Bradby at Ten

Some of his great "intelligence" and "personality" really shining in that article there

He is completely delusional. "News at Ten" is not a great British institution. It WAS up until 1999, and ever since then it has bumped along as an also ran - he even admits this when he says the 'old' News at Ten (2008-2015) was hardly watched and had practically zero impact. How can something still be considered an "institution" in those circumstances?

This also shows the feeling inside ITN/ITV. They still see that 10pm slot as theirs - how dare the BBC have come along and 'stole' it from them. It smacks of jealousy and it reeks right the way through this piece. His thinking is clearly there - ITN and the BBC were evenly matched in the 90s both in reputation and audience, then the original News at Ten ended, the BBC stole their slot and now they want it back but cant understand why the viewers no longer see them as equals to the BBC.

You also have to love what he says about facts not being important and how they exist on the internet. Sorry, no. Your JOB is to highlight the facts - thats why its the news. Credible, factual journalism is what drives authority and respect. The internet is awash with half baked websites full of conspiracy theories, slanted opinion presented as fact and downright lies - they don't accurately inform. Nice to see that ITV don't think they can compete with them...

The laughable thing is that the article quotes three anti-BBC Tweets in support of Bradby, one accusing Huw Edwards of "delusions of grandeur" and another slamming Edwards for the ratings boast with "Easy when there's no adverts, isn't it?" I don't think it's Edwards with "delusions of grandeur".

As well as the full page spread and a lovely beaming picture of Bradby on page 1, we also have a news piece on page 3 introducing Bradby's article, "Bradby: BBC like Roman empire" that wants to put itv out of business.

A case of Bradby and itv's agenda dovetailing perfectly with Rupert Murdoch's.

No one can blame ITN and Tom for fighting. Maybe some of you Tom haters would prefer ITV just to scrap News At Ten and throw in the towel?? After all unless mistaken ITV's requirement for news would be met with the 6.30 show and a show at 10.30 of 15 minutes. I think it's brilliant for the UK news ecology that ITV is being supportive of ITN and News at Ten and is investing so much in the brand. If tomorrow there is no alternative on network tv to the stuffy BBC the UK media landscape will be worse off and all you miseryguts will have find something else to moan about. Remember it's easy to criticise...

No, we'd prefer News at Ten to be presented by someone with a wealth of newscasting experience, who doesn't bore us with his opinions on the day's events. I don't care about what Tom thinks, I just want to be told what's happened, in a non-patronising way.

There's the criticism of the BBC stealing the 10pm slot. Well, when ITV axed News at Ten the first time, 1999, Sky News decide to, almost immediately, rename their 10pm bulletin, Sky News at Ten. So, are they saying it's ok for Sky to steal the slot but not the BBC?

But here's a thought; why does ITV want to go for the 10pm slot? If it isn't happy with the BBC taking it, why now have a bulletin at 9.30pm?

Experience. Gravitas. Sincerity. Talent. Do you want me to continue? Alastair Stewart has an individual style in that he a) anchors the broadcast; b) doesn't emote; and c) recognises that his role is to report the news, not tell people what they should feel or think. There is a huge difference between what he does and what Tom Bradby does.

Yes. Sir Alastair Burnet had an editorial role within the broadcast. So does any anchor. If you asked, I'm pretty sure that Mark Austin, Julie Etchingham, Alastair Stewart, Michael Buerk, Anna Ford, Peter Sissons, Huw Edwards, Jon Snow, Kirsty Wark and Sophie Raworth would tell you that they, too, edit or edited their respective broadcasts. In fact, spend some time on YouTube. There's a behind the scenes segment of Huw Edwards during his tenure at 6pm in which he's involved in the editorial meetings. Equally, there's a behind the scenes segment with Michael Buerk on the day Margaret Thatcher fired half of the cabinet in 1990 (?) - it had been a quiet news day and it went to hell in a handcart pretty sharpish. He was involved in the editorial decisions. Yes - Tom Bradby is involved in the editorial decisions, as are most (if not, all) anchors. The difference is the injection of personal commentary and sentiment. None of the above did that.

