The Daily Mail reports that Michael Grade, who has just quit his post as Chairman of the BBC to become the new executive chairman of ITV, may bring back News at Ten:
Quote:
Michael Grade will land up to £10m after dramatically quitting his job at the BBC and defecting to arch rivals ITV - admitting his first move could be to bring back the News At Ten. Grade, who said he wanted to bring "stability" and "confidence" to the broadcaster , will take home a salary of £825,000 per year in his new role as executive chairman at ITV...
But his pay will be massively increased by a range of pay perks in his three-year deal.
He also admitted that one of his first priorities would be to look at the "provision of news" on ITV and did not rule out bringing back the News At Ten, which was axed in favour of the current 10.30pm bulletin, which became the permanent nightly bulletin in February 2004.
'did not rule out' could well also mean 'did not mention at all'
I think you've probably hit the nail on the head.
We already had a period a few years back when both BBC's and ITV's late news went out head-to-head at 10pm, and we really don't want that again. For five TV channels to only really be offering four choices, because two of them are simultaneously showing news, is really poor IMHO.
Nick Harvey posted:
I'm more surprised at the word "news" appearing so many times in a Daily Mail article.
Suppose the journo had to go and look up what it meant.
We already had a period a few years back when both BBC's and ITV's late news went out head-to-head at 10pm, and we really don't want that again. For five TV channels to only really be offering four choices, because two of them are simultaneously showing news, is really poor IMHO.
Well yes and no.
In the US the big three networks put out the main news at the same time. This may seem a bad idea on the face of it, but the effect in the long term is that the news goes from being an inconvenience, pushed to the sidelines of the schedules, to a real cut-throat competition which has the effect of increasing budgets and (hopefully) increasing quality.
I see no reason why this shouldn't be replicated here -- except that unfortunately in this country we don't really have multiple big commercial networks at each other's throats, such is the nature of the system. We just have one big complacent commercial network, one public-funded one which by definition is not looking over its shoulder because it doesn't have to, and three other niche/bit players.
But American bulletins are of an appalling quality, regardless of the money splashed out on fancy sets/faces - why would that be any better? (Not that there's much hope for ITV anyway)
You're missing the point a bit -- whatever you might think of the US bulletins (and I personally think they're a lot better than ITV these days) it's still fair to say that they are a lot better the way they are than if they were pushed away in the corner, with each broadcaster putting the news up against popular programming on another channel and getting stuffed in the ratings as a result.
We have to face up to the fact that the days of the news being good because it's a badge of honour for the broadcasters is long gone.
I disagree. Over the past decade broadcasters have chosen to relegate news to "unimportant status." Initally, this was probably a reaction to the advent of 24-hour news. But, there will ALWAYS be a market for local news, local weather and sport. People want to have a way to connect to their community and local TV news is one way to do that.
Secondly, there will ALWAYS be a market for a GOOD main news bulletin of national and international news. A good news programme makes the issues clear and accessible to the public. It's not just a rote recitation of the day's events, nor is it an editorial (Fox), nor again a program concerned with one issue (Panorama). If you want people to watch "national" news day-in and day-out, it must enable them to understand why things are evolving the way they are. Accordingly, well-resourced foreign bureaux and excellent communicators are a must.
Why was the NaT sacked in 1999? I don't think I've ever heard the real reason. I have a suspicion, however, that it was to free-up the timeslot for something that might produce more revenue.
Or, maybe it was to make the 9pm to 11pm period available for movies, specials, etc. that would air without interruption for the news.
Does anyone know?
But...in any case...it was a bad move. "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" translates, in this case, as: "if your program has a stable, large audience, then you should not dramatically revamp it unless you're very certain you can sustain the interest of that audience with the replacement."
Furthermore, having a fixed news programme anchors the evening schedule and allows for programmes following one theme to air in the period before the news, and programmes of a different flavour afterwards. The fixed-time newscast, with a strong brand identity of its own, therefore, acts as a sort of enforcer for coherence to the overall schedule. Suppose, for example, that drama airs from 8 to 10 pm. And afterwards, comedy, feature programming, or "chat" shows.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the logic of ressurecting and nurturing the NaT brand is very clear.
The reasons for News at Ten's axing were pretty much as you said, not to forget ratings for the programme had fallen too!
The replacement bulletins have all done their job pretty well. The Evening News is a key part of the early evening schedule, while the Nightly News (at 11pm) and the current News at Ten Thirty all achieved what they set out to do.
It was the bringing back of News at Ten in the first place which really damaged ITV News's reputation, especially with the inconsistant scheduling.
In the case of the scheduling of the news ITV certainly did know best - all the ITC/OFCOM intervention did was make it a burden for the channel!
The reasons for News at Ten's axing were pretty much as you said, not to forget ratings for the programme had fallen too!
The replacement bulletins have all done their job pretty well. The Evening News is a key part of the early evening schedule, while the Nightly News (at 11pm) and the current News at Ten Thirty all achieved what they set out to do.
It was the bringing back of News at Ten in the first place which really damaged ITV News's reputation, especially with the inconsistant scheduling.
In the case of the scheduling of the news ITV certainly did know best - all the ITC/OFCOM intervention did was make it a burden for the channel!
you eihter have a very bad or a very selective memory. The reason they brought back News At Ten was because they realised they had nothing to fill the 10/10.30pm slot and whatever they put there was being hammered by the BBC's news bulletin.
also, the old Nightly News would start at any time between 10.58pm to 11.07pm. An utter mess which showed the futulity of the decision and began the downward spiral of ITN's reputation from which they have probably never recovered.
and as Jonathan says, the current bulletin is hardly pulling up any trees.
ITV did not know 'best' and I am astonished that anyone can say that.
