JC
Jesus christ, what do you guys have agains Tom Bradby? His delivery is smooth and animated, unlike ITN's wooden line-up (Julie Etchingham).
CI
Smooth? Not quite. Not bad, but not smooth, really.
Also, being animated can work against you. Sometimes, he comes across a little too animated, sometimes it's perfect. He's inconsistent, in that sense. He doesn't always pitch it quite right every time. It's not jarringly wrong, but at times, it's just a little off.
He's not a bad presenter, he's just not a great presenter. He's not flagship bulletin material, not yet anyway. He might get there, but he isn't there yet.
In comparison, someone like Jon Suchet or Alistair Stewart, always pitched it perfectly and never felt like their personalities or styles were trying to overwhelm the news.
As Sir Alistair Burnett used to say, the news is the star, the newscaster is just the person delivering it. Tom feels like he is trying to attach himself to the news, in the same kind of way that some US anchors have done, although ironically, even though we still have names attached to the bulletin titles, the current crop of evening news anchors; David Muir, Scott Pelley and Lester Holt, feel less like traditional US news personalities, and more like newscasters as we know them here in the UK.
I liked Julie Etchingham's style, whether she was at Sky or ITV, she never canme across as wanting to be bigger than the news she was delivering. Whereas Bradby seems to want to be, or at least, that's how he comes across to me.
Jesus christ, what do you guys have agains Tom Bradby? His delivery is smooth and animated, unlike ITN's wooden line-up (Julie Etchingham).
Smooth? Not quite. Not bad, but not smooth, really.
Also, being animated can work against you. Sometimes, he comes across a little too animated, sometimes it's perfect. He's inconsistent, in that sense. He doesn't always pitch it quite right every time. It's not jarringly wrong, but at times, it's just a little off.
He's not a bad presenter, he's just not a great presenter. He's not flagship bulletin material, not yet anyway. He might get there, but he isn't there yet.
In comparison, someone like Jon Suchet or Alistair Stewart, always pitched it perfectly and never felt like their personalities or styles were trying to overwhelm the news.
As Sir Alistair Burnett used to say, the news is the star, the newscaster is just the person delivering it. Tom feels like he is trying to attach himself to the news, in the same kind of way that some US anchors have done, although ironically, even though we still have names attached to the bulletin titles, the current crop of evening news anchors; David Muir, Scott Pelley and Lester Holt, feel less like traditional US news personalities, and more like newscasters as we know them here in the UK.
I liked Julie Etchingham's style, whether she was at Sky or ITV, she never canme across as wanting to be bigger than the news she was delivering. Whereas Bradby seems to want to be, or at least, that's how he comes across to me.
BR
It is where ITN excel and the BBC cutting back on on-location presenting should hopefully allow for them to excel further with that point of difference, though ITV will really miss Mark Austin in that regard.
Strangely Tom Bradby seems to be more bearable if he's presenting the Ten on location. Much better delivery and none of the usual awkwardness during the closing seconds of the programme.
It is where ITN excel and the BBC cutting back on on-location presenting should hopefully allow for them to excel further with that point of difference, though ITV will really miss Mark Austin in that regard.
NE
newsman1
Bradby was asked on his Facebook page on the Friday before the US election whether the bulletin would still be called News at Ten when ITV moves it to make way for the chat show. He said, "Probably not".
He also said in response to mention of the issue by another Facebook follower, "I think it is only moving for a few weeks, but we will be doing our best to do the same thing in that period at 10.30!"
Obviously, the viewing figures for News at Ten are not great but they're not bad because the main BBC bulletin, although it beats its ITV counterpart in the ratings, gets much lower viewing figures than it used to back in the heyday of British television news.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3304492/Ding-dong-ten-bitter-war-words-breaks-biggest-egos-TV-news-BBC-veteran-says-Oh-grow-chaps.html
He also said in response to mention of the issue by another Facebook follower, "I think it is only moving for a few weeks, but we will be doing our best to do the same thing in that period at 10.30!"
