That wasn't what I was saying, but I think you may have (perhaps inadvertently) proven other people's point for them.
Then what was your point?
a) That (while I appreciate this is a pres forum), the "Bradby loyalists" who've posted in this thread seem to care at the expense of all else about the snazzier elements that - irrespective of the argument that such features harm a long and well-earned journalistic legacy - turn the pres-nerd in them into a 12-year-old girl receiving a personal visit from One Direction on Christmas morning
and b) If - as you say - they haven't covered Myanmar yet (and I very much hope they do), doesn't that prove others' point that ITV's near-faultless field journalism is suffering because Bradby needs an extra 30 seconds at the end (an eternity in bulletin terms) to make remarks or crack jokes that wouldn't have been included prior to his tenure?
JU
thejules
There are no snazzy elements its a purely editorial relaunch???? And no news bulleting can or should cover every story what counts is the quality of the reporting on the stories chosen. I like the snappy analysis preceding the reports I learnt that the West engineered the coup to replace Iran's democratically elected government with the Shah because of....OIL LOL ...which ultimately led to the arrival of the Islamic fundamentalists.
That wasn't what I was saying, but I think you may have (perhaps inadvertently) proven other people's point for them.
Then what was your point?
a) That (while I appreciate this is a pres forum), the "Bradby loyalists" who've posted in this thread seem to care at the expense of all else about the snazzier elements that - irrespective of the argument that such features harm a long and well-earned journalistic legacy - turn the pres-nerd in them into a 12-year-old girl receiving a personal visit from One Direction on Christmas morning
and b) If - as you say - they haven't covered Myanmar yet (and I very much hope they do), doesn't that prove others' point that ITV's near-faultless field journalism is suffering because Bradby needs an extra 30 seconds at the end (an eternity in bulletin terms) to make remarks or crack jokes that wouldn't have been included prior to his tenure?
I'm not a Bradby loyalist but are you seriously saying that ITV's near-faultless field journalism is suffering because he's stealing half a minute of news in order to massage his ego fully? Isn't he just using the 30 seconds that used to be taken up looking at "tomorrow's front pages" to look at "what's making the news agenda tomorrow". A perfectly reasonable way to end the bulletin. Makes much more sense than glimpsing what the editor of newspaper (I wouldn't read if you paid me) thinks of what's already happened doesn't it?
That wasn't what I was saying, but I think you may have (perhaps inadvertently) proven other people's point for them.
Then what was your point?
a) That (while I appreciate this is a pres forum), the "Bradby loyalists" who've posted in this thread seem to care at the expense of all else about the snazzier elements that - irrespective of the argument that such features harm a long and well-earned journalistic legacy - turn the pres-nerd in them into a 12-year-old girl receiving a personal visit from One Direction on Christmas morning
and b) If - as you say - they haven't covered Myanmar yet (and I very much hope they do), doesn't that prove others' point that ITV's near-faultless field journalism is suffering because Bradby needs an extra 30 seconds at the end (an eternity in bulletin terms) to make remarks or crack jokes that wouldn't have been included prior to his tenure?
I think he's just using the 30 seconds that used to be taken up looking at "tomorrow's front pages" to look at "what's making the news agenda tomorrow" which makes much more sense than glimpsing what the editor of newspaper I wouldn't read if you paid me thinks of what's already happened.
It's very much like the "5 Things Happening Tomorrow" section on STV's Scotland Tonight.
Whilst I agree with a lot of your argument here, Skygeek, I do think that that last point is irrelevant. I think the fact people would not 'say' they didn't watch ITV because of the set does not mean that, subconsciously, unknowingly, they did not go elsewhere because their overall perception of the service was negative.
It's much like I might not 'say' that I do not shop at my local Morrisons because I'm not a fan of its decor - but, without me realising it, it's not my first choice of supermarket because it feels tired and dingy, despite it being significantly cheaper than the brighter, fresher M&S.
Indeed. Newsreaders standing and walking in front of giant screens (take Sky News' ridiculously oversized video wall) can give an impression of sensationalism. Presentation is important.
If I may wade into the discussion, I'd like to make a couple of points.
