Schwing's posts, page 9

Bradby at Ten

For what it's worth...

http://order-order.com/2015/11/03/tom-bradby-sex-appeal-figures-sexed-up/

Quick calculation using the figures quoted shows an average of 1.72 million.

UPDATE: Post on the above link has been updated. It now includes viewing figures for the first three weeks of the News at Ten under Tom Bradby. Average number of viewers for three weeks to last Friday (30th October) was 1.8 million with a peak of 2.9 million (the Skyfall edition).

With last nights' figures added in, as Guido notes, the average rises to a fraction over 2 million. Where on earth did The Times get the 500k figure from? Certainly, there are nights when there's an extra 200k or 300k, but unless they've compared to either a) the previous three weeks or b) year-on-year, then calculated the difference and averaged it, there is no consistent 500k increase in viewers.

Bradby at Ten

For what it's worth, I don't mind having guests in the studio being interviewed. Over the summer, the BBC ran a series of reports on trafficking, etc. and one broadcast stands out in particular. There was a report discussing child trafficking in the US and how the FBI was addressing the situation. The report was long-form (relative to a standard report on the Ten) and afterwards Clive Myrie was joined in the studio by either a representative of the FBI or somebody from the US Embassy to discuss the situation. In total, the report, links and the interview filled the first 13-15 minutes of the broadcast (approx.)

Afterwards, the broadcast still featured at least 3 or 4 standard packages, 2 live OBs, 3 or 4 tell-stories - with 1 live OB - and 3 or 4 voice overs. I remarked at the time to my family that it felt a little bit less like the Ten and a little bit more like the News Channel during the day. News, interviews, reasonably detailed reporting, etc. It shows how a broadcast can be different without changing too much.

It also shows how much additional time can be gained by a) starting the broadcast on time; and b) removing commercial breaks.

I didn't see last night's News at Ten. The only objection I would raise to the in-studio interview is the need for both Campbell and Wax to be there. It may have been better with one or the other. Alternatively, as Campbell's own mental health issues are reasonably well-known and Ruby Wax has spoken at length about her periods of depression, it may have been better to find somebody else to interview. I know that at one stage yesterday Andrew Mitchell, the former Chief Whip, was discussing his own depression following the libel trial and Plebgate. It may have offered a 'refreshing' - for want of a better word - alternative to hear from somebody other than those we already know about.

As I say, I have no objection to an in-studio interview. When executed fairly and properly they may explain or illuminate a story with far more clarity and insight than a packaged report. Indeed, the much-discussed changes to the BBC Ten O'Clock News would suggest that similar interviews may take place in the future. The objection that I would raise is to the choice of interviewee(s).

Bradby at Ten

Our of interest, does anybody have actual ratings figures for both the BBC and ITV bulletins? I've seen very little out there and the whole 'half a million in three weeks' statistic I'm taking with a pinch of salt.

As discussed on another forum, "the only weekday ITV News at Ten to make the Broadcast top 100 overnights chart for last week (ending 25 October) was the one Skyfall was wrapped around, on the Friday: 2.77m (16.9%) inc +1, not tape-checked. Nothing else above 2.20m (which we sort of knew anyway). Sunday's post-Downton edition got 2.92m (16.6%)."

Quick bit of maths... 2.77m - 2.20m is... oh, look at that... 500k or half a million. I doubt very much that the BBC has based any decision on the viewing figures for one night. It does, however, support my earlier comments that if the News at Ten had a stronger lead-in it would attract more viewers. The changes proposed by the Corporation have been in the pipeline for a few weeks and were discussed on the Guardian website nearly two months ago.

Bradby at Ten

Feel free to enlighten us. I, for one, would like to know what you regard as a "downmarket agenda".

Bradby at Ten

To quote Marx: "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others".

Bradby at Ten

A tit-bit from this morning's Express:

''The former political editor of ITN has reduced this half-hour bulletin to the equivalent of a chat down the pub with your mate...together with a casual style we now have Bradby's opinion. Sorry, but who cares ? ITV you have completely ruined your news.''

