CH
Andy Townsend a possibility for Chris Hollins replacement:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting/news/a315152/andy-townsend-to-join-bbc-breakfast.html
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting/news/a315152/andy-townsend-to-join-bbc-breakfast.html
NE
....says Andy Townsend's agent....
Andy Townsend a possibility for Chris Hollins replacement:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting/news/a315152/andy-townsend-to-join-bbc-breakfast.html
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting/news/a315152/andy-townsend-to-join-bbc-breakfast.html
....says Andy Townsend's agent....
CH
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/12698745
There's bit at the very end once they said goodbye - it shows the floor manager coming on after they were off air, lights going off etc, was this broadcast this morning or is it just this clip?
There's bit at the very end once they said goodbye - it shows the floor manager coming on after they were off air, lights going off etc, was this broadcast this morning or is it just this clip?
DA
Well spotted. I can confirm that the extra bit wasn't broadcast on BBC One this morning, I'd like to think that it would have been reported before now if it had.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/12698745
There's bit at the very end once they said goodbye - it shows the floor manager coming on after they were off air, lights going off etc, was this broadcast this morning or is it just this clip?
There's bit at the very end once they said goodbye - it shows the floor manager coming on after they were off air, lights going off etc, was this broadcast this morning or is it just this clip?
Well spotted. I can confirm that the extra bit wasn't broadcast on BBC One this morning, I'd like to think that it would have been reported before now if it had.
CO
I must say I also thought the Andy Townsend gossip was a bit of 'kite-flying', he has no experience as presenter of a sports bulletin, as far as I'm aware?? Despite many years in the pundit's chair, that's a wholly different skill. There must be countless BBC News channel or 5Live sports presenters in with a better shout.
HO
My suspicion is the BBC will want to use as many 'familiar faces' as possible, rather than outsiders (even from within the BBC). Therefore I'd say Mike Bushell could get that post, assuming he's moving and wants it. Similarly, I can't imagine anyone but Susanna Reid, Louise Minchin or Kate Silverton replacing Sian. And given that Sian, Bill and Charlie all moved from other positions on the programme before taking their current slots, I'd imagine it will be Susanna and Kate fronting (potentially either way round). The bigger question will be if Susanna has committed to the move, they may have more flexibility persuading someone else to move to Salford for the main position than the weekend. If the format is going to be the same, which the Editor claims it will, they will surely be looking for consistency rather than a new team.
NE
It's interesting isn't it, that they're moving the whole programme and team to a different part of the country, on the premise that the BBC needs to "get out more" and connect better with different parts of the country. Yet this isn't a relaunch of Breakfast. If you're going to make an impact geographically, wouldn't it make sense to change the programme with some new, "northern" presenters, studio and backdrop?
Of course, Breakfast is a highly successful programme. So if the viewer's not going to notice anything different, why bother? Of course, that's the 64 thousand (million) dollar question.....
My suspicion is the BBC will want to use as many 'familiar faces' as possible.
It's interesting isn't it, that they're moving the whole programme and team to a different part of the country, on the premise that the BBC needs to "get out more" and connect better with different parts of the country. Yet this isn't a relaunch of Breakfast. If you're going to make an impact geographically, wouldn't it make sense to change the programme with some new, "northern" presenters, studio and backdrop?
Of course, Breakfast is a highly successful programme. So if the viewer's not going to notice anything different, why bother? Of course, that's the 64 thousand (million) dollar question.....
NG
It's interesting isn't it, that they're moving the whole programme and team to a different part of the country, on the premise that the BBC needs to "get out more" and connect better with different parts of the country. Yet this isn't a relaunch of Breakfast. If you're going to make an impact geographically, wouldn't it make sense to change the programme with some new, "northern" presenters, studio and backdrop?
Of course, Breakfast is a highly successful programme. So if the viewer's not going to notice anything different, why bother? Of course, that's the 64 thousand (million) dollar question.....
Isn't that missing the point?
The point is NOT to change the show to make it a stereotypically "northern" show, any more than they currently aim to make a "southern" show now.
The point is NOT for the viewer to switch on and go 'Oh my goodness, Breakfast is now coming from Salford. What an amazing change' - it's that the BBC have relocated a large chunk of their economy to another bit of the UK.
The point is that by making the show outside London they're creating employment outside London, spending money outside London, and will eventually evolve the show so that people from outside London influence the direction it takes.
They're not making "Salford Breakfast" any more than they are currently making "London Breakfast".
Moving out of London isn't about making a show 'look' like it's made where it's from - it's about spreading the production effort, staff and expenditure, across the UK to more fairly reflect the input from licence fee payers. If producers are living in a different area, then they will be naturally influenced by that area, but it doesn't mean you have to change things in a clumsy, heavy-handed kind of way. It may just change the way you think.
Even simple things - like naming obscure towns in Surrey (because 'everyone knows where they are') but only naming a county (Lancashire for instance) or a nation (Scotland for instance) can really grate with the audience. (Examples : "General Pinochet is currently under house arrest in Sunningdale." "There has been a major motorway accident in Lancashire". "The victim, originally from Scotland")
Breakfast currently comes from a studio that could be anywhere - it just happens to be in London. When it moves to Salford, I expect they will continue with the 'anywhere / nowhere' kind of look, rather than trying to awkwardly make themselves look like they are coming from a very specific location.
