The Newsroom

BBC One to Trial Evening News Summary

(May 2007)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
JO
Jonathan
Awful, why don't they just simulcast 60 seconds or whatever that summary on BBC3 is. Does Natasha really have to stay another hour after finishing the Six, just to do forty-five seconds of news??? Surely using somebody relatively high-profile on News 24 could not fill in, or even Huw Edwards, he must be floating around at about 8pm.
JA
jamesmd
I think the reason it sounds doubly patronising is because of the way it's written. It's kind of bordering on 60 Seconds but still trying to be high-brow (the "Hi" introduction, augmenting phrases etc and shortening them). It doesn't really work - one or the other, please!

Natasha Kaplinsky is neither here nor there for me - at the end of the day, she reads the news, and I don't really get why people have to take it so personally that she's on screen. What are you doing? Watching the news or observing the newsreader closely? If you're doing the latter I would suggest that you seek medical help.

Mancunian, I appreciate your concerns, but still, she's a newsreader, and at the end of the day, if she wants to make herself look presentable for the camera she can. If you feel that incensed that she's doing a bad job, in all seriousness, why don't you fill in a job application for the BBC, and go for it yourself?
GI
gilsta
As the Beeb believe viewers have too short attention spans to watch credits / trailers between programmes, the introduction of a news summary seems a bit odd. I'm starting to think the grand plan is to use perhaps a 30 second version of this summary during the Eastenders credits, or am I giving the big suits too much credit here? Either way its a scary thought.
KA
Karl
Mancunian, if news should be all about content over presentation, substance over style etc then why are you spending so much time critisizing an aspect of presentation and style?

Any semi-intelligent debate provoking ideas or thoughts you may have are completely negated by the style in which you put your arguments forward, you're just not going to be taken seriously when you're using immature bully-like put-downs like referring to her as Barbie.
MA
Mancunian
James Hall posted:
...Mancunian, I appreciate your concerns, but still, she's a newsreader, and at the end of the day, if she wants to make herself look presentable for the camera she can.
It's not just a matter of making herself look presentable for the camera though, is it? Come on, be honest. Do the other 'presentable' newsreaders all participate in dancing talent shows and present light entertainment programmes?

I object to it not because of the presentational emphasis per se, but because she makes it more about the presentation and less about the news. It's that malalignment of emphases that I have a problem with. It should be news first, presentable second.

I mean, I really, really can't imagine NK standing in for Anna Ford like Sophie Raworth did that time, with no make up and straggly hair. Can you? I can imagine NK telling them to hold the start of the bulletin while she had her hair blow dried and her make up applied, and the bulletin would have started late at ten past.

James Hall posted:
...If you feel that incensed that she's doing a bad job, in all seriousness, why don't you fill in a job application for the BBC, and go for it yourself?
I have a job, thank you.
MA
Mancunian
Karl posted:
Mancunian, if news should be all about content over presentation, substance over style etc then why are you spending so much time critisizing an aspect of presentation and style?
You're not following the nuances of my arguments. I'm not criticising the presentation and style per se. I'm criticising the increasing emphasis by the BBC news management of presentation and style which to me equates with dumbing down. I'm criticising the dumbing down of news and the promotion of news presenters as celebrities.

If I was criticising style and presentation, I would be saying stuff like Ooh, that Kate Silverton, I didn't like her colourful blouse. (she famously came in for stick for a blouse) Or I'd be saying: Ooh, that news anchor [name withheld], she should stop trying to look like a white person with her blonde highlights, she should leave her hair natural. (An email that was sent to a news anchor friend of mine at the time we were colleagues.) Those comments were bitchy and hurtful and bullying. (although tbh, I'm not entirely sure about the wisdom of that technicolour blouse, not the best choice of wardrobe for television, but that's a practicality, not a personal comment.)

I'm not criticising the style or presentation. I'm criticising the over-emphasis on style and presentation which has led to the over-use of someone who, in turn, has an over emphasis on style and presentation over substance.

Karl posted:
Any semi-intelligent debate provoking ideas or thoughts you may have are completely negated by the style in which you put your arguments forward, you're just not going to be taken seriously when you're using immature bully-like put-downs like referring to her as Barbie.
Semi-intelligent debate could start with you realising what I'm actually criticising instead of mis-quoting me. Let's say we get the semi-intelligent stuff of you acknowledging what I'm actually complaining about out of the way. And then move on to the intelligent debate of addressing it, hey?