I think there are elements of truth in both sides of the argument here. As I'm sure most of you are aware, I am what could be considered an ITN loyalist. That said, I don't think everything is spot on about this soft relaunch - in fact, I dislike it that much that I've only watched it twice and have watched the BBC News at Ten a couple of times this week because I didn't feel like being patronised by Bradby on the other side. I haven't watched the BBC News at Ten intentionally for at least a decade (although I do watch the Six regularly, I hasten to add). ITV News has been my default choice for late night news for a very long time - probably since Buerk and Sissons left the BBC Ten. So for me not to want to watch it, something mustn't be right from an editorial perspective.
However, on a separate note, I think it's incredibly naive to say that nobody cares about presentation. For a start, you're posting on a TV presentation fan forum. That might not be the best place to spout off opinions like that. If you don't think TV presentation is important, then maybe this forum isn't the best place to hang out. TV Forum always has been about presentation; in fact, it was borne out of a website called TV Home which was exclusively about TV pres. It's never been a Digital Spy and it never will be.
Secondly, presentation is merely branding; and we all know just how much time and money companies spend on their branding. This is absolutely no different. If a product looks like a pile of crap, then nobody's going to buy it. That's exactly the same of TV News - on a conscious or subconscious level. If it looks unappealing, viewers will tune out - content alone is not enough to make someone watch it. It's a whole package and trying to separate them is just ridiculous.
Robert, I've appreciated your work from the very beginning and that's why I post here. What I think has irked some people, though, is the overly-effusive (not to mention repetitive) praise offered up by certain members when they've already made their opinion perfectly clear.
I get that it's a pres forum, and I'm a geek for that stuff, too. But if anyone here thinks the folks at ITV - or any network, for that matter - are coming off-air every day full of the joys of their own wonderfulness in the vein of the "Bradby-ites" who've posted here, then I'm afraid they are very much mistaken
I speak from personal experience when I say that working in frontline TV journalism is a continual exercise in critical reflection on everything from how we cover the issues to whether we have a TOTH voiceover. As such, your point about taking an holistic view is entirely correct, and I'm sorry if that didn't come across in the construction of my argument.
But my main point is this: In professional terms, we - that is to say those of us who work on the programmes you watch - don't think the sun shines out of our backsides ((at least, most of us don't!). If Tom Bradby is smart (and I suspect he is), neither should he - and therefore, neither should anyone else.
That wasn't what I was saying, but I think you may have (perhaps inadvertently) proven other people's point for them.
Then what was your point?
a) That (while I appreciate this is a pres forum), the "Bradby loyalists" who've posted in this thread seem to care at the expense of all else about the snazzier elements that - irrespective of the argument that such features harm a long and well-earned journalistic legacy - turn the pres-nerd in them into a 12-year-old girl receiving a personal visit from One Direction on Christmas morning
and b) If - as you say - they haven't covered Myanmar yet (and I very much hope they do), doesn't that prove others' point that ITV's near-faultless field journalism is suffering because Bradby needs an extra 30 seconds at the end (an eternity in bulletin terms) to make remarks or crack jokes that wouldn't have been included prior to his tenure?
It would take a few minutes for an extra special report. Therefore, 30 seconds make no difference. By the way, nothing noteworthy has happened in Myanmar (I like to still call it Burma) recently.
That wasn't what I was saying, but I think you may have (perhaps inadvertently) proven other people's point for them.
Then what was your point?
a) That (while I appreciate this is a pres forum), the "Bradby loyalists" who've posted in this thread seem to care at the expense of all else about the snazzier elements that - irrespective of the argument that such features harm a long and well-earned journalistic legacy - turn the pres-nerd in them into a 12-year-old girl receiving a personal visit from One Direction on Christmas morning
and b) If - as you say - they haven't covered Myanmar yet (and I very much hope they do), doesn't that prove others' point that ITV's near-faultless field journalism is suffering because Bradby needs an extra 30 seconds at the end (an eternity in bulletin terms) to make remarks or crack jokes that wouldn't have been included prior to his tenure?
It would take a few minutes for an extra special report. Therefore, 30 seconds make no difference. By the way, nothing noteworthy has happened in Myanmar (I like to still call it Burma) recently.
And another reason you're just factually wrong there is that - often - correspondents and their producers cut bits out of their VTs that they'd dearly love to keep. It's not a question of having to sacrifice an entire piece, but rather, potentially not being able to tell a story you ARE running as fully as you might like.
JU
thejules
Another excellent show tonight loved the And Finally on la bataille d'Agincourt LOL