Obviously, the viewing figures for News at Ten are not great but they're not bad because the main BBC bulletin, although it beats its ITV counterpart in the ratings, gets much lower viewing figures than it used to back in the heyday of British television news.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3304492/Ding-dong-ten-bitter-war-words-breaks-biggest-egos-TV-news-BBC-veteran-says-Oh-grow-chaps.html
PC
I know it's fashionable to knock Tom Bradby, but I actually quite like his manner of guiding you through the news. It provides a clear alternative to the BBC's straightforward approach. Over the years it's always been ITN's gig to try different approaches, and when you're up against a 10pm bulletin which is going to knock the stuffing out of you on a nightly basis because ITV surrendered the timeslot years ago, and people normally default to the BBC anyway, you may as well give it a go.
On a side note in terms of the BBC, my main wish is that they'd streamline the headline sequence for their bulletins - it's really become untidy. Headlines are headlines - they're meant to give me an idea of what's going on, and then you can go on to explain the details. Making them that long really puts me off.
It's also worth ITV giving this nightly show a go, though people will inevitably be waiting to tear it down before it even begins. The News At When debate is long lost - people have chosen the BBC now. If it works, grand, if they look at the pilot and go no further then they gave something a try.
The problem the first time they moved News At Ten was ITV was in the midst of consolidation and often had its eye off the ball in programming terms. I couldn't name you a single programme that replaced it. If they are attempting to introduce an agenda-setting entertainment show then it's worth a shot, though experience of watching attempts like this on UK TV suggest to me they're in for a battle.
On a side note in terms of the BBC, my main wish is that they'd streamline the headline sequence for their bulletins - it's really become untidy. Headlines are headlines - they're meant to give me an idea of what's going on, and then you can go on to explain the details. Making them that long really puts me off.
It's also worth ITV giving this nightly show a go, though people will inevitably be waiting to tear it down before it even begins. The News At When debate is long lost - people have chosen the BBC now. If it works, grand, if they look at the pilot and go no further then they gave something a try.
The problem the first time they moved News At Ten was ITV was in the midst of consolidation and often had its eye off the ball in programming terms. I couldn't name you a single programme that replaced it. If they are attempting to introduce an agenda-setting entertainment show then it's worth a shot, though experience of watching attempts like this on UK TV suggest to me they're in for a battle.
CI
I think that approach works best when you have really complex individual stories, and you have to break them down a bit to make it easier to understand what's going on, and it's really helpful there. Most of the rest of the time his guidance feels like he's telling you what he wants you to think, and I don't really like it. But like so many other styles, they have their place and can be really useful tools, when done right.
I know it's fashionable to knock Tom Bradby, but I actually quite like his manner of guiding you through the news. It provides a clear alternative to the BBC's straightforward approach.
I think that approach works best when you have really complex individual stories, and you have to break them down a bit to make it easier to understand what's going on, and it's really helpful there. Most of the rest of the time his guidance feels like he's telling you what he wants you to think, and I don't really like it. But like so many other styles, they have their place and can be really useful tools, when done right.
NE
newsman1
The problem the first time they moved News At Ten was ITV was in the midst of consolidation and often had its eye off the ball in programming terms. I couldn't name you a single programme that replaced it. If they are attempting to introduce an agenda-setting entertainment show then it's worth a shot, though experience of watching attempts like this on UK TV suggest to me they're in for a battle.
I can:
Cop Shop, a fly-on-the-wall police documentary (which I didn't watch) that was shown at 10 back in 1999 after the main ITN bulletin was moved to 6:30
Tonight with Trevor McDonald (which I didn't watch either), which was shown, if I remember correctly, on Thursdays
The Second World War in Colour (which I did watch), which was narrated by the late John Thaw, in the autumn of 1999
SW
PEDANTRY AHOY: Cop Shop, which began on the first night they moved in March 1999, was actually at 8.30. You're right about the other two, though Tonight (in its original 60 Minutes-esque form with a number of different features in one show) did very badly at ten.
They tried a couple of adult dramas at ten o'clock, this being the era when every drama on television was inspired by Cold Feet, there was Metropolis and Wonderful You, though the latter I recall appearing in Broadcast's list of the least watched primetime series in modern times. They also did a load of comedy there, including some dull sitcoms like Dr Willoughby with Joanna Lumley, Dark Ages written by Red Dwarf's Rob Grant and the second series of the dreadful Babes In The Wood, plus some panel shows like Casting Couch with Mel and Sue. They also moved Clive James' series to that slot for a year, and Frank Skinner was at 10pm when he moved to ITV.
