But whatever happened to Jonathan Wills? He only ever appears sporadically nowadays. He didn't fill in for Alastair, neither did he cover any sports stories this week.
I didn't even know Andrew Castle was a proper journalist, I thought he was just a former tennis player turned breakfast presenter!
I was about to post that this was a worrying development...
Then I realised that having watched London Tonight recently it has become apparent that, with a few notable exceptions, you don't have to be a journalist to report on, or produce, the programme either by the look of it, let alone be one to present it.
At one point London Today used to give Newsroom South East a good run for their money in London - as it was able to be more regional (as it didn't have to cover the Oxford and Kent/Sussex bits that NSE did)
BBC London appeared - and finally they were able to compete on a level playing field region-wise. However although BBC London was pretty poor technically in comparison to London Tonight - and in my view had a less-able presenting team - (Anna Maria Ashe was far more competent and much warmer than Emily Maitlis IMHO) it seemed to quite quickly demonstrate a better ability to actually cover news in London.
I think many of the London Tonight reporters were more TV-competent than BBC London's (some of whom are still pretty poor broadcasters - especially when it comes to grammar) However, as a casual viewer BBC London seemed to cover more stories, break more stories, and cover some issues in greater depth, than London Tonight - and it seems the viewers agree.
Rather than compete with BBC London it seems that the ITN version of London Tonight is more content to be a cheap magazine programme instead. It certainly doesn't seem to have much regional character any more.
A shame really - because BBC London is far from perfect - and some better competition might mean they sharpened up their act...
(And will someone please get Jon Gaunt of my TV - if I wanted to listen to his show I'd listen to BBC London. I don't want him - and his audience's views - masquerading as a news item. If I want that sort of "opinion-TV" I'll watch something like Trisha - not a local news programme)
I didn't even know Andrew Castle was a proper journalist, I thought he was just a former tennis player turned breakfast presenter!
I was about to post that this was a worrying development...
Then I realised that having watched London Tonight recently it has become apparent that, with a few notable exceptions, you don't have to be a journalist to report on, or produce, the programme either by the look of it, let alone be one to present it.
At one point London Today used to give Newsroom South East a good run for their money in London - as it was able to be more regional (as it didn't have to cover the Oxford and Kent/Sussex bits that NSE did)
BBC London appeared - and finally they were able to compete on a level playing field region-wise. However although BBC London was pretty poor technically in comparison to London Tonight - and in my view had a less-able presenting team - (Anna Maria Ashe was far more competent and much warmer than Emily Maitlis IMHO) it seemed to quite quickly demonstrate a better ability to actually cover news in London.
I think many of the London Tonight reporters were more TV-competent than BBC London's (some of whom are still pretty poor broadcasters - especially when it comes to grammar) However, as a casual viewer BBC London seemed to cover more stories, break more stories, and cover some issues in greater depth, than London Tonight - and it seems the viewers agree.
Rather than compete with BBC London it seems that the ITN version of London Tonight is more content to be a cheap magazine programme instead. It certainly doesn't seem to have much regional character any more.
A shame really - because BBC London is far from perfect - and some better competition might mean they sharpened up their act...
(And will someone please get Jon Gaunt of my TV - if I wanted to listen to his show I'd listen to BBC London. I don't want him - and his audience's views - masquerading as a news item. If I want that sort of "opinion-TV" I'll watch something like Trisha - not a local news programme)
Well said! The poor London Tonight programme is also bad for the viewers when it comes to BBC London. Of course, BBC London is the better product...but as you say is far from perfect because ITV doesn't really compete with it. It's amazing really, who would have thought we'd be longing for Christopher Peacock outside Southwark Crown Court.
I know they said they wanted a less crime-lead agenda...but to blatantly treat some stories with little respect and then spend 10 minutes talking to some theatre-luvvies, it just beggars belief.
The shorter bulletins are actually slightly better products I find, but still far from perfect.
