IT
I take issue with most what is said above.
Why does it take the presenter of a 30 minute bulletin more time to prepare for something that a News Channel presenter just has to deal with if it breaks when their on air. It's the NC presenters who work harder?
As for salaries? Why are they so secret? They're civil servants in effect and we pay their wages, so we should be told what they earn.
Who said anything about the National presenters working harder than NC presenters? They are completely different roles. The NC is a heck of a lot more fluid, producers are likely to write a lot of the scripts, correspondents are thrown into the mix at short notice and the presenters generally just ask rather generic questions of them "tell us more" etc. The National bulletins are much more structured, planned and rehearsed affairs where presenters write their own scripts, liaise with correspondents to find out exactly what questions they want to be asked, and attend editorial meetings to help in the journalistic decisions about the programme and its running order. This is how you end up with a professional and polished programme. But, if you'd like a Ten O'Clock News that feels like the News Channel (i.e. rushed and impromtu with technical hitches here and there) then axe the National presenters if you like.
itsrobert
Founding member
Daniel, that is a very simplistic and naive view of how these things work. If you think the National presenter only works for half an hour with a bit of prep time before then you're mistaken. There's a lot more to it behind the scenes than that. Just take a look at some of the behind the scenes videos on YouTube. There are meetings to attend, scripts to prepare, correspondents with whom to liaise. They don't just turn up a few minutes before TX and read words that other people have written.
And I really wouldn't get into salaries if I were you. For a start, that is a very personal thing and is rather tasteless to speculate about; and secondly, it's frightfully complicated as some will be staffers and others freelance and thus paid by the hour. And hours don't just equate to on air time, either.
And I really wouldn't get into salaries if I were you. For a start, that is a very personal thing and is rather tasteless to speculate about; and secondly, it's frightfully complicated as some will be staffers and others freelance and thus paid by the hour. And hours don't just equate to on air time, either.
I take issue with most what is said above.
Why does it take the presenter of a 30 minute bulletin more time to prepare for something that a News Channel presenter just has to deal with if it breaks when their on air. It's the NC presenters who work harder?
As for salaries? Why are they so secret? They're civil servants in effect and we pay their wages, so we should be told what they earn.
Who said anything about the National presenters working harder than NC presenters? They are completely different roles. The NC is a heck of a lot more fluid, producers are likely to write a lot of the scripts, correspondents are thrown into the mix at short notice and the presenters generally just ask rather generic questions of them "tell us more" etc. The National bulletins are much more structured, planned and rehearsed affairs where presenters write their own scripts, liaise with correspondents to find out exactly what questions they want to be asked, and attend editorial meetings to help in the journalistic decisions about the programme and its running order. This is how you end up with a professional and polished programme. But, if you'd like a Ten O'Clock News that feels like the News Channel (i.e. rushed and impromtu with technical hitches here and there) then axe the National presenters if you like.
Does it have to be spelled out 