a spreadsheet, having a full time presenter working around 7 hours on air seems like a smart idea. The reality is that the presenters look and sound tired. You can even see this on the BBC. Often the regional breakfast presenters appear on the lunchtime bulletin. As a broadcaster you need to ask yourself - is it wise to scrimp and save to the point where we lose audience because our presenters look and sound like death warmed up? Does that really send out the right message? The best option is to have a breakfast presenter who comes off-air and helps behind the scenes after the breakfast show.
Absolutely agree but they don't have the staff to make it work any other way as people either leave or are made redundant and I understand a chunk of the team are now only part time. I hear on the industry grapevine that more people are either leaving or have left so ESI might not have to close it down after all as the station will shut itself down because there's no-one left to run it. It's beyond a joke now. So much for the brighter future people were talking about just 12/16 weeks ago.
Whenever I tune in now it just feels like the programming is either filler or something I have seen on the channel already (that's forgetting it's mostly repeats in the first place for the most part). It just feels stale and dated with the odd sporadic attempt at making an effort as it lurches into life for a short period of time. It just has the air of a tyre with a slow puncture.
It coincidentally came up in conversation with some industry friends recently and they've just given up on even wondering what the channel is doing. It's considered a dead duck. It's getting to the point where it will start hurting careers rather than helping them now I fear. I should go back to square one and or just end.