If you are trying to make a show that reflects and talks to the UK - you really shouldn't need to crowbar 'we're not in London you know' message into it every few minutes.
Doctor Who is made in Cardiff, but it doesn't mean that The Doctor has to have a Welsh accent and always talk about The Mumbles.
The Weakest Link is made in Glasgow, but it doesn't mean that they have to replace Anne Robinson with Carol Smillie.
noggin
Founding member
My suspicion is the BBC will want to use as many 'familiar faces' as possible.
It's interesting isn't it, that they're moving the whole programme and team to a different part of the country, on the premise that the BBC needs to "get out more" and connect better with different parts of the country. Yet this isn't a relaunch of Breakfast. If you're going to make an impact geographically, wouldn't it make sense to change the programme with some new, "northern" presenters, studio and backdrop?
Of course, Breakfast is a highly successful programme. So if the viewer's not going to notice anything different, why bother? Of course, that's the 64 thousand (million) dollar question.....
Isn't that missing the point?
The point is NOT to change the show to make it a stereotypically "northern" show, any more than they currently aim to make a "southern" show now.
The point is NOT for the viewer to switch on and go 'Oh my goodness, Breakfast is now coming from Salford. What an amazing change' - it's that the BBC have relocated a large chunk of their economy to another bit of the UK.
The point is that by making the show outside London they're creating employment outside London, spending money outside London, and will eventually evolve the show so that people from outside London influence the direction it takes.
They're not making "Salford Breakfast" any more than they are currently making "London Breakfast".
Moving out of London isn't about making a show 'look' like it's made where it's from - it's about spreading the production effort, staff and expenditure, across the UK to more fairly reflect the input from licence fee payers. If producers are living in a different area, then they will be naturally influenced by that area, but it doesn't mean you have to change things in a clumsy, heavy-handed kind of way. It may just change the way you think.
Even simple things - like naming obscure towns in Surrey (because 'everyone knows where they are') but only naming a county (Lancashire for instance) or a nation (Scotland for instance) can really grate with the audience. (Examples : "General Pinochet is currently under house arrest in Sunningdale." "There has been a major motorway accident in Lancashire". "The victim, originally from Scotland")
Breakfast currently comes from a studio that could be anywhere - it just happens to be in London. When it moves to Salford, I expect they will continue with the 'anywhere / nowhere' kind of look, rather than trying to awkwardly make themselves look like they are coming from a very specific location.
If you are trying to make a show that reflects and talks to the UK - you really shouldn't need to crowbar 'we're not in London you know' message into it every few minutes.
Doctor Who is made in Cardiff, but it doesn't mean that The Doctor has to have a Welsh accent and always talk about The Mumbles.
The Weakest Link is made in Glasgow, but it doesn't mean that they have to replace Anne Robinson with Carol Smillie.
CH
It's interesting isn't it, that they're moving the whole programme and team to a different part of the country, on the premise that the BBC needs to "get out more" and connect better with different parts of the country. Yet this isn't a relaunch of Breakfast. If you're going to make an impact geographically, wouldn't it make sense to change the programme with some new, "northern" presenters, studio and backdrop?
Of course, Breakfast is a highly successful programme. So if the viewer's not going to notice anything different, why bother? Of course, that's the 64 thousand (million) dollar question.....
Isn't that missing the point?
The point is NOT to change the show to make it a stereotypically "northern" show, any more than they currently aim to make a "southern" show now.
The point is NOT for the viewer to switch on and go 'Oh my goodness, Breakfast is now coming from Salford. What an amazing change' - it's that the BBC have relocated a large chunk of their economy to another bit of the UK.
The point is that by making the show outside London they're creating employment outside London, spending money outside London, and will eventually evolve the show so that people from outside London influence the direction it takes.
They're not making "Salford Breakfast" any more than they are currently making "London Breakfast".
Moving out of London isn't about making a show 'look' like it's made where it's from - it's about spreading the production effort, staff and expenditure, across the UK to more fairly reflect the input from licence fee payers. If producers are living in a different area, then they will be naturally influenced by that area, but it doesn't mean you have to change things in a clumsy, heavy-handed kind of way. It may just change the way you think.
Even simple things - like naming obscure towns in Surrey (because 'everyone knows where they are') but only naming a county (Lancashire for instance) or a nation (Scotland for instance) can really grate with the audience. (Examples : "General Pinochet is currently under house arrest in Sunningdale." "There has been a major motorway accident in Lancashire". "The victim, originally from Scotland")
Breakfast currently comes from a studio that could be anywhere - it just happens to be in London. When it moves to Salford, I expect they will continue with the 'anywhere / nowhere' kind of look, rather than trying to awkwardly make themselves look like they are coming from a very specific location.
If you are trying to make a show that reflects and talks to the UK - you really shouldn't need to crowbar 'we're not in London you know' message into it every few minutes.
Doctor Who is made in Cardiff, but it doesn't mean that The Doctor has to have a Welsh accent and always talk about The Mumbles.