And you what you mistake for bully-like put-downs are actually an expression of derision on my part for the dumbing down of the role of women in journalism and their mis-use as eye candy.

So perhaps you wouldn't mind actually engaging with me in that debate? Why are news organisations increasingly going for the Newsreader Barbies?

It's a recognised phenomenon. I've been concerned about it for quite some time now. But my opinion is, according to you, semi-intelligent and bully-like. So I'll point you in the direction of media commentators:

There was an article about the phenomenon of the identikit blonde newsreaders in the US in a recent edition of Monocle (edited by Tyler Brule, who produced and presented The Desk for BBC, a media insider's programme). The article in that magazine (it was a couple of months ago), noted that there is a place in America where they all go for coaching and training, they go in a regular person and come out an identikit blonde with the same blonde highlights and the same hairstyles. It was really uncanny.

They call them something along the lines of identikits, I call them Newsreader Barbies. Am I allowed to express derision without being labelled a bully? Or is this misogyny in action? A woman expresses a feisty, self-assertive opinion. A man expressing a strong opinion, would no doubt be a strong minded man. But a woman expressing a strong opinion, objecting to the objectification of women as eye candy, deriding women who participate in the dumbing down of their gender's role in journalism? Why I'm semi-intelligent bully.

Nice to know that sexual equality is live and kicking.

So, forget about semi-intelligent debate, because I don't want to sink down to your level.

How about engaging in an intelligent debate about the objectification of women as eye candy and the increasing tendency for identikit blondes or Newsreader Barbies as I call them (of which Natasha Kaplinsky is, to my mind, the epitomy)?

Back to the issue of the thread. I don't want news bulletins or news summaries being read to me or anyone else in the audience as if I/we were in the back row of the remedial class at school. I don't want dumbing down. I don't want news-headlines-read-as-Hello-coverlines news summaries. I don't want a 60 second news summary with an 'And finally...' about cutesy wutesy fluffy wuffy tiger cubs at the end of it. It's demeaning.
NS
NickyS Founding member
Mancunian posted:
[Back to the issue of the thread. I don't want news bulletins or news summaries being read to me or anyone else in the audience as if I/we were in the back row of the remedial class at school. I don't want dumbing down. I don't want news-headlines-read-as-Hello-coverlines news summaries. I don't want a 60 second news summary with an 'And finally...' about cutesy wutesy fluffy wuffy tiger cubs at the end of it. It's demeaning.

That's fine - they are probably not aimed at you. You can watch Newsnight, listen to Radio 4's 1800/2400 bulletins, look at the BBC news website. There is a lot of BBC News there for you. Surely this is just a very short bulletin aimed at someone totally different from yourself who doesn't want lots of news. And I totally disagree with them being dumbed down - they are simply a different style - one that I totally understand isn't for you. They still give the same information just in a more friendly and less stuffy way. In the same way as some people will read The Telegraph/Times or Guardian - others will choose The Sun/Mirror or Star. Just a different BBC News for a different audience. Many of whom like the cute "And finally" stories - look at the popularity of ITV's News At Ten And finally's ...
CA
calum141
Quote:
I have a job, thank you.


Well stop ####ing complaining, if you don't like it then do a better job yourself. I really hate people who just love critizing how something is done but don't bother trying to do it yourself. Don't watch her if your so obsessive over who is bloody reading a autocue. You need to seek medical help as the above poster suggested.

She might have appeared on several other television shows, so what? I think most people would jump at the opportunity to do such shows, well, those who can dance of course and have abit of personality.

I have met her and she is a nice woman and she tries to act as friendly as possible and relaxed in the news broadcasts so leave Natasha alone and go to the BBC reception and ask for an application form - oh wait, you can't do a better job. Forget that.

Quote:
I don't want news-headlines-read-as-Hello-coverlines news summaries.


Then don't watch them? These bulletins are obviously not aimed at people like yourself. You sound like you watch the news so fair play, watch the news. The summary is for people who don't really watch the news and just want to be informed of anything going on at the moment.

There is the 1, 6, 10 news bulletins, newsnight, news 24, bbc news online and that's just the BBC. So why do you insist on watching these bulletins if you don't like them? Just fancied a moan, eh.