For the record, I do not read the Express. I've seen this reported on (sacré bleu!) another forum... Irrespective of the source, the point it valid. The conversational tone of the broadcast and the editorialising/opinions of Bradby do little to help.

Bradby at Ten

I've taken the liberty of highlighting key faults in your argument. Firstly, Mosaddegh was not the leader. He was the Prime Minster. The leader was the Shah. Mosaddegh didn't want to nationalise BP - it was the predecessor to BP, the AIOC, that he wanted to nationalise. If it was referred to as BP in the broadcast it was factually incorrect. Mosaddegh was not replaced by the Shah. He was removed from office and replaced by Fazlollah Zahedi.

It is, however, obtuse of you to say that "the detail is irrelevant". The detail is everything. Those of us here that work in these environments will testify to this. As you correctly say, the "historical analytical contexte" [sic] should be concise. Yet above all else it should be correct. It should be factually and historically accurate. For the record, the News at Ten has always engaged serious news. It is not a new development that was ushered in with Tom Bradby's arrival at the anchor desk. For someone who admires News at Ten so much and has discussed at length the strength of the ITN brand, you've demonstrated a rather surprising ignorance of the broadcast's history and pedigree.

Any attempt to engage in "serious news stories" (your words, not mine) is undermined if the facts are not accurately presented. As I've said, it may be that you misunderstood what was said but, if that's that case, it calls into question the clarity of the report and how the broadcast was edited and scripted.

Bradby at Ten

What Tom Bradby "probably meant" as opposed to what he said - and indeed, what others interpreted his comments to mean - are entirely different things. As @thejules has yet to respond, we won't know. It may appear that I'm being picky but we have been discussing the editorial tone of the broadcast and the high expectations that we all have of ITV's news division. If Tom Bradby's comments lacked sufficient clarity and failed to accurately present the facts then that is an issue that needs to be addressed. I want @thejules to clarify what was said. If that's his summary based upon how it was reported - there's a significant problem. If that's his summary and he's misunderstood , that's a problem - and it's especially ironic when he's gone to such lengths to praise the clarity and insight offered by the new News at Ten . It can't be all that clear if it isn't explaining things properly. As I also said, he could be cutting a long story short.

In respect of the assassination attempt, I did not say that Mosaddegh was either a) involved in an act of violence or b) involved in the assassination attempt. I said that the assassination attempt was one of a variety of reasons for his removal from power.

Bradby at Ten

Hang on. Can you run that by me again? The bit about the coup, Iran, the Shah, etc. If that's the way that News at Ten has presented the complexity of Iran (or Persia as it would have been at the time) then it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. This may be a case of cutting a long story short on your part, but if that is what you've taken away from the broadcast and accepted as fact, then I'm sorry, ITV News is up the proverbial. This is why news reports do an injustice towards history when it attempts to condense hundreds of years into a 90-second package.

Very brief history lesson coming up... The West did not engineer a "coup to replace Iran's democratically elected government with the Shah". The Qajar dynasty that had ruled Persia since 1789 was overthrown in 1925 because it was corrupt, weak and led by an eleven-year old Shah. It was also under an increasing threat from the Bolsheviks. It was replaced by the Pahlavi dynasty which was from the same house as the Qajar dynasty. In time, it moved away from a system of absolute monarchy to one of constitutional monarchy. The Shah appointed Prime Ministers that were 'democratically-elected' by the Parliament (not the people). In 1953, there was a coup d'etat that removed the 'democratically-elected' Prime Minister, Mosaddegh, and strengthened the hand of the Shah. There are a variety of reasons for the removal of Mosaddegh (an assassination attempt on the Shah, personal animosity, disagreements over oil and the predecessor to BP, and the fact that Mosaddegh was a close blood relative of the Qajar dynasty). What happened after, of course, is that the Shah was toppled in 1979, the monarchy abolished, and the Ayatollahs took control.

That's a summary of the events and is hardly touches on the complexity of the issues at play. If the News at Ten presented the history of the country as you've presented it, then I'm afraid they've done you a disservice.