But nothing really caught on in that slot apart from extra episodes of Millionaire and Coronation Street. The whole point of moving it was because ITV saw BBC1 get millions of viewers with They Think It's All Over after ten o'clock and they wanted a piece of that. Unfortunately they never found anything. The first few weeks of the new schedule looked amazing, with big film premieres and dramas lasting two hours from 9pm. But they ran out of those after a bit, and half the time it was just all the stuff they used to show at 10.40 anyway.
Cop Shop, a fly-on-the-wall police documentary (which I didn't watch) that was shown at 10 back in 1999 after the main ITN bulletin was moved to 6:30
PEDANTRY AHOY: Cop Shop, which began on the first night they moved in March 1999, was actually at 8.30. You're right about the other two, though Tonight (in its original 60 Minutes-esque form with a number of different features in one show) did very badly at ten.
They tried a couple of adult dramas at ten o'clock, this being the era when every drama on television was inspired by Cold Feet, there was Metropolis and Wonderful You, though the latter I recall appearing in Broadcast's list of the least watched primetime series in modern times. They also did a load of comedy there, including some dull sitcoms like Dr Willoughby with Joanna Lumley, Dark Ages written by Red Dwarf's Rob Grant and the second series of the dreadful Babes In The Wood, plus some panel shows like Casting Couch with Mel and Sue. They also moved Clive James' series to that slot for a year, and Frank Skinner was at 10pm when he moved to ITV.
But nothing really caught on in that slot apart from extra episodes of Millionaire and Coronation Street. The whole point of moving it was because ITV saw BBC1 get millions of viewers with They Think It's All Over after ten o'clock and they wanted a piece of that. Unfortunately they never found anything. The first few weeks of the new schedule looked amazing, with big film premieres and dramas lasting two hours from 9pm. But they ran out of those after a bit, and half the time it was just all the stuff they used to show at 10.40 anyway.
Last edited by Steve Williams on 23 November 2016 12:44pm
TV
A few years later when they fixed the news at 10.30 you had this ludicrous situation where Frank Skinner would come on for half an hour, they'd run a full news bulletin and then go back to the rest of The Frank Skinner Show after 11pm.
Frank Skinner was at 10pm when he moved to ITV.
A few years later when they fixed the news at 10.30 you had this ludicrous situation where Frank Skinner would come on for half an hour, they'd run a full news bulletin and then go back to the rest of The Frank Skinner Show after 11pm.
SW
Yes, and the worst thing about that is that it was filmed as an hour long show (because it was repeated like that), and it was edited so that the news was in the middle of an interview - halfway through, Frank would say "We're back after the news!", and when they came back on the interview would continue as if they'd just been away for a few minutes of adverts, rather than half an hour of news. Of course, by that point you'd totally forgotten anything they'd done, it did nothing for the show at all. Most of the audience had probably switched off in the meantime.
That was the problem with the news at 10.30, of course, if you had an hour long show - it wasn't mainstream enough for 9pm and 11pm would have been too late (although the following, final series was at 11pm), so you had that ragged compromise. At 10.30 it meant ITV had to make a load of ninety minute dramas, after years of making everything in hour and two hour durations, or put a load of half hour shows at ten. It would have been alright if they had loads of sitcoms and panel shows, but they didn't. 10.30 seemed the best option of all the times they tried the news at during that decade, but in practice it was probably the worst in terms of scheduling.
A few years later when they fixed the news at 10.30 you had this ludicrous situation where Frank Skinner would come on for half an hour, they'd run a full news bulletin and then go back to the rest of The Frank Skinner Show after 11pm.
Yes, and the worst thing about that is that it was filmed as an hour long show (because it was repeated like that), and it was edited so that the news was in the middle of an interview - halfway through, Frank would say "We're back after the news!", and when they came back on the interview would continue as if they'd just been away for a few minutes of adverts, rather than half an hour of news. Of course, by that point you'd totally forgotten anything they'd done, it did nothing for the show at all. Most of the audience had probably switched off in the meantime.
That was the problem with the news at 10.30, of course, if you had an hour long show - it wasn't mainstream enough for 9pm and 11pm would have been too late (although the following, final series was at 11pm), so you had that ragged compromise. At 10.30 it meant ITV had to make a load of ninety minute dramas, after years of making everything in hour and two hour durations, or put a load of half hour shows at ten. It would have been alright if they had loads of sitcoms and panel shows, but they didn't. 10.30 seemed the best option of all the times they tried the news at during that decade, but in practice it was probably the worst in terms of scheduling.