Quote:
They call them something along the lines of identikits, I call them Newsreader Barbies.


It's fine - that's your opinion but I don't get why the big obsession. I appreciate this is a television forum and this section deals with critism, suggestions and feedback of television news but this debate regarding NK has gone on here for two years.

Yes, she is a glamour girl - can't blaim her for that, she's an attractive woman who wants a career.

Yes, she quickly moved up the career ladder - the viewers panel/feedback obviously like her otherwise she still wouldn't be on. It's just a minority on forums like this who critize her.

Yes, she appeared on shows nothing related to news - yet again, she jumped at the opportunity like most other people would.

But get over it. She does a job and that is inform the public of what's going on through the 6 o'clock news and currently a 60 second news bulletin aimed at people who don't watch news. The BBC and vast majority of viewers like myself have no problem with her, so stop debating such boring topic and get back onto the feedback of this trail. Thank you kindly.

Probally I have not seriously read what you've had to say but I know the ratings are pretty damn good for the 6 and have been for a good amount of time because the audience likes NK and GA - that's the reality today. I have no problem with how she speaks or pronounces things.

Just an assumation her, but possibilly you're jealous because she is much better looking than you? Ok, I'll kill the argument there because I do not wish to get personal. Laughing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally I think it's pretty good as it's just a quick update of what's going on but I do not think it's appealed at me as I prefer a detailed bulletin of news, and that's probally a good promo trailer for the 10.
MA
Mancunian
calum141 posted:
Quote:
I have a job, thank you.


Well stop ####ing complaining, if you don't like it then do a better job yourself. I really hate people who just love critizing how something is done but don't bother trying to do it yourself. Don't watch her if your so obsessive over who is bloody reading a autocue. You need to seek medical help as the above poster suggested.
I'm not the one who's obsessing here.

I made a derisory comment. Full stop.

Since then, I haven't "obsessed" at all. I've simply come back to respond to other people's replies. Some of which have involved personal attacks on me. Who's doing the obsessing here? Me, who made a simple but derisory comment, or all the Natasha fan club who've jumped in to attack me?

Remind me again, who has the Natasha obsession? Me who dislikes what she represents in terms of the dumbing down of news and the emphasis on style and presentation over substance? Or you, who likes her and defends her on the basis that you think she's attractive?

calum141 posted:
She might have appeared on several other television shows, so what? I think most people would jump at the opportunity to do such shows, well, those who can dance of course and have abit of personality.
I would disagree. I know plenty of journalists. I am a journalist. Journalists report the news. If you want to do light entertainment then the door to that department is >>> thataway.

calum141 posted:
I have met her and she is a nice woman and she tries to act as friendly as possible and relaxed in the news broadcasts so leave Natasha alone and go to the BBC reception and ask for an application form - oh wait, you can't do a better job. Forget that.
And I know people who've met her and she's disingenuous and manipulative.

Quote:
I don't want news-headlines-read-as-Hello-coverlines news summaries.


calum141 posted:
Then don't watch them? These bulletins are obviously not aimed at people like yourself. You sound like you watch the news so fair play, watch the news. The summary is for people who don't really watch the news and just want to be informed of anything going on at the moment.

There is the 1, 6, 10 news bulletins, newsnight, news 24, bbc news online and that's just the BBC. So why do you insist on watching these bulletins if you don't like them? Just fancied a moan, eh.
My point is that I won't really have a choice about watching them on BBC One if they're popping up through the night.

Quote:
They call them something along the lines of identikits, I call them Newsreader Barbies.


calum141 posted:
It's fine - that's your opinion but I don't get why the big obsession. I appreciate this is a television forum and this section deals with critism, suggestions and feedback of television news but this debate regarding NK has gone on here for two years.
But the point that I added was that it's not just my opinion. There's widespread consternation within the industry about the phenomenon of the identikit blondes.

calum141 posted:
Yes, she is a glamour girl - can't blaim her for that, she's an attractive woman who wants a career.

Yes, she quickly moved up the career ladder - the viewers panel/feedback obviously like her otherwise she still wouldn't be on. It's just a minority on forums like this who critize her.

Yes, she appeared on shows nothing related to news - yet again, she jumped at the opportunity like most other people would.

