Schwing's posts, page 10

Bradby at Ten

This is why I rarely post on here. Too many members of the Forum think a one sentence reply is sufficient and don't offer any explanation or justification. It's a forum. It's for conversation, debate, dialogue, discussion. It's symptomatic of the direction this forum has taken in recent times that too many members post something and think that they won't be challenged over it.

Why are my comments "codswhallop" [sic]? Which part or parts do you disagree with and why? Where in my post did I say that News at Ten was not strong? In what way did I discuss the commercial viability of the regional news?

Bradby at Ten

Quite right. My mistake! Its subscription and advertising revenues.

Bradby at Ten

How often do you see BBC's anchors and correspondents criticising ITV and its news operation? You don't. As a rule of thumb, they'll say that the competition is strong and that the Corporation must be as strong, if not stronger, to compete with it. To say that ITV has displayed too much reverence towards the BBC and it needs to be more 'arrogant', as you so crassly put it, is being a touch dramatic.

Fewer people watch ITV News bulletins than those on the BBC. The question is why? There are two reasons. The first can be traced to 1999 and the decision to axe News at Ten and replace it with the Evening News (6.30pm) and the Nightly News (11pm). It was a poor decision dictated solely by ratings. Viewers objected to having films or programmes interrupted by the News at Ten and then a local bulletin. It happened again on Friday with Skyfall. When a film or programme restarted at 10.40pm, the viewing figures were rarely the same as they were beforehand.

The BBC saw an opportunity and, sensibly, jumped on it. There is no broadcaster in the world that, given the opportunity, wouldn’t run a block of programming from 7pm to 10pm. That’s why the ITV decision never made sense. For the record, when the BBC announced that the Nine O’Clock News would be cancelled and moved to 10pm, there were sufficient numbers of people who welcomed the move.

When ITV reintroduced the News at Ten, it faced two challenges: regaining the ground it had lost to the BBC in the intervening period and avoiding the issue that had long-dogged its predecessor - interrupting films and programmes. The solution to this was to move the news to accommodate programming, so, if a live football match or film needed extra time, the news would begin straight afterwards. This gave rise to the News at When monicker. They strengthened the BBC’s hand by being too flexible. As viewers could not rely on a programme beginning at 10pm on ITV, they switched to the BBC instead.

The second reason for ITV’s current problem is the lead-in. To attract viewers to a programme you need to have a programme beforehand which is equally as strong. When you schedule a programme such as Broadchurch or Lewis at 9pm you know that a certain number of viewers will be viewing the channel. Yet when you air a documentary fronted by a ‘celebrity’ or an hour-long special of Coronation Street, then you risk losing viewers. Of course, the challenge presented today by BBC Two, Channel Four and BBC Four is much stronger than it used to be - think of GBBO starting out on BBC Two before moving to BBC One.

I’ve watched the ‘new’ News at Ten on ITV. The reporting is exceptional. It always has been. The problem is the ‘packaging’. Tom Bradby just doesn’t work. If you saw his Election coverage you’ll know he wasn’t cut out for it. The ‘conversational’ approach that he’s adopted, coupled with the ‘editorialising’ is in no way suitable for a broadcast with a history as rich as News at Ten.

His comments about the BBC were wholly inappropriate. Does he really believe that the News Channel should be closed and 24-hour news should be left solely to Sky? I know he says the money should be invested in BBC World News but BBC World News is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and caters to a vastly different audience. There are restrictions on BBC World News being broadcast in this country. And he should remember that ITV had its own News Channel. The rationale behind it was to offer something different from that on offer by the BBC and Sky. In terms of his comments about the BBC website, I accept that it is big. But lets put it in perspective. The BBC is publicly-funded and it’s mandate is, in the words of Lord Reith, “educate, inform and entertain” the entirety of the nation. It has a network of radio stations - local, national and international - that cater to everybody. Irrespective of ethnic background, religious conviction, age, gender or political beliefs, there’s classical music, pop music, indie music, local radio that addresses local concerns and language-specific stations such as BBC Radio Cymru. It has a network of regional, national and international bureaux that it can use for its news output and cover a story in as much detail as possible. Does BBC News - on all platforms - hurt local newspapers. Yes, but when you consider what’s in the local newspapers, it isn’t a big surprise.

The BBC is far from perfect. To criticise it in the way in which Tom Bradby has is inappropriate and does a disservice to the likes of Alastair Burnett, Sandy Gall, Reginald Bosanquet, Trevor McDonald and all those that came before him. ITV News - or ITN - existed before he came along. He should be mindful of that. He is merely the public face and if the public don’t like it, they’ll soon let you know.

New Look Andrew Marr Show

This Saturday's edition of Breakfast attracted 1.30m viewers (32.3% share) between 6am and 10am.
Yesterday's edition of Breakfast drew 0.93m viewers (32.8% share) between 6am and 9am.
The Marr show attracted 1.62m viewers (23.6% share)

The Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Thread

If you want more information about how the Calendar newsroom operated you should try and source a documentary that Channel Four aired in the mid-90s. I used to live in Yorkshire and had moved away by 1991. At the time the documentary went to air it, it brought back many memories. Anyway, Channel Four ran a strand of programming on the news business (for want of a better phrase) and looked at every aspect: newsgathering, print journalism, broadcasting, national vs. international, etc.
They recorded and broadcast a behind the scenes documentary at Calendar as part of this strand. IIRC it ran for 4 or 5 weeks (longer than the week-long strand of programming). It after the opening of the Calendar News Centre; I remember because Calendar itself came from an elevated studio platform in the corner of the News Centre below where Nick Powell and Geoff Druett were broadcasting.
For some reason I have it in the back of my mind that Calendar wasn't the first choice for the documentary. Channel Four had approached CNN and wanted to film there for at least 6 months. CNN said no and Channel Four looked elsewhere. As Yorkshire Television was about to open the News Centre, they approached them. The rest, as they say, is history.