For the record, there have been quite a few comparisons with US network news bulletins. It's true that the anchors also carry the title 'Managing Editor' but in many ways it is an honorific. In those instances where an anchor does decide to make a 'personal' intervention in a story, it is customarily labelled as such. Walter Cronkite's editorial on the Tet Offensive was clearly a personal intervention and was referred to as such. Equally, Scott Pelley's recent comments about the shootings in Charleston and elsewhere in the US were labelled as 'comment' and not editorial positioning. That demarcation does not exist in Tom Bradby's copy.

Earlier on in this thread, itsrobert referred to the "innate on air skills of Suchet or Stewart". I couldn't have summed it up any better. When Alastair Stewart anchored his final News at Ten, there was no reference to it in the broadcast. That's the mark of the individual. He was not the story. The only reference, for those that realised, was the nod of the head and the tenderness with which Natasha Kapkinsky referred to him. I cannot, in all honesty, foresee the same modesty in the event that Tom Bradby should stop down. It would be about him.



You didn't. Nor did ITN. I think Mr Bradby needs to review their professional history. Julie Etchingham was, and is, far and away one of the best journalists and newscasters of her generation. It wasn't ITN or ITV News that did that. It was the BBC. She started out on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire, before moving onwards to Newsround and later BBC Breakfast News. The BBC produced Julie Etchingham. Sky News produced Julie Etchingham more than ITN/ITV News has. And what of Mark Austin? He started out as a trainee with the BBC. Don't get me wrong - ITV News may have allowed them to flourish, to grow, but, please, Tom Bradby, do not claim that either of them are the product of ITN or ITV News.



And that's the problem. Consider, if you will, the average age of those that watch either the BBC or ITV bulletins at 10pm. I'm pretty certain it will skew towards the middle-aged or retired demographic as opposed to the 16-18, 19- 24 or 25-39 age brackets. Out of all of those who, in general , are more likely to use Google and online sources for their news?* Out of all of those, who, in general , are more likely to watch a traditional 30 minute broadcast?* It's reasonable - though not a certainty - that those in the former demographics (middle-aged or retired) are more likely to watch a 30 minute broadcast than use Google, Twitter, BuzzFeed or the Huffington Post for their news. My parents are reasonably knowledgeable about the internet (although I question it, sometimes). My mother's quite good at Twitter. My father can find out about golf. Yes, my mother may follow journalists on Twitter and want to know what's going on, but... it doesn't replace a well-edited and well-produced 30 minute broadcast that summarises the top stories of the day. Indeed, my father trusts the 1pm, 6pm and 10pm bulletins more than the News Channel. Is there really all that much difference. My parents are in their mid-70s. They don't want to rely on a mobile phone or tablet to tell them what's happening in the world. They'd like 30 minutes every couple of hours where somebody tells them what's happened. They want a 30 minute broadcast that gives them the facts. And, in the morning, they can read an actual newspaper, with ink and turning pages, and find out a little bit more. They do not need Tom Bradby to do that. They've come this far in life and made a reasonable stab at it. I don't think they say to themselves: "I wish we'd had Tom Bradby back in 1979. I may not have voted for Mrs Thatcher" or "I wish we'd had Tom Bradby in 1967 - I may not have gone on that CND march".

* I know. It's huge generalisation I've made there about a age groups etc. and their familiarity with the internet. That's why I've placed a caveat on it. I'm playing devil's advocate and looking at the argument from both sides, which is more than can be said of some members of this forum and, indeed, Tom Bradby.

By the same token, the UK media landscape would be worse off without BBC News. In the second time in as many weeks, Bradby is arguing that BBC News should be scaled down and it's wrong for the BBC to have a 10pm bulletin - if we accept the argument that it's good for the UK media landscape to be competitive, then Bradby should accept the alternative news source of the BBC and focus on his own bulletin instead of constantly and metaphorically peering over his shoulder.

It was wrong of Huw Edwards to brag about the ratings in his tweet earlier in the week but at least he hasn't gone to the extreme of suggesting that the BBC shouldn't have competition at 10pm (in fact, I believe he's on record as wishing itv well with the relaunch).

