JH
Which bits? There weren't many considered facts taken in context in there!
alarsne53 posted:
I actually agree with a lot of what Kevin O'Sullivan in the Mirror said
Which bits? There weren't many considered facts taken in context in there!
OL
What a twisted story. He's got some nerve stating that the team at ITN need a lesson in journalism, if that's the best he can do. He would have to pick NAT's lowest viewing figure of the week to conclude that people are deserting the 'sinking ship'. He fails to point out that the viewing figures were back up there on Thursday night with the Heathrow news. Here's a reality check for him: it's only been back a week...surely a bit too soon to be making judgements like NAT is a 'sinking ship'. Furhermore, I've never seen a chatshow use a studio like NAT! He's clearly off his rocker.
It's surely just because it had a feel that was more like the Independent than the Daily Mail . Or the Guardian , for that matter.
pffft. are you joking? i hope so. i thought it still had a rather sensationalist air about it.
jrothwell97 posted:
itsrobert posted:
Anne MacKenzie Fan posted:
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/showbiz/tv/
Even I think this piece on News at Ten is harsh!
Even I think this piece on News at Ten is harsh!
What a twisted story. He's got some nerve stating that the team at ITN need a lesson in journalism, if that's the best he can do. He would have to pick NAT's lowest viewing figure of the week to conclude that people are deserting the 'sinking ship'. He fails to point out that the viewing figures were back up there on Thursday night with the Heathrow news. Here's a reality check for him: it's only been back a week...surely a bit too soon to be making judgements like NAT is a 'sinking ship'. Furhermore, I've never seen a chatshow use a studio like NAT! He's clearly off his rocker.
It's surely just because it had a feel that was more like the Independent than the Daily Mail . Or the Guardian , for that matter.
pffft. are you joking? i hope so. i thought it still had a rather sensationalist air about it.
SE
Which bits? There weren't many considered facts taken in context in there!
Basically the bit that criticises Trevor, the bit that criticises Mondays Diana exclusive, and the bit about them missing the Peter Hain comment. I also agreed with the gimmicky twaddle bit, it is style over substance and has not done enough to warrant me switching over from the BBC offering.
Jonathan H posted:
alarsne53 posted:
I actually agree with a lot of what Kevin O'Sullivan in the Mirror said
Which bits? There weren't many considered facts taken in context in there!
Basically the bit that criticises Trevor, the bit that criticises Mondays Diana exclusive, and the bit about them missing the Peter Hain comment. I also agreed with the gimmicky twaddle bit, it is style over substance and has not done enough to warrant me switching over from the BBC offering.
MA
mark
Founding member
The article's harsh - that's the idea. And I don't agree with a lot of the comments.
But, in my view, what he says about the Diana 'exclusive 'is spot on. I honestly can't remember a single thing the guy actually said in that interview - which implies that either I have a rubbish memory, or he didn't say anything memorable or newsworthy.
In my view, if the topline is 'Someone has spoken to us' rather than 'This is what someone's told us' , that is, in essence, conceding that the interview really didn't achieve much.
But, in my view, what he says about the Diana 'exclusive 'is spot on. I honestly can't remember a single thing the guy actually said in that interview - which implies that either I have a rubbish memory, or he didn't say anything memorable or newsworthy.
In my view, if the topline is 'Someone has spoken to us' rather than 'This is what someone's told us' , that is, in essence, conceding that the interview really didn't achieve much.
JH
Which bits? There weren't many considered facts taken in context in there!
Basically the bit that criticises Trevor, the bit that criticises Mondays Diana exclusive, and the bit about them missing the Peter Hain comment. I also agreed with the gimmicky twaddle bit, it is style over substance and has not done enough to warrant me switching over from the BBC offering.
Fair enough, but I think you need to give it time. Monday and Tuesday were incredibly slow news days and anyway, both the BBC and ITV brought out their pre-arranged big pieces in lieu of much real news. Look at Thursday: in my view News at Ten offered a far more comprehensive and informative programme on the aircrash story than the BBC.
alarsne53 posted:
Jonathan H posted:
alarsne53 posted:
I actually agree with a lot of what Kevin O'Sullivan in the Mirror said
Which bits? There weren't many considered facts taken in context in there!
Basically the bit that criticises Trevor, the bit that criticises Mondays Diana exclusive, and the bit about them missing the Peter Hain comment. I also agreed with the gimmicky twaddle bit, it is style over substance and has not done enough to warrant me switching over from the BBC offering.
Fair enough, but I think you need to give it time. Monday and Tuesday were incredibly slow news days and anyway, both the BBC and ITV brought out their pre-arranged big pieces in lieu of much real news. Look at Thursday: in my view News at Ten offered a far more comprehensive and informative programme on the aircrash story than the BBC.
EB
So, News at Ten is back is it?
Still waiting for apologies from the morons who doubted my exclusive, called me an idiot etc.
This website got the TV scoop of the year and you all rubbished it.
Fancy being scooped by the Daily Mirror!!!!
My next revelation will appear very soon. But I will change my name. Being rubbished by you lot has been a burden, but in a sense it has been exquisite.
Still waiting for apologies from the morons who doubted my exclusive, called me an idiot etc.
This website got the TV scoop of the year and you all rubbished it.
Fancy being scooped by the Daily Mirror!!!!
My next revelation will appear very soon. But I will change my name. Being rubbished by you lot has been a burden, but in a sense it has been exquisite.
JK
Does anyone else agree that the Friday "Late News" opening titles are awful?
They have just used the News at Ten titles stopping short of coming up to the Big Ben clockface and then straight into the studio?
Couldn't they have rearranged the title sequences so as to show Big Ben at 11pm? Or even have a different variation of the titles.
ITV always have a feel that they have been forced to bring back News at Ten by Michael Grade and just to upset him they only have it on 4-nights a week. Everything with ITV News seems half hearted.
At least BBC News looks and always has looked much stronger and a firm postions regular bulletins at 1, 6 and 10. ITN/ITV should pay more attention to the BBC.
They have just used the News at Ten titles stopping short of coming up to the Big Ben clockface and then straight into the studio?
Couldn't they have rearranged the title sequences so as to show Big Ben at 11pm? Or even have a different variation of the titles.
ITV always have a feel that they have been forced to bring back News at Ten by Michael Grade and just to upset him they only have it on 4-nights a week. Everything with ITV News seems half hearted.
At least BBC News looks and always has looked much stronger and a firm postions regular bulletins at 1, 6 and 10. ITN/ITV should pay more attention to the BBC.