It must take Trevor 10 minutes to do the Tonight programme. All he does is say a few words at the beginning and end.
That's what I've always thought. The title of the show is a bit misleading really. It's not really
"with"
Trevor in any real sense.
He's just a "name" to pull viewers in, despite the main bulk of the show actually being done by another reporter. I bet he'll now be gradually phased out of
Tonight
altogether, over X months.
When he's eventually quietly dropped completely, they might as well just scrap the idea of having "top and tail" links on the programme, unless they're presented by whichever reporter is actually doing the main package content itself. The current format is daft. The tiny bits that Trev does seem pointless.
Though his name is still in the titles, it has been dropped from most listings in the last few months - instead it's things like "Insurance Uncovered: Tonight", following the general move to make programme titles do exactly what they say on the tin - or at least persuade you too buy the tin to find out what's inside.
It seems as if Trev being back for a year is over-exagerated as todays Obsever diary claims that he'll only be back for a few months, plus Mark Austin has had a heavy pay rise to counteract an approach to replace Dermot Murnaghan on BBC Breakfast!
It seems as if Trev being back for a year is over-exagerated as todays Obsever diary claims that he'll only be back for a few months, plus Mark Austin has had a heavy pay rise to counteract an approach to replace Dermot Murnaghan on BBC Breakfast!
I can't imagine the BBC being able to afford that much - and I don't think Mark would be right for Breakfast anyway - and I'm sure he doesn't want to be at Sky News five years down the line.
Indeed - surely splashing out on another big name presenter is not going to be very popular when saving the salaries of Dermot & Natasha would surely mean that a few less cuts would have to be made. Especially when Bill and Charlie can just be promoted - if those two were made regular presenters you wouldn't need a third male presenter anyway - someone like Chris Eakin could just fill in when one of them is away...
It seems as if Trev being back for a year is over-exagerated as todays Obsever diary claims that he'll only be back for a few months, plus Mark Austin has had a heavy pay rise to counteract an approach to replace Dermot Murnaghan on BBC Breakfast!
I can't imagine the BBC being able to afford that much - and I don't think Mark would be right for Breakfast anyway - and I'm sure he doesn't want to be at Sky News five years down the line.
I
could
see Mark doing breakfast - but reckon he'd be the same as Dermot i.e. a bit awkward and not really at ease, and wondering when he'd get to be doing the six or the ten.
Also - why don't the BBC just let Bill Turnbull do Breakfast? Are they suggesting Mark Austin would A do it better and B attract more viewer??
Every time I catch Breakfast it seems to be Bill hosting anyway.
I think Mark Austin will certainly have been sold his short term demotion as good for him in the long term.
It's likely even with Trevor around he'll present News at Ten at least twice a week before taking over full time in a more high profile slot than he's currently in. I think though when he does become the main News at Ten presenter he really does have to give up the Evening News so News at Ten isn't just another news bulletin.