WW
News anchors serve as recognizable "brands" for their broadcasters. They are the familiar "faces" -- both literal and figurative -- of otherwise sprawling and impersonal news organizations.
If you ask a person on the street to name a famous news person on the BBC, ITV, Sky News, Al Jazeera, CNN, CBS, ZDF, RTL, France 2, etc., chances are they will name an anchor rather than a reporter.
In other words, there is a reason why Huw Edwards is expensive. If his role could easily be eliminated, he would be earning far less.
(BTW, EuroNews has eliminated both anchors and on-air reporters -- and has never developed into a serious international news player.)
Also, jumping from reporter to reporter directly would be a logistical nightmare in case of breaking news and whenever things went differently than planned, which is quite frequently the case in TV news. For that matter, even regular editions of such newscasts would be difficult to produce without a center-point to bring it all together.
What some news organizations do is have several reporters introduce their stories at the top of the hour before the anchor takes over. That is often very effective.
Was just watching the BBC News at Ten, and I thought: why do main news programmes need anchors, and studios any more. Surely with modern technology it'd be possible for each story to be read by the reporter who's filed it, from where it's happening.
It'd make for a far more interesting programme too.
Opening shot: Jeremy Bowen in Tahir Square reading the first headline, into footage from earlier with him reading over that, then footage from the Leveson Inquiry with Peter Hunt reading that headline, etc etc.
Then each reporter would end his or her report with, for example, "Jeremy Bowen, BBC News, Cairo" and cut to the Peter Hunt live from outside the Royal Courts of Justice.
No need for an expensive studio, no need for an expensive Huw Edwards, just the reporters on the ground where the news is happening.
It'd make for a far more interesting programme too.
Opening shot: Jeremy Bowen in Tahir Square reading the first headline, into footage from earlier with him reading over that, then footage from the Leveson Inquiry with Peter Hunt reading that headline, etc etc.
Then each reporter would end his or her report with, for example, "Jeremy Bowen, BBC News, Cairo" and cut to the Peter Hunt live from outside the Royal Courts of Justice.
No need for an expensive studio, no need for an expensive Huw Edwards, just the reporters on the ground where the news is happening.
News anchors serve as recognizable "brands" for their broadcasters. They are the familiar "faces" -- both literal and figurative -- of otherwise sprawling and impersonal news organizations.
If you ask a person on the street to name a famous news person on the BBC, ITV, Sky News, Al Jazeera, CNN, CBS, ZDF, RTL, France 2, etc., chances are they will name an anchor rather than a reporter.
In other words, there is a reason why Huw Edwards is expensive. If his role could easily be eliminated, he would be earning far less.
(BTW, EuroNews has eliminated both anchors and on-air reporters -- and has never developed into a serious international news player.)
Also, jumping from reporter to reporter directly would be a logistical nightmare in case of breaking news and whenever things went differently than planned, which is quite frequently the case in TV news. For that matter, even regular editions of such newscasts would be difficult to produce without a center-point to bring it all together.
What some news organizations do is have several reporters introduce their stories at the top of the hour before the anchor takes over. That is often very effective.