But get over it. She does a job and that is inform the public of what's going on through the 6 o'clock news and currently a 60 second news bulletin aimed at people who don't watch news. The BBC and vast majority of viewers like myself have no problem with her, so stop debating such boring topic and get back onto the feedback of this trail. Thank you kindly.
Gosh! If you didn't want to derail the thread by turning it into a Natasha fan club fest, then perhaps you shouldn't have stepped in. I made a point. Full stop. You're the one who's debating it. You're the one who's going on about how much of a glamour girl she is.

You haven't even atttempted to contribute to the debate in any kind of thoughtful fashion. What about the argument that making herself a celebrity 'personality' and participating in light entertainment shows reduces her authority as a newsreader? How can viewers take someone seriously, reading the news about terrorist attacks and deaths and destruction when they've witnessed them prancing around a screen in sequins and being a vacuous 'personality'?

You haven't addressed that point at all. You haven't engaged with me in any kind of sensible debate about that issue. And that is an issue to be considered. No, there's no debate from your point of view. Natasha's a glamour girl as you call her. Is that your only line of defence? I argue about detractions from the seriousness of news and you tell me to shut up because she's a glamour girl?

calum141 posted:
Probally I have not seriously read what you've had to say but I know the ratings are pretty damn good for the 6 and have been for a good amount of time because the audience likes NK and GA - that's the reality today. I have no problem with how she speaks or pronounces things.

Just an assumation her, but possibilly you're jealous because she is much better looking than you? Ok, I'll kill the argument there because I do not wish to get personal. Laughing
Again, I make a derisory comment about the phenomenon of identikit blondes (a recognised issue within the industry) the dumbing down of news the increasing emphasis on style and presentation over substance. I'm talking about serious issues relating to news coverage. And what's your rejoinder? Nasty insults about how I must be jealous because she's attractive. Wrong. I'm not jealous of Newsreader Barbies. I'm saddened by the phenomenon.

Did you not read my examples of other women journalists? Those are the kind of women journalists that I admire and look up to. I don't like the word jealously, because of the implication that I want something *instead of* someone else, that I want to take something from someone else. I prefer the word envious, because to me that implies that I look up, admire and respect someone else, and I that I *too* would aspire to that kind of journalism (it's early days in my career yet).

I'm not the kind of woman who feels jealous. I don't want to put others down in order to boost myself. I look up to people and I aspire to be a better person, to be like them, not to trample on them on my way up or to put others down to improve my own status.

But saying that I must feel jealous of her attractiveness I think says a lot about your mindset. You're basing your opinions of her, your defence of her on her attractiveness, not her abilities as a journalist. That tells me all I need to know about where your priorities as a consumer of news lies.

Don't you think it's really rather pathetic? If someone dislikes the dumbing down of news output, that lots of blokes wade in and say but she's attractive, you must be jealous! Ner ner ner! Plus all the nasty and childish insults you've thrown my way about obsession and needing medical attention?

I'm not at all jealous of her. I am, however, envious of other respectable and talented women journalists whose work I admire and respect and desire to emulate (NK definitely not being one of them).

I'm starting to wonder though, I think you might want to get into her pants from your luv'd up description and defence of her. Perhaps you're the one who needs medical help for your obsession with Natasha Kaplinsky?
MA
Mancunian
NickyS posted:
Mancunian posted:
[Back to the issue of the thread. I don't want news bulletins or news summaries being read to me or anyone else in the audience as if I/we were in the back row of the remedial class at school. I don't want dumbing down. I don't want news-headlines-read-as-Hello-coverlines news summaries. I don't want a 60 second news summary with an 'And finally...' about cutesy wutesy fluffy wuffy tiger cubs at the end of it. It's demeaning.

That's fine - they are probably not aimed at you. You can watch Newsnight, listen to Radio 4's 1800/2400 bulletins, look at the BBC news website. There is a lot of BBC News there for you. Surely this is just a very short bulletin aimed at someone totally different from yourself who doesn't want lots of news. And I totally disagree with them being dumbed down - they are simply a different style - one that I totally understand isn't for you. They still give the same information just in a more friendly and less stuffy way. In the same way as some people will read The Telegraph/Times or Guardian - others will choose The Sun/Mirror or Star. Just a different BBC News for a different audience. Many of whom like the cute "And finally" stories - look at the popularity of ITV's News At Ten And finally's ...
Thank you Nicky for engaging sensibly and rationally and making a valid point about the actual issue.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Thank you for not engaging in personal attacks and insults.