The Weakest Link is made in Glasgow, but it doesn't mean that they have to replace Anne Robinson with Carol Smillie.
I think you're missing newscentre's point - the fact that this move is pointless. If it's going to be entirely the same programme then what's the point of the move?
I agree that the programme should not change because it's a winning formula, but the reasons behind the Salford move don't make any sense to me. Breakfast should be in Broadcasting House.
My suspicion is the BBC will want to use as many 'familiar faces' as possible.
It's interesting isn't it, that they're moving the whole programme and team to a different part of the country, on the premise that the BBC needs to "get out more" and connect better with different parts of the country. Yet this isn't a relaunch of Breakfast. If you're going to make an impact geographically, wouldn't it make sense to change the programme with some new, "northern" presenters, studio and backdrop?
Of course, Breakfast is a highly successful programme. So if the viewer's not going to notice anything different, why bother? Of course, that's the 64 thousand (million) dollar question.....
Isn't that missing the point?
The point is NOT to change the show to make it a stereotypically "northern" show, any more than they currently aim to make a "southern" show now.
The point is NOT for the viewer to switch on and go 'Oh my goodness, Breakfast is now coming from Salford. What an amazing change' - it's that the BBC have relocated a large chunk of their economy to another bit of the UK.
The point is that by making the show outside London they're creating employment outside London, spending money outside London, and will eventually evolve the show so that people from outside London influence the direction it takes.
They're not making "Salford Breakfast" any more than they are currently making "London Breakfast".
Moving out of London isn't about making a show 'look' like it's made where it's from - it's about spreading the production effort, staff and expenditure, across the UK to more fairly reflect the input from licence fee payers. If producers are living in a different area, then they will be naturally influenced by that area, but it doesn't mean you have to change things in a clumsy, heavy-handed kind of way. It may just change the way you think.
Even simple things - like naming obscure towns in Surrey (because 'everyone knows where they are') but only naming a county (Lancashire for instance) or a nation (Scotland for instance) can really grate with the audience. (Examples : "General Pinochet is currently under house arrest in Sunningdale." "There has been a major motorway accident in Lancashire". "The victim, originally from Scotland")
Breakfast currently comes from a studio that could be anywhere - it just happens to be in London. When it moves to Salford, I expect they will continue with the 'anywhere / nowhere' kind of look, rather than trying to awkwardly make themselves look like they are coming from a very specific location.
If you are trying to make a show that reflects and talks to the UK - you really shouldn't need to crowbar 'we're not in London you know' message into it every few minutes.
Doctor Who is made in Cardiff, but it doesn't mean that The Doctor has to have a Welsh accent and always talk about The Mumbles.
The Weakest Link is made in Glasgow, but it doesn't mean that they have to replace Anne Robinson with Carol Smillie.
I think you're missing newscentre's point - the fact that this move is pointless. If it's going to be entirely the same programme then what's the point of the move?
I agree that the programme should not change because it's a winning formula, but the reasons behind the Salford move don't make any sense to me. Breakfast should be in Broadcasting House.
GE
I thought the point of the move was the BBC promised they'd bring a certain number of jobs to Salford, and had a shortfall roughly equivalent to the number of people who work on Breakfast.
Yes, there's some box-ticking involved in the move. Yes, it would probably be better off moving to BH, for many reasons, already discussed to death. But they've made their decision now, and It's going to happen, and as a viewer, you're going to be seeing much the same format of program on screen, it just so happens it'll be coming from a different studio, a few hundred miles north.
thegeek
Founding member
I think you're missing newscentre's point - the fact that this move is pointless. If it's going to be entirely the same programme then what's the point of the move?
I agree that the programme should not change because it's a winning formula, but the reasons behind the Salford move don't make any sense to me. Breakfast should be in Broadcasting House.
I agree that the programme should not change because it's a winning formula, but the reasons behind the Salford move don't make any sense to me. Breakfast should be in Broadcasting House.
I thought the point of the move was the BBC promised they'd bring a certain number of jobs to Salford, and had a shortfall roughly equivalent to the number of people who work on Breakfast.
Yes, there's some box-ticking involved in the move. Yes, it would probably be better off moving to BH, for many reasons, already discussed to death. But they've made their decision now, and It's going to happen, and as a viewer, you're going to be seeing much the same format of program on screen, it just so happens it'll be coming from a different studio, a few hundred miles north.
ST
I think you're missing the points that noggin was making, chris.
He responded to newscentre's concerns about Breakfast being essentially the same after the move, with some valid reasons as to why it was still taking place.
I think you're missing newscentre's point - the fact that this move is pointless. If it's going to be entirely the same programme then what's the point of the move?
I agree that the programme should not change because it's a winning formula, but the reasons behind the Salford move don't make any sense to me. Breakfast should be in Broadcasting House.
I agree that the programme should not change because it's a winning formula, but the reasons behind the Salford move don't make any sense to me. Breakfast should be in Broadcasting House.
I think you're missing the points that noggin was making, chris.
He responded to newscentre's concerns about Breakfast being essentially the same after the move, with some valid reasons as to why it was still taking place.