International News Presentation: Past and Present

www.thefreetvnetwork.com/watchcbslive
There are usually pop ups and adverts but it's reliable enough.

New BBC Singapore studio

Sorry Harry, but you're wrong. It is the river. If you look in the centre of the oval, there's a white line - that's the Millennium Bridge. Behind it is Tate Modern.

bbc.co.uk

When did they supersize the Breaking News bar on the website? Until today it's always appeared much smaller on any browser that I've used. Today - much different. Two lines - top with Breaking caption and bottom with text of the story.

BBC News: Presenters & Rotas

And Nick Servini - Wales Political Editor

Good Morning Britain - the launch

For the love of God! Where have I said that you - and other members of TVForum - are not a member of the viewing public? Nowhere. I'm a member of TVForum too yet I consider myself a member of the viewing public.

Secondly, where have I said that your opinion, as a member of TVForum, matters less? I haven't. I have said that we, as members of a forum that discusses television presentation, view matters differently to members of the general public. If you read all that I have posted in regards to Good Morning Britain, you will see that I have said that I like the changes. They are changes that have long been called for in British television. Something to rejuvenate an otherwise staid market. What I said, and I repeat it here, is that the 2,300 plus members of TVForum will view a relaunch in a way which is entirely different to most people in this country. I have not said your opinion matters any less. What I have said is that those behind the relaunch cannot direct their efforts to please a select group, ie., the member of TVForum (me included), who think that British television is crying out for an overhaul.



I didn't say that 'Chantelle down the Co-op' would be right if she criticised the graphics. I said that just because 'people like us', ie., you, me and others who work in and make decisions in broadcasting, pay attention to detail, it does not mean that we are right. Think of the outcry when the BBC introduced new graphics for the weather. The angle at which the country was viewed may have been physically correct and a true a reflection of the curvature of the Earth but it just didn't work on screen. It didn't matter how much the executives at the BBC believed that they were right. It didn't work.

I agree that there is a benefit to be gained for all concerned if creatives and executives like the broadcast. That being said, creatives and executives must also refrain from ignoring or pouring scorn upon those who would prefer to see the return of 'Datbreak' (as one of our fellow members brought to our attention earlier. Creatives and executives must also refrain from thinking that their decision is the right one and that the viewers will like it. Indeed, the fact that we are arguing over this point is proof in and of itself.

I said, quite clearly, that Good Morning Britain needs time. I said that the viewing figures for the first day will be regarded as 'lacklustre' given the variables, ie., Susanna Reid's personality and following, etc. The executives at ITV would have hoped for a bigger uptick, probably approaching 500,000, which would fall back to 200,000 the following day.

Good Morning Britain - the launch

I didn't say that. I said we on TVForum think differently about presentation, etc. I said how we think about these changes is entirely different kettle of fish to they way the general public think about them.


Did I say otherwise? No. I said we think differently about presentation, etc. I said that these changes have been implemented with little thought to what the audience actually expects or wants.


Therein lies the problem. 'People like us... that make decisions in advertising and broadcasting in general'. Just because 'people like us... make decisions in advertising and broadcasting in general' doesn't make us right. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink if it doesn't want to. You can make all of the changes under the sun to Good Morning Britain. You can tell the viewers that they will like these changes and that they make the show better and that these are the people you want to see at breakfast. If the viewers look at it and say 'No' they will look elsewhere.

Good Morning Britain - the launch

In all honesty, it's too soon to say that Good Morning Britain could be a hit for ITV. What we think of it here, amongst ourselves, is neither here nor there. We discuss presentation and studio design. The slightest deviation from a 'normal' rota and some members become apoplectic. Mr & Mrs Ordinary of Anytown with three children, two cars, a mortgage and a pension fund that isn't performing at all well do not care about 99% of the issues that we discuss. I said it yesterday and I'll say it again - what the general public think of Good Morning Britain is an entirely different kettle of fish to what you, me, Asa or anybody else on here thinks. Cando echoed my thoughts yesterday:



The issue of 4:3 safe area graphics exemplifies this. They may look good but are they practical? Not everybody customises their set-top box or knows how to switch between 16:9 and 4:3 on their televisions. Some people (my parents included) still have old fashioned portable TVs in their house. The TV serves a purposes. It still works. Nobody is going to change their TV in order to see graphics that are poorly executed. They'll switch to another channel instead.



Exactly. The quality of the broadcast matters not one jot. The ITV News at Ten has exceptional reporting yet it has suffered due to poor lead-ins, scheduling issues and a need to rebrand at the drop of a hat. People like stability. They like consistency. Aside from the move to Broadcasting House, there has been no change to the BBC News at Ten. Aside from a move to Salford, people knew that they could switch on BBC Breakfast and see Bill Turnbull or Charlie Stayt or Susanna Reid. The perpetual rebranding of ITV at breakfast - from GMTV to Daybreak to Good Morning Britain - has alienated viewers. Based upon comments left on the Facebook page for Good Morning Britain, most people expect the show to change again within six to twelve months.

It is difficult to establish trust or be loyal to a brand if you don't know what that brand is.