US Anchors vs UK Newsreaders

Very interesting article in The Sunday Times Culture mag - saying why British TV News is so crap compared to US news. There was also a great picture accompanying the piece with Paxo on the University Challenge set - with US anchors on one side, and UK Newsreaders on the other. Anyone else see it - its not online i don't think - if I've time later i put up bits of the story.But, basically said BBC news had gone down hill since the 1999 corporate revamp, and said Paxo should anchor the Six or the Ten. Made a comment about the vast ITV/Sky sets as well.

But how can this be a logical argument? It seems to me that UK news has become more like American news in the last few years, what with the vast sets and suchlike. How can it be going downhill if it becoming more like what the article claims to be better?

Well that's what I thought, but he lambasted the journalistic content of the programmes, basically saying that for large parts the information in the reports were irrelevent - again I thought our journalists were some of the best in the business.

I have three words for the author of that article: "Fox and Friends".

Has this journalist actually compared US/UK news reports recently? I watched the 'CBS Evening News' last night and was stuck by how lapse and irrelevent they were when compared with UK reports, particually on the Nepal story. Seems completely illogical and slightly stupid arguement to mount, of course two countries style of reportage will be different, much the same as Italian and French reporting varies vastly.

i take it the article was written by Bryan Appleyard?

I find the UK lacks something when in comparison to the US
There may be set anchors to bullitains on the BBC and ITV but in America they are not only set to the programme, they are also the editors and decide everything that goes on with the programe and they do various other things involved in the programme. To be honest, I would feel that the whole look and feel would be decided by the anchor.

For example, on CBS [it isnt the best at all I might add], Dan Rather sat the entire time. Bob Schieffer changed that and moves around quite a bit.
The BBC just have it set to formats...nothing spectaular to be honset.

I like the way Sky has gone in terms of their appointment to view programmes with names set to them.
ITV has the same presenter on two programmes...and what is worse is that he isnt even close to the best presenter.

There is alot more live broadcasting on location by the anchor in America while in the UK its mostly just reporters on location reporting for a few moments

I think the UK news should keep some indiviualism that they have now but should also take some influences from the US.

Yes, you are correct.

The article was stating (and I agree with this bit) that ITV and SKY have these stupid "Starship Enterprise" sets, in which presenters walk around as though lost.

However, I find that US news never concentrates on anything but the US. I was there when they had the flood in Cornwall, and I knew nothing about it until a half an hour BBC WORLD bullitin came on!

But, I agree that the BBC needs somebody who can be "the face" of major bullitins. We need a co-presenter to have good chemistry with him, and I think Jeremy Paxman is the man!

I really like the revamp from 1999, but it's getting tired and needs something changed, I don't know what, but something needs to change.

I don't!

Jeremny Paxman is suited to a long, investigative and analysis type show and again this Americanised cult of the personality is creeping in.

News is about news, not the presenter.

How anyone can say american news beats a british news bulletin is beyond me. Yes the americans have the flashy graphics and the famous presenters but the content is appaling. Rarely is the rest of the world mentioned (except 'I-raq'), reports are composed of quick soundbites and comments from experts, usually little more than a sentence, and lets not forget along with 3 ad breaks these programmes are also sponsored by the big corporations - I think CBS is sponsored by Wal Mart

Some of the sets arent even that impressive anyway. ABC WNT is basically just a video wall and two or three computer stations in an otherwise empty warehouse-esque studio.

Couldn't agree more, though these days it seems to be more about what the editors THINK the perceived audience wants to know about (ie the One O'Clock, and increasingly the Six O'Clock news are obsessed by health and family issues) and the danger in that is that it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy - only people interested in health and family issues will watch it.

Your magesty, I have found you a new person to knight....