Bradby at Ten

By what standard is this a "bold attempt to reinvent the brand"? If the brand to which you refer is New at Ten, then, arguably, it was reinvented in January 2008 when it returned to the schedules. It did so by returning to a two-anchor format, poaching talent from Sky News and appealing to the public by utilising Trevor McDonald. That is reinventing the brand. As a great many of us have said on here, the reporting always was, is and in all likelihood will continue to be, exceptional. The packaging that wraps itself around the reports, the anchor, the links, the editorial decisions taken the anchor, the injection of 'personal' comment and observations... Well, that's a different story entirely.

It's possible that had ITV left Julie Etchingham, Mark Austin and Alastair Stewart in place and given the bulletin a) a decent lead-in, other than spurious documentaries by celebrities or Britain's Got Talent; b) minimal commercial interruption; and c) the opportunity to start at 10pm, there is a pretty good chance that viewing figures would begin to rise. It's ironic - and grossly hypocritical - that the Chief Executive of ITV, Adam Crozier, has this week criticised the BBC for relying on staple shows - such as Bargain Hunt or Homes under the Hammer - during the day and that it doesn't "compete" or do anything different. This from a network which airs Jeremy Kyle, This Morning and Loose Women in the same slots and cannot beat shows about antiques and home renovations. Why did he not criticise the BBC in primetime? Because he couldn't. The BBC would only have to point to a) Britain's Got Talent and b) I'm a Celebrity to rebut the point. The quality of the lead-in is poor.

Tell me - how is Bradby an "intellectual"? He went to university and joined ITN (as it then was) upon graduation. I can see nothing in his resumé to suggest that he has an intellectual capacity greater than anybody else. If you judge his novel-writing to be a barometer of intellectual capacity then I'm afraid you are mistaken. Mr Bradby's path to the anchor desk is in no way to different to those of a) Sir Alistair Burnett; b) Sir Trevor McDonald; and c) Alastair Stewart. University to cub/junior/trainee reporter and a climb up the ranks. To imply, as you do, that Trevor McDonald was any less of a broadcaster or journalist than Bradby is, quite honestly, naive. His reports throughout the 80s and 90s were exceptional. I wonder how many members are old enough to remember first-hand his reports from Iraq during the first Persian Gulf War or his exclusives with world leaders, such as Mandela or Yeltsin that made headlines?

Bradby at Ten

First of all, it isn't an article by Huw Edwards, it's an article about the 10pm bulletins and includes his comments in response to Tom Bradby's interview.
Secondly, it isn't on the website. It's in the newspaper. If the newspaper hasn't been thrown out, I'd be more than happy to post it here.
Finally, do you intend explaining why you think my comments are "codswhallop" [sic] and why you disagree with them? As I said, this is a forum for dialogue and discussion.

Bradby at Ten

Interesting piece in the Telegraph today. Huw Edwards has waded into the discussion and replied to Tom Bradby's interview. Thrust of his comments are:

1) Everybody knows that ITV abandoned the 10pm slot. You do not have the right to complain and ask for the slot back because traditionally it was yours';
2) It's competition. Competition is good. Show the public what you have to offer and let them decide; and
3) Vis-a-vis Tom Bradby's editorialising and the injection of his 'personal' comments into the broadcast, he will not pass comment. He says he will not be drawn on any quirks or foibles or enter into any personal attacks.

I'll try to find a link to it online. It's worth a read because in one statement Huw Edwards has shown more dignity and respect towards his colleagues at ITV and - more importantly - the viewers than Tom Bradby did in his interview.

I've read some of the comments on here about the 'new' News at Ten and thought about it more. The question that I keep coming back to is "what the hell were ITV thinking letting him speak out like that?" Sure, it 'creates' a story about the bulletins and the 'rivalry' but really it doesn't reflect at all well on either Bradby or ITV. It's the equivalent of throwing the toys out of the pram or going home and taking the football with you out of spite - "It's my 10pm slot and you're not having it anymore".