I appreciate what you're saying, and perhaps I agree with you, I'm not the target audience. But that saddens me. Because I think it is part of the general dumbing down and servicing the lowest common denominator of the audience.

Do you think that always has to be the case? Is there any way of reversing this trend? Is there any way to be found of giving the lowest common denominator sector of the audience a 'leg up' into better news coverage?

It worries me that people will watch these summaries and think: Ooh, some filmstar was on a red carpet for a film premiere, there was a fire/bit of disaster/some death somewhere, and some cute tiger cubs were abandoned and then adopted by a dog. And that's what they think the days news amounts to.

I'm concerned that some sections of the audience will think: Oh, I've had my fill of the news now, I know what's going on in the world, I won't bother watching the Ten now, because I've just watched the news summary, which amounts to a snippet of 'hard news' a snippet of celebrity fluff, and an 'And finally...'

I'm really passionate about news and current affairs, as you might guess.

I guess one way you can describe my attitude is like a parent (me) and a few children (the audience). You try and make your child eat their five daily fruit and vegetables, because you know it's good for them. A few children go along with eating the fruit and vegetables, because they know it's good for them, but also they actually like them. A couple of the children grudgingly accept the fruit and vegetables for their dinner, because they know they're going to get some pudding afterwards. But then there's one or two children who refuse to eat the fruit and vegetables and demand ice cream and throw a tantrum, they're not going to eat fruit and vegetables under any circumstances whatsoever and all they're going to eat is ice cream. Full stop. End of argument.

I feel that that the situation that the programme schedulers and news management are increasingly finding themselves in are as the parents who have caved in to their tantrum throwing children's demands.

The lowest common denominator wants ice cream and it wants it all the time, and it doesn't want any healthy fruit and vegetables under any circumstances whatsoever.

Everyone knows (I would hope) that sensible and responsible parenting doesn't involve caving in to children and letting them what they want all the time. It's just not good for them.

I feel as though the audience is increasingly behaving like spoilt children who only want and will only consume ice cream. And the programme schedulers and news managers, instead of trying to encourage the audience to eat their five a day healthy fruit and veg, have given up on the idea of saying yes you can have some ice cream later, but you've got to have something healthy first, have caved in and are just serving up more and more ice cream.

Sorry if you don't like or approve of the fruit and veg and icecream analogy, but I was struggling to think of another way of explaining it.

What do you think Nicky? Is there anyway back out of the abyss? If so, what might it be? Or have we sunk too far down the icecream glacier to the point of no return?

I'm genuinely interested in hearing your views.
CA
calum141
I am sorry if I came across as rude however I am not a member of a "fan club" for NK - I just don't think it is fair that she is ripped constantly because of who she is. As someone from the BBC said, something about the role of a newsreader has died out.

Natasha Kaplinsky comes across to the audience as an attractive woman (well, from the people I have met) and that makes a better appeal.

Secondaly, she's friendly to the audience - a serious (I'd say more stricter) audience wouldn't take heart to her but she reads the news at 6 o' clock. That is when families would be watching. Serious news critics may not be fond of her, I would recommend Newsnight or the 10 with Huw or Fiona, who is serious then.

She does have journalist skills too and contributes to the making of the program. I also appreciate that for yourself she is not really the 'average' newsreader and someone you probally look upto is Moira Stuart.

The audience must like her otherwise they would be bombared with complaints every day, but obviously it seems ok for the program she does.

TV broadcasters work for the majority and not the minority who moan all the time about something.

I am not able to backup my arguments constructively because I am young at heart also (not too young!) and English skills are still in development so I apologize.

P.S And no - I don't have an obsession nor do I have a personal attractive/fantasy. You don't really need medical help either, if you were attracted to someone however I will say the least that NK looks like a nice woman when presenting.
JA
jamesmd
'Mancunian': Why have you devoted 75% of your replies to Miss Kaplinsky? For someone who's "passionate about news and current affairs" (cliché of the millennium) you're not doing very well at showing it. I don't care much for Natasha Kaplinsky but as long as she can read the news then it's fine. It's got nothing to do with jealousy, or any of that b*llocks, it's purely due to the fact that she looks a bit dressed up for the cameras.

I also seem to recall a few mornings on Breakfast when Miss K seemed to turn up make-upless...

Newer posts