The Newsroom

BBC News 8pm 90 seconds slot

Rollout confirmed (July 2007)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
HO
House
BBC WORLD posted:
James Hall posted:
Does ANYONE on this forum actually take into account the idea that:

a) these presenters may be HAPPY with their shift; or
b) they may find the shifts they do more convenient?!?

All of this talk of people being 'sidelined' just sounds like bullsh*t to me.


BRAVO! BRAVO!
Another thing you have to consider - newsreaders' jobs aren't like an office based job! There is the glamourous side to newsreading that makes it like no other - why else would someone like Natasha Kaplinsky be favoured over Moira Stuart. Even if someone decides to change their work houres/ load in TV news and someone else takes their place, they're still being sidelined for someone else (ie not moving up in their career).

It's like if Person A, B and C work in an office, and Person A is more senior than persons B and C. If Person A decides to cut back their hours they may no longer be able to do their job, which is awarded to person B. Person A will still have been sidelined in order for person B to get a promotion, whether voluntary or not. Person A may no longer have the oppurtunity, therefore, to shine like Person B is and may be stuck in the same job for the rest of their career.

EDIT:
Greg posted:
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't it Jane Hill who was on shift in Portugal for more or less the whole time - surely she has reached her quota and she simply doesn't want to work overtime?
To be fair, a lot of what Jane did in Portugal was for News 24, not just BBC One. And surely 1 day on the nationals equals 1 day on News 24? Days that Louise Minchin's on the one or Kate's on Breakfast they're not on News 24 (except Louise occasionally) so they're not working overtime, just doing their shift.
JA
jamesmd
imnogoth posted:
Another thing you have to consider - newsreaders' jobs aren't like an office based job! There is the glamourous side to newsreading that makes it like no other - why else would someone like Natasha Kaplinsky be favoured over Moira Stuart. Even if someone decides to change their work houres/ load in TV news and someone else takes their place, they're still being sidelined for someone else (ie not moving up in their career).

It's like if Person A, B and C work in an office, and Person A is more senior than persons B and C. If Person A decides to cut back their hours they may no longer be able to do their job, which is awarded to person B. Person A will still have been sidelined in order for person B to get a promotion, whether voluntary or not. Person A may no longer have the oppurtunity, therefore, to shine like Person B is and may be stuck in the same job for the rest of their career.


Yes, you are right in some ways, there is a glamorous side to news broadcasting. BUT this is not 100% behind the job. Cynics may argue it is, but the fact is it isn't (and the cynics are probably crap at their own jobs anyway). Point is, if these newscasters find their working hours unacceptable then they may change them to suit them. That isn't being sidelined - it's just being damn flexible.

Being sidelined is when someone above you deliberately sidelines you to make way for someone else with the intention of making them more prominent. You have to be careful how you use this phrase - 'sidelined' is often more malicious than the situation you and I have described.

Either way I doubt i'ts over 'glamour' like you said - I would argue that a fair few newsreaders wouldn't give two hoots about whether their tits look good and their lips are fully made up, and concentrate on doing a damn good job.

(Edit: fixed quote marks)
HO
House
James Hall posted:
Either way I doubt i'ts over 'glamour' like you said - I would argue that a fair few newsreaders wouldn't give two hoots about whether their tits look good and their lips are fully made up, and concentrate on doing a damn good job.

(Edit: fixed quote marks)
And I agree with you that most newsreaders couldnt give two seconds thought about their glamour - but producers might!


Going back to the point yes I think Jane's probably been sidelined or Minchin and Silverton, but then again, Sian was always the main female relief on the six, with Jane coming after (and covering her when she was on maternity leave). I think the beeb probably found it easier using Louise as deputy on the One out of habit, especially when Jane was gone, and haven't thought about it since! With the six Sian is obviously going to be used the most, if not actually deputy, and they might as well try to use the most out of whichever newsreaders they can - thus Silverton who is barely ever on News 24 anyway!


Going back to Kate, it says on her website she'll still be on the News 24 along with more primetime programming, so does this mean she's NOT leaving News 24 mornings?

EDITS: Quote marks sorry!
IT
itsrobert Founding member
As James says, 'sidelined' is when you are overlooked for a position. You can't sideline yourself, as you seem to suggest with your Persons A/B/C analogy. If you step down voluntarily, then that's your decision; you are not being sidelined.

Have you ever considered that not everyone in the world wants to reach the top of their career ladder? Some people are motivated to reach the top, whereas others are content at a lower level. There's the question of other personal commitments as well as maybe not wanting to take on more responsibility. You seem to see the employment world in black and white, whereas in reality, there are grey areas.

Yes, newsreading has a sort of 'glamorous' side. However, I feel you are doing many of the people in the profession a disservice by saying that. I'm sure many of them are in the job because they care about news and informing the public of events. Most of them are not in it for the celebrity side. If they wanted that, there are many other avenues where they can become much more famous. The vast majority of newsreaders are hard-working professionals.
ST
Stitch08
imnogoth posted:
Going back to Kate, it says on her website she'll still be on the News 24 along with more primetime programming, so does this mean she's NOT leaving News 24 mornings?


