The Newsroom

Bradby at Ten

ITN Presenter Shake-Up (June 2015)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
IT
itsrobert Founding member
There's the criticism of the BBC stealing the 10pm slot. Well, when ITV axed News at Ten the first time, 1999, Sky News decide to, almost immediately, rename their 10pm bulletin, Sky News at Ten. So, are they saying it's ok for Sky to steal the slot but not the BBC?

But here's a thought; why does ITV want to go for the 10pm slot? If it isn't happy with the BBC taking it, why now have a bulletin at 9.30pm?

Indeed, and even ITN joined in too. When the ITN News Channel launched in August 2000, they had their own "News at Ten" complete with voice-over reminiscent of ITV's NAT.


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

On a broader point, I'd just like to highlight the difference between ITN and ITV. I appreciate for many I'm teaching grandmothers to suck eggs, but there has been a lot of comment about ITN vs the BBC over this whole News at Ten debate. I very much doubt that ITN staffers are responsible for this vitriol against the BBC. ITN is merely the production company - it's ITV that is ultimately responsible for these changes to News at Ten. ITN just does as it's told by the client. That's how they can simultaneously produce the excellent and well-respected Channel 4 News alongside this drivel at 10. In a way, ITN is doing its job perfectly - fulfilling each client's wishes to the letter.
NE
newsman1
There's the criticism of the BBC stealing the 10pm slot. Well, when ITV axed News at Ten the first time, 1999, Sky News decide to, almost immediately, rename their 10pm bulletin, Sky News at Ten. So, are they saying it's ok for Sky to steal the slot but not the BBC?

But here's a thought; why does ITV want to go for the 10pm slot? If it isn't happy with the BBC taking it, why now have a bulletin at 9.30pm?

Indeed, and even ITN joined in too. When the ITN News Channel launched in August 2000, they had their own "News at Ten" complete with voice-over reminiscent of ITV's NAT.


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

On a broader point, I'd just like to highlight the difference between ITN and ITV. I appreciate for many I'm teaching grandmothers to suck eggs, but there has been a lot of comment about ITN vs the BBC over this whole News at Ten debate. I very much doubt that ITN staffers are responsible for this vitriol against the BBC. ITN is merely the production company - it's ITV that is ultimately responsible for these changes to News at Ten. ITN just does as it's told by the client. That's how they can simultaneously produce the excellent and well-respected Channel 4 News alongside this drivel at 10 . In a way, ITN is doing its job perfectly - fulfilling each client's wishes to the letter.

Ah, give Tom a break! The first edition with him at the helm started with a lengthy report from ITN veteran John Irvine about the Mediterranean refugee crisis. How can you regard that as drivel?!
GM
GMc
There's the criticism of the BBC stealing the 10pm slot. Well, when ITV axed News at Ten the first time, 1999, Sky News decide to, almost immediately, rename their 10pm bulletin, Sky News at Ten. So, are they saying it's ok for Sky to steal the slot but not the BBC?

But here's a thought; why does ITV want to go for the 10pm slot? If it isn't happy with the BBC taking it, why now have a bulletin at 9.30pm?

Indeed, and even ITN joined in too. When the ITN News Channel launched in August 2000, they had their own "News at Ten" complete with voice-over reminiscent of ITV's NAT.


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

On a broader point, I'd just like to highlight the difference between ITN and ITV. I appreciate for many I'm teaching grandmothers to suck eggs, but there has been a lot of comment about ITN vs the BBC over this whole News at Ten debate. I very much doubt that ITN staffers are responsible for this vitriol against the BBC. ITN is merely the production company - it's ITV that is ultimately responsible for these changes to News at Ten. ITN just does as it's told by the client. That's how they can simultaneously produce the excellent and well-respected Channel 4 News alongside this drivel at 10 . In a way, ITN is doing its job perfectly - fulfilling each client's wishes to the letter.

