IT
itsrobert
Founding member
I'm astonished, too - not because she's standing up, but because it looks absolutely crap.
She looks like she's stood in the middle of nowhere and there are tatty cables all over the floor. What's good about that? Standing up adds absolutely nothing to the coverage. In fact, I found myself staring at the flashy maps on the screen rather than listening to what's being said. Surely the most important thing is to deliver the news to the audience as clearly as possible? Standing next to a wall with some posh graphics whizzing about does not achieve that in my opinion. For me, a comfortably seated newsreader who talks straight to the camera without unnecessary visual aids is the most engaging method of news delivery.
Answer this, Worzel, because I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts - what does Joanna Gosling standing up add to the coverage of the story that being sat down can't achieve?
She looks like she's stood in the middle of nowhere and there are tatty cables all over the floor. What's good about that? Standing up adds absolutely nothing to the coverage. In fact, I found myself staring at the flashy maps on the screen rather than listening to what's being said. Surely the most important thing is to deliver the news to the audience as clearly as possible? Standing next to a wall with some posh graphics whizzing about does not achieve that in my opinion. For me, a comfortably seated newsreader who talks straight to the camera without unnecessary visual aids is the most engaging method of news delivery.
Answer this, Worzel, because I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts - what does Joanna Gosling standing up add to the coverage of the story that being sat down can't achieve?
NE
Standing up, sitting down, it makes absolutely no difference. Sky News is beating the cr@p out of BBC News Channel with its amazing coverage of Libya. They have Anna Botting (standing in a flak-jacket) in full quality, BBC News has a report on blood pressure.
IT
Yes, that's true. However, there are many occasions when the BBC has 'beaten the crap' out of Sky News, too. It's all cyclical.
itsrobert
Founding member
Standing up, sitting down, it makes absolutely no difference. Sky News is beating the cr@p out of BBC News Channel with its amazing coverage of Libya. They have Anna Botting (standing in a flak-jacket) in full quality, BBC News has a report on blood pressure.
Yes, that's true. However, there are many occasions when the BBC has 'beaten the crap' out of Sky News, too. It's all cyclical.
GI
I do hope that making a presenter stand is not BBC's attempt to compete with Sky's superb coverage.
Standing up, sitting down, it makes absolutely no difference. Sky News is beating the cr@p out of BBC News Channel with its amazing coverage of Libya. They have Anna Botting (standing in a flak-jacket) in full quality, BBC News has a report on blood pressure.
I do hope that making a presenter stand is not BBC's attempt to compete with Sky's superb coverage.
JA
Surely if they wanted her to stand up, it would have made more sense for her to stand at the podium?
I'm astonished, too - not because she's standing up, but because it looks absolutely crap.
She looks like she's stood in the middle of nowhere and there are tatty cables all over the floor. What's good about that? Standing up adds absolutely nothing to the coverage. In fact, I found myself staring at the flashy maps on the screen rather than listening to what's being said. Surely the most important thing is to deliver the news to the audience as clearly as possible? Standing next to a wall with some posh graphics whizzing about does not achieve that in my opinion. For me, a comfortably seated newsreader who talks straight to the camera without unnecessary visual aids is the most engaging method of news delivery.
Answer this, Worzel, because I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts - what does Joanna Gosling standing up add to the coverage of the story that being sat down can't achieve?
She looks like she's stood in the middle of nowhere and there are tatty cables all over the floor. What's good about that? Standing up adds absolutely nothing to the coverage. In fact, I found myself staring at the flashy maps on the screen rather than listening to what's being said. Surely the most important thing is to deliver the news to the audience as clearly as possible? Standing next to a wall with some posh graphics whizzing about does not achieve that in my opinion. For me, a comfortably seated newsreader who talks straight to the camera without unnecessary visual aids is the most engaging method of news delivery.
Answer this, Worzel, because I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts - what does Joanna Gosling standing up add to the coverage of the story that being sat down can't achieve?
Surely if they wanted her to stand up, it would have made more sense for her to stand at the podium?
DF
It was done terribly - the angle was strange so the screen was hard to see, and Joanna looked tiny because the camera was so far away. I think it's a nice visual thing when done properly but in a lot of cases it's not adding anything to the story. It's probably most useful when they have something to show like a map, or details on the screen.
I'm astonished, too - not because she's standing up, but because it looks absolutely crap.
She looks like she's stood in the middle of nowhere and there are tatty cables all over the floor. What's good about that? Standing up adds absolutely nothing to the coverage. In fact, I found myself staring at the flashy maps on the screen rather than listening to what's being said. Surely the most important thing is to deliver the news to the audience as clearly as possible? Standing next to a wall with some posh graphics whizzing about does not achieve that in my opinion. For me, a comfortably seated newsreader who talks straight to the camera without unnecessary visual aids is the most engaging method of news delivery.
Answer this, Worzel, because I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts - what does Joanna Gosling standing up add to the coverage of the story that being sat down can't achieve?
She looks like she's stood in the middle of nowhere and there are tatty cables all over the floor. What's good about that? Standing up adds absolutely nothing to the coverage. In fact, I found myself staring at the flashy maps on the screen rather than listening to what's being said. Surely the most important thing is to deliver the news to the audience as clearly as possible? Standing next to a wall with some posh graphics whizzing about does not achieve that in my opinion. For me, a comfortably seated newsreader who talks straight to the camera without unnecessary visual aids is the most engaging method of news delivery.
Answer this, Worzel, because I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts - what does Joanna Gosling standing up add to the coverage of the story that being sat down can't achieve?
It was done terribly - the angle was strange so the screen was hard to see, and Joanna looked tiny because the camera was so far away. I think it's a nice visual thing when done properly but in a lot of cases it's not adding anything to the story. It's probably most useful when they have something to show like a map, or details on the screen.
DS
Dan S
Agree, they should have used an angle such as this if they wanted to do it better (image taken from TV Ark):
http://hub.tv-ark.org.uk/images/news/bbcnews24/bbcnews24_images/2008/bbcnews_2008d.jpg
Also, why wasn't Joanna holding any scripts, incase the autocue failed?
http://hub.tv-ark.org.uk/images/news/bbcnews24/bbcnews24_images/2008/bbcnews_2008d.jpg
Also, why wasn't Joanna holding any scripts, incase the autocue failed?
GM
It would have been interesting to see what Joanna would have done if the autocue had failed since she had no scripts. Would they have cut to Rachel??
JW
Most probably.
It would have been interesting to see what Joanna would have done if the autocue had failed since she had no scripts. Would they have cut to Rachel??
Most probably.