Read the latest article again and unlike the first, badly misjudged, one from a couple of weeks ago you'll see he is saying exactly what you want him to say. This one is very much about ITV needing to change their game rather than the BBC needing to rollover.

ITV has no choice (well, potentially see below) but to run the news at 10pm.

As things currently stand the TV audience in this country begins to decline after 10pm. Currently they run the news and pick up whatever audience they can and then effectively shut shop for the night as soon as its done. If they move the news to 22.30 then they are stuck in the situation they were in between 2004 and 2008, which is having to find something to fill a thirty minute slot at 22.00. Now that sounds easy, but it posed ITV huge problems in the past and it will be worse now. 30min commissions aren't in vogue these days - its easier to commission for 60mins. The alternative is you drag out your 21.00 programme out for 90mins, but again, thats a big ask to have the audience stick around that long and also poses problems for both secondary sales and (if I recall correctly), writers themselves finding it difficult to write for such a slot length with the number of commercial breaks this means.

That therefore leaves you running news at 21:30 which would most likely not be commercially viable and, as already stated, your competitors are running 60min shows from 21.00 that will retain their audience until 22.00. You're again stuck for what to fill a 30min slot with at 21:00...

ITV has nobody to blame but itself with this. It was a monumental error to scrap the original News at Ten on the basis of running longer films precisely when digital television made it easier than ever to get a wide choice of movies on Sky and Cable, and the introduction of DVDs.

As I see it ITV has two options right now. The obvious one is that they continue with the current News at Ten, in whatever form and presented by whomever they want and just accept the audience they get and stop whinging about the BBC. The second option is they return to the 23.00 Nightly News, and either reduce it down and divert funds to boosting the 18.30 bulletin or introduce a short update at 22.00 ala BBC 8pm news or 5 News Updates. To be quite honest, the objection that the ITC had about the ITV Nightly News being a ghetto probably wouldn't hold water these days given that OfCom have rolled over so often in the past when ITV have wanted to reduce news commitments, and, as even Bradby says, you can get factual news whenever you want online.

Of course if there had to go for the 11pm slot what would there fill the 10-11pm slot? Then it begs the question how ITV would deal with STV/UTV and ITV border all having other shows at 10.30 slot Mon-Friday. If there were a few 30mins shows I bet there could just spread them over the week at 10pm and have local political shows at 10..30, nightly news at 11pm and then one hour show from else where at 11.20. it would also mean UTV/STV and ITV border having to broadcast until 01.20 before STV to have After Midnight.

I have read the article again and though this is an ever so slightly better judged, if conceited, piece it also includes the following paragraph:

"BBC News has grown into a behemoth, with as much power and sway over the industry as imperial Rome once enjoyed. The sun rises with the Today programme and sets with Newsnight and the BBC’s per- sonalities are the ones we are all most familiar with: Marr, Peston, Robinson."

If that isn't bemoaning the competition and suggesting that BBC News should be scaled down because Mr Bradby wants things his own way, I don't know what is.

Also, Bradby accuses the BBC moving its news to 10pm once itv vacated the slot as being "cynical". I would say that his decision to comment derisively on the scale of BBC News is just as - if not more so - cynical a move, coming as it does during a period of BBC Charter Renewal and John Whittingdale's comments about the BBC scheduling the news at 10pm. Cynical indeed.

A bit rich for anybody from ITV to discuss "personalities" on the news. There was no bigger personality than Reginald Bosanquet. His reputation for a drop of the good stuff and the 'frisson' between him and Anna Ford made the news a must-see. Equally, Trevor McDonald became a source of imitation and mimicry - think Lenny Henry and his impersonation as Trevor McDoughnut. Look further afield and there was the 'Famous Five' when TV-am launched, packed full of personalities to attract as large an audience as possible.

And if the cult of personality causes such an issue, why hire the likes of Susanna Reid, Piers Morgan and Robert Peston?

Mr Bradby, you're supposed to sit on your backside, not talk out of it.