Ah, give Tom a break! The first edition with him at the helm started with a lengthy report from ITN veteran John Irvine about the Mediterranean refugee crisis. How can you regard that as drivel?!


How many times has it got to be said? It's not the reports with the problem, it's the introductions to them, and the personal opinions afterwards!
Also, during I'm a Celebrity, News at "Ten" will be on at 10.30 most Wednesdays and Fridays - not great when they're trying to strengthen the brand!
Stuart, Schwing and Nicky gave kudos
PC
p_c_u_k
I don't see anything wrong with the phrase: "The facts are on Google, we need to give you much more than that." It suggests they will still give you the facts, but will also give you analysis and try to explain to the average viewer what's going on in a language they will understand.

End of the day, you once had two news bulletins at 10pm offering you exactly the same. Now you have a BBC news bulletin which plays it straight and an ITV one which by the sound of things will try to inject a bit more personality. So a bit of choice. No-one's forcing anyone to watch ITV if they don't like it. Personally, I'm willing to give it a go.
PI
pip2
Personality. I blame Angela Rippon's legs. It hasn't been the same since.

Why does there need to be news on BBC 1 at all anymore? Why does the BBC's News at Ten (formerly the 10 O'clock News from the BBC) need to be on two (equally accesible) channels in this digital day and age?

Is it ratings?
NG
noggin Founding member
pip2 posted:
Personality. I blame Angela Rippon's legs. It hasn't been the same since.

Why does there need to be news on BBC 1 at all anymore? Why does the BBC's News at Ten (formerly the 10 O'clock News from the BBC) need to be on two (equally accesible) channels in this digital day and age?

Is it ratings?


It's viewing - not ratings. People don't watch the same shows on minor channels in the same volume (*). If you consider news provision a public service, then providing it to the widest audience is the public service thing to do, so News on BBC One is the public service thing to do.

(*) Watch the ratings soar as shows switch from BBC Two to BBC One - whether it's a Wimbledon match or a series.
PI
pip2
pip2 posted:
Personality. I blame Angela Rippon's legs. It hasn't been the same since.

Why does there need to be news on BBC 1 at all anymore? Why does the BBC's News at Ten (formerly the 10 O'clock News from the BBC) need to be on two (equally accesible) channels in this digital day and age?

Is it ratings?


It's viewing - not ratings. People don't watch the same shows on minor channels in the same volume (*). If you consider news provision a public service, then providing it to the widest audience is the public service thing to do, so News on BBC One is the public service thing to do.

(*) Watch the ratings soar as shows switch from BBC Two to BBC One - whether it's a Wimbledon match or a series.


My apologies, was using 'ratings' colloquially not technically.

I agree news provision by the BBC is a vital public service. I don't agree that reaching the widest audience should necessarily figure though. If that's the goal they're missing a trick not showing it across the lot surely.

Are you saying that having the news on BBC1 is a way of force feeding us the facts?
LV
LondonViewer
For the record, there have been quite a few comparisons with US network news bulletins. It's true that the anchors also carry the title 'Managing Editor' but in many ways it is an honorific. In those instances where an anchor does decide to make a 'personal' intervention in a story, it is customarily labelled as such. Walter Cronkite's editorial on the Tet Offensive was clearly a personal intervention and was referred to as such. Equally, Scott Pelley's recent comments about the shootings in Charleston and elsewhere in the US were labelled as 'comment' and not editorial positioning. That demarcation does not exist in Tom Bradby's copy.

Agreed. These comparisons to US Newtwork news are unfair. None of the three are as editorialised as this show.

Also, not sure why he has problem with the Beeb going out at ten now that ITV are offering an 'alternative'. ITV are no longer offering a straight news bulletin, so really there's no issue with their show clashing with the news on BBC One.
JU
thejules
msim posted:

But here's a thought; why does ITV want to go for the 10pm slot? If it isn't happy with the BBC taking it, why now have a bulletin at 9.30pm?


ITV has no choice (well, potentially see below) but to run the news at 10pm.

