ITV News

Well said.

Don't watch it then.

I don't know why I just said that, because it's obvious to me that you think ITV News viewers don't know what's good for them and they should be watching BBC News instead. You probably think tabloid newspapers should be banned and the plebs who read them should be forced by law to read broadsheets too.

The truth is, RegionalVariation has never picked up a broadsheet in his life, he's just saying it so people don't look down on him.

To be fair, ITV is required to produce news under the terms of its license and I believe Ofcom should be stricter on what "news" is (looks over at "Live at Studio Five" or, to be honest, the current "Five News") and really anything that can rival the BBC, Sky and C4 can only be a good thing. The problem is ITV News rarely rivals the BBC or even Sky, and instead both the latter and the former end up dumbing down their news output - the BBC News at Six or 24/7 on Sky News are both prime examples of this.

Especially since the revamp ITV do seem to be putting a human-interest stance on the news and, ignoring what they did or didn't do in the past, I don't think stories about the X Factor , Strictly Come Dancing or Sports Personality of the Year should make the news as they are not news, rather entertainment. Yes this weekend's X Factor got high ratings but to be fair the number of times I see all sorts of BBC News programmes (including regional), ITV News programmes and Sky News dedicate time to these stories is unbelievable.

And the problem with the "well then don't watch" argument is it leaves viewers with little alternative - BBC News is far from perfect, but ends up being one of the only serious contenders for serious news when faced by the likes of ITV.


In ITV's favour they can produce compelling reports, cover important news in depth and find all sorts of exclusives, they just seem to prefer to focus on lighter stuff most of the time.

I'd argue that ITV News does rival the BBC because it caters for a completely different audience. 'Rivaling' doesn't mean 'being exactly the same as'.

One of the BBC's main stories yesterday was that Julie Andrews is going to return to the West End. The headline aston read - I kid you not - "JULIE ANDREWS SINGS" There must be something going on somewhere in the world that's more important than that, surely. Other days you get silly stories like 'New research suggests that tea and coffee may help to prevent diabetes' - it just isn't news.

However, I think it was right for ITV and the BBC to mention The X Factor because it was one of the biggest shows of the year and the winner will probably have the Christmas number one. They mention Eurovision every year too so I don't see why a competition on the scale of The X Factor is much different to that.

I strongly object to stories about who's going to be the next doctor in Doctor Who though, as well as stories about Strictly Come Dancing judges being sacked or whatever - we don't need a running commentary throughout the series, just a five-minute item about the final and the winner at the end of it will suffice.

Here's a screencap from before the last series of SCD had even started. ITV News wouldn't lower themselves to this.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b366/webchie/bbcnews63.jpg

Urgh.

Julie Andrews had her vocal chords mangled in a botched operation many years ago - her return to singing is nigh-on miraculous, and she's chosen to return to her home - London - to perform once more.

It may not be a story you're interested in, but I was surprised and glad to hear it.

Diabetes affects around 2 million people in Britain - but again its obviously got no relevance to you so you don't consider it news.



Well, using the same measure that you seem to use for relevance, I'm bound to say, "who gives a $hit what you think"?

Chie, I don't see this debate as BBC Broadsheet v ITV Tabloid, per se.

It is true that the BBC tend to go into more depth with their reporting than ITV, but even that is tailored towards the masses with certain informalities. Some of ITV's output is put together in a more accessible, and so more successful, style. While their focus on individual lives gives the reportage a certain empathy, too often their bulletins become top-heavy with individual circumstance and contrived attempts at appearing compassionate rather than straight reporting of facts. This erosion of factual content is compounded by an overdose of celebrity fluff, combining to cheapen the ITV brand and ensure many potential viewers switch over, never to return.

As others have rightly pointed out, ITV's approach rivals other networks through this different yet complementary way. I dismiss the notion of 'not watching' ITV News. I think I should take a healthy interest in the information which is being consumed by the public. If I do not watch, how can I be sure their output remains inferior to the BBC's?

I accept the point made by several concerning the BBC's cross promotion of their own shows on the news and that they are arguably just as guilty of this as ITV. I do not agree with this policy.

However, nearly everyday with ITV there is a 'come and watch me' snippet, whether it be at the end of the 6.30 or in the advert break before 10, which too often features 'non-news' and is clearly there to attract a certain, younger or less academic audience. I dislike this kind of ratings chasing, as the extension of it can, and has, led to suppression of more sober fact to be replaced by rampant sensationalism, as evidenced by recent Tiger Woods reporting. Two further examples include 'Death of a Coronation Street legend' announced in the junction before News at 10, when surely her name could have been announced here, and the constant withholding of completed sports results - matches are advertised in the headline sequences but the results only revealed at the end of the programme.

I have no problem with ITV's more tabloid agenda, because it caters for a different section of the viewing public. They need accessible television news too. What concerns me is the execution of it. The once proud ITN brand is, like a tabloid seeking to increase its circulation, reporting mistruths and embellishing truths to actively furnish stories in a sensational way, rather than allowing the facts to speak for themselves. The quality of journalism therein, is falling.

Michael W, I wish you a Merry Christmas. I think you need it.

I agree with most of what you say about self-promotion and chasing ratings. However, I have to take issue with this. ITN is the provider of resources for ITV. It does not dictate editorial policy - that is down to the client, ITV. ITN simultaneously produces what many would consider the best example of British television journalism - Channel 4 News. I really do think C4 News is a forgotten gem. It's just as serious as the BBC but without the stuffiness. I also like the way they don't take themselves too seriously. I very rarely, if ever, see them self-promote either. Channel 4 News has the highest journalistic and production values in the business, in my view.

I accept your point itsrobert, and agree with you that Channel 4 news is a vastly underrated news programme.

Mark Austin on the News at 1.30 today...

It must be a last minute thing, as on my EPG it says Katie Derham should be presenting.

I don't the technicalities of how the EPG is updated but it's rarely changed after the content is originally published, so it may not be a particularly last minute thing. Possibly a reciprocal arrangement for Katie having covered or intending to cover one of the evening bulletins that would otherwise be covered by Mark.

Though I would rather have seen Katie read the news (nothing personal Mark ), it's good to see Mark on a bulletin that I can't remember having seen him present in the past.