Bradby at Ten

Michael Grade had suggested that ITV drop regional news but not national and international news.

From 9 December 2009:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/6762745/MIchael-Grade-drop-regional-news-in-favour-of-shows-like-X-Factor-says-ITV-boss.html

This is where Labour IDEA was of outsourcing the local news to a third party but give it 6pm slot on ITV.

To be honest given that you have at least two rolling news stations, plus RT, CNN, France24, I find the "need" for a scheduled news programme on BBC and ITV to be wonderfully dated notion. You can get news whenever you like yourself - be it on TV, on radio, on line, on your mobile, anywhere. I think the sooner people realise this, the sooner the mainstream channels can innovate - and yes, the cheaper it might be.

Given that Sky One (an entertainment channel) has no news, why should ITV (an entertainment channel) anymore?

Well you say this, but an Ofcom report only this week demonstrated how scheduled news on BBC One followed by ITV remains by far the most popular platform for news consumption.

And news is still a cheaper and more effective way to fill the slot than commissioning other content. You can also guarantee that should ITV pull the 6pm news hour the ratings for the soaps in the 7pm hour would be hit too.

I hate to break it to you but if it's such an outdated concept how come the most 'used' source for news in the UK is television news and more specifically networked bulletins. BBC One News and ITV News both out perform the news channels with both BBC News and ITV News being watched by millions every night. Given ITV News's relatively small staffing, it is a comparatively cheaper alternative than an additional 90 minutes of television production every day. BBC National News costs pretty much nothing additional as the entire infrastructure is there for the News Channel anyway and fills up plenty of airtime. Furthermore, ITV wouldn't be able to just drop news output - all the main channels must have some News and Current Affairs as part of their public service remit and if ITV were to dump the news the viewers would just switch to the BBC. And if I understand one thing about broadcasting competition is that it's best not to throw away 3 million viewers to your biggest competitor. Networked News programmes are no more dead than Radio 4 News programmes.

We've already seen how the main channels have suffered from shipping out the kids content. It took ITV a good 5 years to establish an afternoon line up and a decade on there is still a massive hole in their weekend schedules, while BBC2 still doesn't really know what to do with itself in the afternoons since its content was taken by BBC1 to replace CBBC.

Children's shows and presenters don't have anywhere near the profile they had up to a decade ago - they used to be part of the national TV landscape but now not even sure they register with their intended audience.

You're absolutely right, Brekkie. I don't have children so never watch - or even channel hop around - the children's TV channels and I couldn't name one contemporary children's programme. I've no idea if they are still making Blue Peter - and I only know that Newsround still exists by seeing mention of it on here. Other than that, I haven't got a clue any more. Whereas 10 years ago or so, I'd regularly see things like In The Night Garden or Bob The Builder when channel surfing around the mainstream stations. In the same way, I think removing news from mainstream channels would be a complete disaster.

I think it's much more likely we will see news channels close than network bulletins disappear for the reasons stated above. People still like a round-up of the day's news at a specific time - sometimes having everything everywhere on demand isn't a good thing...

Today's Evening Standard confirms we can expect tweaks to the titles and set next Monday - including more emphasis on the clock face.

Yep - another bit of self-important puffery... Not quite as bitter as some previous interviews - but still...



Quite...

Sorry, I can't see Jay Lee's post for some reason - but thanks for highlighting that story. The whole thing comes across as quite schizophrenic:
- "The BBC is boring, so we try to get their people" (as has been highlighted),
- "I don't give a t*ss about the BBC, yet here's a comparison of our coverage",
- "We're not about ratings, but my stated aim is to improve ratings".

Finally, the way he says "we" all the time makes it sound like he's running the whole show. Talk about setting yourself up. Can't help refer back to Cando's post:




Oh, and finally:
Bradby says, "Bland is no good on TV. Nobody tunes in for bland.”
LOL.