« Topics
1234...16171819202122
TV Dan

Great choice! Steph is perfect for the role, although I think she'd be better alongside Dan...

Terrible decision IMO, can't see why the programme is so popular anymore,
They need a good clear out and make the programme good again, they should get rid of Louise, Naga, Steph, Dan, Roger Johnson, Ben Thompson.
They need to move back to London too. They really need to have Charlie & Sally hosting together, they been great over the past few days.
It would be nice to see more of the likes of Simon McCoy & Nicholas Owen.
And Rachel Burden should've have been the one to take Naga's role, she is a fantastic presenter, she reminds me of Katie Derham who used to host the ITV Lunchtime News.

Please stop with this rota-based, non-real-world, socially-stunted 12-year-old's idea of how TV news works! It's pointless onanism - and if you don't know what that word means, for God's sake, look it up!


Rude and obnoxious as usual Rolling Eyes
3
Bob, Luke and The SNT Three gave kudos
Gary McEwan2,918 posts since 23 May 2011
STV Central Reporting Scotland
Terrible decision IMO, can't see why the programme is so popular anymore,
They need a good clear out and make the programme good again, they should get rid of Louise, Naga, Steph, Dan, Roger Johnson, Ben Thompson.
They need to move back to London too. They really need to have Charlie & Sally hosting together, they been great over the past few days.
It would be nice to see more of the likes of Simon McCoy & Nicholas Owen.
And Rachel Burden should've have been the one to take Naga's role, she is a fantastic presenter, she reminds me of Katie Derham who used to host the ITV Lunchtime News.

Please stop with this rota-based, non-real-world, socially-stunted 12-year-old's idea of how TV news works! It's pointless onanism - and if you don't know what that word means, for God's sake, look it up!


Rude and obnoxious as usual Rolling Eyes


No it's straight to the point. Care to explain how the post is rude and obnoxious?
4
Brekkie, London Lite and 2 others
  • Cando
  • Skygeek
gave kudos
Skygeek715 posts since 5 Feb 2014
London London
Please stop with this rota-based, non-real-world, socially-stunted 12-year-old's idea of how TV news works! It's pointless onanism - and if you don't know what that word means, for God's sake, look it up!


Rude and obnoxious as usual Rolling Eyes


No it's straight to the point. Care to explain how the post is rude and obnoxious?

Quite. Have any of you who seem to be obsessed with presenter rotas to the degree that - for one three-hour programme, you think it would be feasible to fire all-bar-two of the existing team - ever actually worked in a newsroom, visited one, or spoken extensively to someone who works in broadcast news for a living? It. Just. Doesn't. Work. That. Way.


The reason why TVF strays so often into "Ooh, I'd put Colin Brazier on Sunrise sport duty [despite him having no background in covering it, and relegating him to four minutes an hour rather than four hours a day]" territory is that people just don't actually want to know how these decisions get made... they'd rather believe their own version despite all the available evidence to the contrary (President Trump, anyone?), which is a shame, because people could learn a lot, and in turn, add more interesting layers to the conversation.

i.e. "Given Naga's business background, I'm surprised they haven't made greater use of her skills on that front. But with her increased visibility thanks to Strictly, is this something the Beeb would want her to do full-time, given that business is more-niche than a mainstream magazine programme with a much-wider audience?"

... thereby continuing the conversation.

See... it can be done!
Last edited by Skygeek on 30 December 2016 12:48pm
I sometimes speak ABOUT my employer, although not FOR them.
4
Hatton Cross, London Lite and 2 others
  • Cando
  • MetalGearRex
gave kudos
DarthSidious63 posts since 4 Nov 2016
Central (West) Midlands Today

Rude and obnoxious as usual Rolling Eyes


No it's straight to the point. Care to explain how the post is rude and obnoxious?

Quite. Have any of you who seem to be obsessed with presenter rotas to the degree that - for one three-hour programme, you think it would be feasible to fire all-bar-two of the existing team - ever actually worked in a newsroom, visited one, or spoken extensively to someone who works in broadcast news for a living? It. Just. Doesn't. Work. That. Way.


The reason why TVF strays so often into "Ooh, I'd put Colin Brazier on Sunrise sport duty [despite him having no background in covering it, and relegating him to four minutes an hour rather than four hours a day]" territory is that people just don't actually want to know how these decisions get made... they'd rather believe their own version despite all the available evidence to the contrary (President Trump, anyone?), which is a shame, because people could learn a lot, and in turn, add more interesting layers to the conversation.

i.e. "Given Naga's business background, I'm surprised they haven't made greater use of her skills on that front. But with her increased visibility thanks to Strictly, is this something the Beeb would want her to do full-time, given that business is more-niche than a mainstream magazine programme with a much-wider audience?"

... thereby continuing the conversation.

See... it can be done!


Condescension.
London Lite7,083 posts since 4 Jan 2003
London London
The only comment I agree with is that Rachel Burden is a fantastic presenter who should be used more. The rest of it, while is full of fantasy rota puff seems to be based on that Nathan doesn't like those presenters than based on any realistic objective which is what we should be debating.

