NEWS at TEN - January 2016 Relaunch

Itv Player. Was indeed superb

Found this. At 5:11.

Matt must have done some of the pretty great jibs on the late ITV News London bulletins as well.

Charlene gave out the wrong website address at 3:00 - she said itv.com/london rather than"/news"

I expect she's already been handed her P45.

You ACTUALLY made the active decision to take time out of your day to post that, huh?


And before anyone responds to me in the same fashion, let me just say this... As a discussion venue, TVF is supposed to be better than granular observations like that, which (justifiably) elicit snorts of derision from people like Charlene. I bet you've messed up something at work before, and while you're not a public figure, if your error wasn't gobsmackingly embarrassing, you wouldn't want it highlighting, either.

Good Evening, Mr. Meldrew.

For the record, I fully agree.

I respect you, skygeek, and I appreciate the insider knowledge you bring to the forum. But increasingly, I do find you to be very quick to snap at people and belittle them (sometimes for good reason, sometimes for not so good reasons). Whilst it was an especially dull observation, NicB1971's nit-picky post picking up on a very minor happening is the life-blood of the forum, and it's what we do best as members! If people didn't pick up on these kind of things, this forum would ONLY consist of questions about what the TV news chair certain members are obsessed with, along with why Piers Morgan is both equally the best/worst thing to happen to Good Morning Britain. I don't agree with how you've jumped on him for a single post (I haven't checked to see if he constantly posts banal rubbish, as have not the time nor the effort to do so) - some people are responsible for consistently posting rubbish, often about a presenter's personal life or something that we need not/should not discuss, but I don't think this is one of those cases.

Also, and maybe I'm just in an irritable mood, but I can't say I'm a fan of what almost seems to be namedropping about how you know certain presenters and people in the industry, before going on to almost speak on their behalf. Quite often in recent times a presenter/journalist/person has been mentioned, and you've been very quick to reply something along the lines of 'I worked with them for X years, knowing them bla bla bla I think they'... - I'm glad you get the chance to work with these people, but we don't need it constantly rammed down our throats! Maybe Charlene White would look at the comment NicB1971 and snort in derision because it's a pointless observation, or maybe she'd laugh and go 'whoops' - I don't know the answer, and I don't think you're in the position to entirely predict how she'd react, either. Another recent example of this was in the GMB thread, where you said that Eamonn Holmes has returned to ITV Breakfast 'for a bit of fun and because he's still good mates with Charlotte' - do you know this, or are you assuming based on your relationship with him? It just seems like a bit of speculation (which could turn out to be very good speculation), rather than actual knowledge.

As I say, I have no personal qualm with you, and have the upmost respect for what you do, but sometimes think that your posts don't come across as well as they could.

These threads run so much smoother when we just talk about television rather than each others posts.

So less than two weeks till the triumphant return of News at Ten and hopefully this fiasco is long forgotten - until the next time an ITV exec has a bright idea.

Irritable mood? You might be right. I think there's a difference between picking up on stuff "everyday" viewers wouldn't (which is what makes this a worthwhile place to visit and contribute to) and being granular to the point of strange.


As it happens, I've never met or spoken to Charlene, and indeed, I didn't express myself as articulately as I could have there. What I meant is that well-placed people in the industry (like Charlene) tend to regard that sort of nitpicking as the preserve of people with too much time on their hands, and not in an amusing way.

As for the Eamonn thing... Have I spoken to him directly about GMB? No. But do I know his feelings about continuing to do early morning TV long-term? Yes. And can I speak with reasonable authority about his professional relationship with Charlotte? Absolutely.

Tie those last two together and what do you get?... As informed an analysis of the situation as I can offer without knowingly speaking out-of-turn. Might he have an understanding with ITV that he'll take over full-time at some point? Based on what I know, the answer is probably not, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of me being wrong.

I think most of us are a bit "strange" -- that's why we frequent a TV presentation forum.

Yes, but there's a difference between the sort of "strange" that gets a response of "Whatever floats your boat" and the kind that makes people say: "Is that the time?"


Anyway, back to the matter at-hand. There were only two realistic routes this ITV misadventure could ever go down, especially with rotating hosts:

The first was that TNS bombed entirely and was never spoken of again, but allowed ITV to reclaim their "heritage" news slot with enough fanfare to boost their numbers short-term.

The second was that TNS was only a moderate flop, thereby allowing ITV to schedule it slightly differently AND to reclaim their "heritage" news slot with enough fanfare to boost their numbers short-term.

Anybody else sensing a theme here?