As things currently stand the TV audience in this country begins to decline after 10pm. Currently they run the news and pick up whatever audience they can and then effectively shut shop for the night as soon as its done. If they move the news to 22.30 then they are stuck in the situation they were in between 2004 and 2008, which is having to find something to fill a thirty minute slot at 22.00. Now that sounds easy, but it posed ITV huge problems in the past and it will be worse now. 30min commissions aren't in vogue these days - its easier to commission for 60mins. The alternative is you drag out your 21.00 programme out for 90mins, but again, thats a big ask to have the audience stick around that long and also poses problems for both secondary sales and (if I recall correctly), writers themselves finding it difficult to write for such a slot length with the number of commercial breaks this means.

That therefore leaves you running news at 21:30 which would most likely not be commercially viable and, as already stated, your competitors are running 60min shows from 21.00 that will retain their audience until 22.00. You're again stuck for what to fill a 30min slot with at 21:00...

ITV has nobody to blame but itself with this. It was a monumental error to scrap the original News at Ten on the basis of running longer films precisely when digital television made it easier than ever to get a wide choice of movies on Sky and Cable, and the introduction of DVDs.

As I see it ITV has two options right now. The obvious one is that they continue with the current News at Ten, in whatever form and presented by whomever they want and just accept the audience they get and stop whinging about the BBC. The second option is they return to the 23.00 Nightly News, and either reduce it down and divert funds to boosting the 18.30 bulletin or introduce a short update at 22.00 ala BBC 8pm news or 5 News Updates. To be quite honest, the objection that the ITC had about the ITV Nightly News being a ghetto probably wouldn't hold water these days given that OfCom have rolled over so often in the past when ITV have wanted to reduce news commitments, and, as even Bradby says, you can get factual news whenever you want online.


What about ITV taking the BBC's old slot at 9? During the last gulf war they ran the Nine O'Clock Gulf News Report and I believe it was a success. I don't believe they should or would however they could? Or even an 8 or 8,30 slot?
MS
msim


I get the feeling this little spat isn't being played out for the benefit or the interest of the public. Reads more to me as a renewed effort to exploit and expand on Whittingdale's brain fart about the BBC moving their bulletin.


Of course it isn't. And in fact, I believe it has nothing to do with news. ITV don't care about News at Ten, no matter what press releases they dish out or what words Bradby splutters out. This is in fact a calculated way to exploit the BBC at a time when it is in a politically sensitive moment. What ITV really want is the BBC moving their news to 9pm, thus to damage the popularity of the BBC One schedule from 9pm onwards and instead draw the audience to their 9pm offering. Remember, it was first in 2001 that BBC One overtook ITV in the ratings, which coincidentally, is the first full year after they moved the news to 10pm. News at Ten is just the pawn in this overall game that ITV is playing.
Last edited by msim on 8 November 2015 10:55pm
NE
newsman1
I reckon that ITV having two half-hour bulletins in peak time is a legacy of the ITV News Channel, i.e. the late 20-minute bulletin being slightly extended by putting it in a fixed slot at 10:30 in 2004 and getting another slight extension by being moved to 10:00, while still keeping the Evening News, which started in 1999 as the flagship ITV national bulletin.

So News at Ten cannot surpass the number of viewers that its BBC rival has. That doesn't mean that News at Ten isn't worth the cost. After all, Sky News is run on a not-for-profit basis.
NE
newsman1
I'm aware that ITV had a commercial break at 10:00 on Monday because more people watch Doc Martin than News at Ten, but even fewer people would watch News at Ten on the Wednesday on which it's on an hour late due to Champions League highlights but the break was in the middle of the bulletin instead of straight after the highlights. That leads me to ask the following question:

Does ITV broadcast the Champions League highlights at 10:00 because they believe it'll get more viewers at that time or are they contractually obliged to have it on at the top of the hour that immediately follows the final whistle?

Newer posts