As much as other regional programmes are laughed at...most at least cover the main news in the first 10 minutes (some of them a lot more...) - whereas London Tonight often spend 10 minutes on some "human interest" story and then throw to a 1-minute news in brief section before running a competition or getting Tamzin Sylvester to talk to some Hollywood "star" that has no relevance to London or it's people.
Great stuff! Choice tonight between London Tonight or BBC Swimming Pool news.
LDN have so far covered the olympics (already covered ad nauseum on national bulletins) and Children in Need in their first 15 minutes.
Grrr.
It was a special programme though, not a normal edition. It is rare for the same story to appear on both the BBC local and national news (the local newsrooms have access to the national's run orders and vice versa) except on the occasions where it's a big story and the local programme can provide a diffrent angle, which it did tonight I thought
BBC London appeared - and finally they were able to compete on a level playing field region-wise. However although BBC London was pretty poor technically in comparison to London Tonight
Although the boot was on the other foot when London Tonight moved to a new building. BBC London weren't that good technically when they first moved but at least they never crashed off air and broadcast a VT clock for 5 minutes!
BBC London appeared - and finally they were able to compete on a level playing field region-wise. However although BBC London was pretty poor technically in comparison to London Tonight
Although the boot was on the other foot when London Tonight moved to a new building. BBC London weren't that good technically when they first moved but at least they never crashed off air and broadcast a VT clock for 5 minutes!
No - but they did broadcast quite a few bulletins with almost no VT at all - and some of their early packages were unwatchably bad. Some of the "out of focus wobblicam stuff with rubbish sound" still seems to be in use...
Not the fault of the people involved - more of the general move to newsgathering using PDP techniques (never mind the quality, look how cheap it is) Desktop editing is OK for basic OOVs and short clips, but the sound editing tools in use in many desktop editing systems (and the audio monitoring used) often means that cut-downs etc. done at the desktop look and sound awful.
Well said! The poor London Tonight programme is also bad for the viewers when it comes to BBC London. Of course, BBC London is the better product...but as you say is far from perfect because ITV doesn't really compete with it. It's amazing really, who would have thought we'd be longing for Christopher Peacock outside Southwark Crown Court.
I know they said they wanted a less crime-lead agenda...but to blatantly treat some stories with little respect and then spend 10 minutes talking to some theatre-luvvies, it just beggars belief.
The shorter bulletins are actually slightly better products I find, but still far from perfect.
As much as other regional programmes are laughed at...most at least cover the main news in the first 10 minutes (some of them a lot more...) - whereas London Tonight often spend 10 minutes on some "human interest" story and then throw to a 1-minute news in brief section before running a competition or getting Tamzin Sylvester to talk to some Hollywood "star" that has no relevance to London or it's people.
Poor. Very poor.
Yep - the shorter bulletins do seem more relevant and "newsier" - though the seemingly ever-changing presenting team (seems to be whoever is on a break from the newschannel?) doesn't engender a regional feeling. The set is also looking pretty dull and tired very quickly. The fake window is not a patch on the real South Bank backdrop they used to have - it looks awful on overcast days.
I agree about the bizarre news agenda.
Tamzin Sylvester is great at what she does - she's a first rate entertainment journalist (and was fantastic on Liquid News - extremely witty and sharp) - but I agree that she is being over relied on to fill the programme.
Don't get me started on the cabby competition - or Keir Simmonds.
Come back Christopher Peacock - and what ever happened to Vince Rogers?!
Not the fault of the people involved - more of the general move to newsgathering using PDP techniques (never mind the quality, look how cheap it is) Desktop editing is OK for basic OOVs and short clips, but the sound editing tools in use in many desktop editing systems (and the audio monitoring used) often means that cut-downs etc. done at the desktop look and sound awful.
Yep I agree and even with good editting and sound it is very easy to spot these items because of the quality of the video is far worse from those cameras and tape format