She could still be on News 24 but in a different timeslot. Alternatively the website could just not have been updated since the announcement of Kate taking on the bulletin and covering the One, as I can't find a specific reference to either of them.
ST
Stitch08
itsrobert posted:
As James says, 'sidelined' is when you are overlooked for a position. You can't sideline yourself, as you seem to suggest with your Persons A/B/C analogy. If you step down voluntarily, then that's your decision; you are not being sidelined.

Have you ever considered that not everyone in the world wants to reach the top of their career ladder? Some people are motivated to reach the top, whereas others are content at a lower level. There's the question of other personal commitments as well as maybe not wanting to take on more responsibility. You seem to see the employment world in black and white, whereas in reality, there are grey areas.

Yes, newsreading has a sort of 'glamorous' side. However, I feel you are doing many of the people in the profession a disservice by saying that. I'm sure many of them are in the job because they care about news and informing the public of events. Most of them are not in it for the celebrity side. If they wanted that, there are many other avenues where they can become much more famous. The vast majority of newsreaders are hard-working professionals.


To be fair though Jane does seem to have been overlooked, even if the reality is that she has commitments we don't know about, as she was previously a regular on the One, only after Sophie and Darren, wheras now Louise or Emily would be more likely to appear instead. Even if she didn't want to be the deputy presenter I think the point imnogoth is trying to make is that she now appears less on BBC One than she did before, and if she was happy to do the shifts then then she would probably be prepared to do them now, but the producers prefer Louise and Kate.
IT
itsrobert Founding member
Stitch08 posted:
itsrobert posted:
As James says, 'sidelined' is when you are overlooked for a position. You can't sideline yourself, as you seem to suggest with your Persons A/B/C analogy. If you step down voluntarily, then that's your decision; you are not being sidelined.

Have you ever considered that not everyone in the world wants to reach the top of their career ladder? Some people are motivated to reach the top, whereas others are content at a lower level. There's the question of other personal commitments as well as maybe not wanting to take on more responsibility. You seem to see the employment world in black and white, whereas in reality, there are grey areas.

Yes, newsreading has a sort of 'glamorous' side. However, I feel you are doing many of the people in the profession a disservice by saying that. I'm sure many of them are in the job because they care about news and informing the public of events. Most of them are not in it for the celebrity side. If they wanted that, there are many other avenues where they can become much more famous. The vast majority of newsreaders are hard-working professionals.


To be fair though Jane does seem to have been overlooked, even if the reality is that she has commitments we don't know about, as she was previously a regular on the One, only after Sophie and Darren, wheras now Louise or Emily would be more likely to appear instead. Even if she didn't want to be the deputy presenter I think the point imnogoth is trying to make is that she now appears less on BBC One than she did before, and if she was happy to do the shifts then then she would probably be prepared to do them now , but the producers prefer Louise and Kate.


That's rather a large assumption. You have no idea of what Jane Hill thinks about this. You don't know what's happened in her private or work lives and thus you are in no position to state whether Jane Hill has been 'overlooked' or not. The only people who know that are Jane herself and the people working at the BBC.
ST
Stitch08
itsrobert posted:
That's rather a large assumption. You have no idea of what Jane Hill thinks about this. You don't know what's happened in her private or work lives and thus you are in no position to state whether Jane Hill has been 'overlooked' or not. The only people who know that are Jane herself and the people working at the BBC.


I admit it is only an assumption. As I also said in reality she could have new commitments that we don't know about and it only seems that she has been overlooked as we don't actually know all the details. It just seems strange that she suddenly no longer does the One much as I thought that the shift is a fairly similar length and time to her News 24 one, though I'm not completely sure. Does anyone know if they are similar?.
LU
Luke
itsrobert posted:
That's rather a large assumption. You have no idea of what Jane Hill thinks about this. You don't know what's happened in her private or work lives and thus you are in no position to state whether Jane Hill has been 'overlooked' or not. The only people who know that are Jane herself and the people working at the BBC.


yes but people are allowed to speculate, and the chances are she was overlooked in favour of Kate, unless you are suggesting she was asked first and said 'no thanks'.
HO
House
Out of interest, how long do newscasters on News 24 and BBC World work compared to BBC One bullitens? I ask because if they were the same length surely Kate would be there from sort of 3-4am until 8pm.

How long does Sophie work when on the one?
NG
noggin Founding member
Anna and Sophie both came in for the morning editorial meeting at around 8am, and left at around 1.45 pm, so were in for around 6 hours.

It may be that Kate comes in later, and has less editorial input into the One, which when it moves to being produced more by News 24, may not be an issue (as there is likely to be less scope for editorial input...)
BR
Brekkie
It is fair to say I'm sure that some newsreaders find the challenge of rolling 24-hour news much more appealing than just checking off the headlines for half an hour - in many ways I guess 24-hour news is more "journalism" than reading a network bulletin would be.


Similarly it's why some reporters choose to remain in the field for their career, rather than opting to come inside and be part of a studio team.



We don't know Jane Hill's views though, we can only judge on what we've seen on screen - and it is fair to say that she does seem lower down the pecking order now than she did in the past, while others like Louise and Kate seem more prominent.





Anyhow, regardless of Jane Hill this boils down to pure sexism and ageism - there is absolutely no reason why Huw Edwards couldn't do the 8pm summary - except for perhaps him wanting to keep his dignity.


Anyone who saw the trial versions knows how condescending they were - Five did them much better when they had their regular updates, which have sadly virtually disappeared over the years.

Newer posts