I'm not a fan of the new Sunrise line-up for example, but I understand why Sky have made that decision.

Steph McGovern is sneered at mainly because she doesn't use RP in her delivery, but is a competent presenter.
1
Skygeek gave kudos
Skygeek715 posts since 5 Feb 2014
London London

No it's straight to the point. Care to explain how the post is rude and obnoxious?

Quite. Have any of you who seem to be obsessed with presenter rotas to the degree that - for one three-hour programme, you think it would be feasible to fire all-bar-two of the existing team - ever actually worked in a newsroom, visited one, or spoken extensively to someone who works in broadcast news for a living? It. Just. Doesn't. Work. That. Way.


The reason why TVF strays so often into "Ooh, I'd put Colin Brazier on Sunrise sport duty [despite him having no background in covering it, and relegating him to four minutes an hour rather than four hours a day]" territory is that people just don't actually want to know how these decisions get made... they'd rather believe their own version despite all the available evidence to the contrary (President Trump, anyone?), which is a shame, because people could learn a lot, and in turn, add more interesting layers to the conversation.

i.e. "Given Naga's business background, I'm surprised they haven't made greater use of her skills on that front. But with her increased visibility thanks to Strictly, is this something the Beeb would want her to do full-time, given that business is more-niche than a mainstream magazine programme with a much-wider audience?"

... thereby continuing the conversation.

See... it can be done!


Condescension.

A badge I'm happy to wear in this context.
I sometimes speak ABOUT my employer, although not FOR them.
1
Rkolsen gave kudos
Hatton Cross2,179 posts since 4 Jan 2003
Central (West) Midlands Today
The only comment I agree with is that Rachel Burden is a fantastic presenter who should be used more.
Steph McGovern is sneered at mainly because she doesn't use RP in her delivery, but is a competent presenter.


Agreed on the point with Steph.
However, Rachel will be good for Breakfast - once, she decides she's had enough of Nicky Campbell on Five Live Breakfast - not before.

I thought it a very strange a few weeks ago, where she depp'ed for Naga on a Thursday, causing Five Live to get someone in on Breakfast to cover for her.

Now, I've produced holiday/cover rotas for a radio station (one that broadcasts to sick people) and I would never, ever consider 'daisy chaining' the presenters around, so one covered someone else - only then to have to get someone else in on another night. Get presenter to present their programme, then carry on to the next hour with the cover shift (if possible - otherwise, I'd do the cover myself)

OK - so Five Live and BBC Breakfast are situated around 10 feet under each other in Salford - but even so, given there appears to be enough cover presenters for Breakfast at their disposal - so causing swapsies at Five Live as well, still seems a very curious decision.
ITV "Occasionally it gives us something good, but for the most part, it is pathetic and puerile". Lord Taylor, House Of Commons, 1959.
Brekkie27,036 posts since 4 Jan 2003
HTV Wales Wales Today
It's no different really to getting Sally or Steph to host and then having to bring in somebody to do their usual role. I'm not familar with 5Live Breakfast at all but might be easier to get someone in to cover for her than to go down the pecking order on Breakfast itself.

It's also possible that just like with Dan at the beginning of the year her covering on a random Thursday morning wasn't that random after all.
Shouldn't that have been posted in the "John Logie Baird has Invented Television" thread?
TV Dan
Please stop with this rota-based, non-real-world, socially-stunted 12-year-old's idea of how TV news works! It's pointless onanism - and if you don't know what that word means, for God's sake, look it up!


Rude and obnoxious as usual Rolling Eyes


No it's straight to the point. Care to explain how the post is rude and obnoxious?


Because what gives Skygeek, or any other member, the right to tell people to stop doing anything - that should be down to mods.
1
Bob gave kudos
Skygeek715 posts since 5 Feb 2014
London London

Rude and obnoxious as usual Rolling Eyes


No it's straight to the point. Care to explain how the post is rude and obnoxious?


Because what gives Skygeek, or any other member, the right to tell people to stop doing anything - that should be down to mods.

Read the pinned thread - the mods have had their say on this one.


Also, it's just about the fundamentals of human conversation. Imagine you're at a dinner party... you don't get to monologue for what (in real time) would be three minutes on a subject about whose real workings you have no idea, do so as a closed statement rather than inviting further comment, and then not expect people to look at you with an expression that says: "WTF?"

The same conventions apply in spaces like this, do they not? (See... I ended on a question.)
I sometimes speak ABOUT my employer, although not FOR them.
1
Rkolsen gave kudos
Gary McEwan2,918 posts since 23 May 2011
STV Central Reporting Scotland

Rude and obnoxious as usual Rolling Eyes


No it's straight to the point. Care to explain how the post is rude and obnoxious?


Because what gives Skygeek, or any other member, the right to tell people to stop doing anything - that should be down to mods.


Because fantasy rota chat is beyond tedious at times and serves no real purpose.

There are places for stuff like that and it's called Digital Spy. If I had the knowledge and worked in the industry like Skygeek does, I'd say the same thing.
3
Brekkie, London Lite and Skygeek gave kudos