TV
Well the ratings would give the opinion 'No'.
Personally I think the whole return of NAT was pretty pointless - Trevor McDonald is very overated in my opinion - he 'retired' once in a blaze of glory - I just think the Nations Favourite Newsreader should have left whilst he was on top, Just my opinion.
Personally I think the whole return of NAT was pretty pointless - Trevor McDonald is very overated in my opinion - he 'retired' once in a blaze of glory - I just think the Nations Favourite Newsreader should have left whilst he was on top, Just my opinion.
KI
Well it is nice because the evenings feels more news-y BUT I have already returned to the BBC- just occasionally switching back to see what NaT are doing.
I think the Beeb have the better produced programme and it is very clear they have the better resources and journalistic talent. (Even if presentation-wise i prefer NaT)
Brekkie Boy posted:
I think itsrobert must of misjudged this - we only reached outrage level when it started after 22:02 
Really though, two weeks later does anyone actually genuinely care that News at Ten is back?
Really though, two weeks later does anyone actually genuinely care that News at Ten is back?
Well it is nice because the evenings feels more news-y BUT I have already returned to the BBC- just occasionally switching back to see what NaT are doing.
I think the Beeb have the better produced programme and it is very clear they have the better resources and journalistic talent. (Even if presentation-wise i prefer NaT)
TE
It still started at 2200 though, just not on the dot. I really don't think it's much of a problem, it's not like it was at 2203 or something like that.
IT
In principle, I'd agree with you. However, it reveals that they are willing to delay News at Ten for no good reason. It can't be a good sign for the future, if nothing else.
itsrobert
Founding member
TELEVISION posted:
It still started at 2200 though, just not on the dot. I really don't think it's much of a problem, it's not like it was at 2203 or something like that.
In principle, I'd agree with you. However, it reveals that they are willing to delay News at Ten for no good reason. It can't be a good sign for the future, if nothing else.
VV
After a few weeks of watching N@T, I must say I am fairly dissapointed with the whole package overall. One example of this is I did wonder how long It would remain bang on time and lets face it it didnt take long!!! I think generally it shows ITV's dedication to deliver consictency to its ailing news output to rival the BBC.
"BAD ITV!!! Sort yourselves out!!! lol"
"BAD ITV!!! Sort yourselves out!!! lol"
YO
OMG I think some people need to take some time out before anyone has heart failure over the bulletin starting at 10pm on the dot.
I myself never watched a late news bulletin till News At Ten started. I have found it quite watchable. Having the bulletin starting 59 seconds late does not neccessarily mean it is a sign of things to come. Nor does it mean that ITV have to sort anything out.
Some people on this forum should get oout more, get over it and not worry over trivial little things, it is a website that discusses TV presentation but whittling on about starting times is becoming tedious and tiresome.
I think some times people seem to forget that ITV is a commercial channel, if it was ok to run adverts in some news programmes before 1999 why is it not ok now?!
I myself never watched a late news bulletin till News At Ten started. I have found it quite watchable. Having the bulletin starting 59 seconds late does not neccessarily mean it is a sign of things to come. Nor does it mean that ITV have to sort anything out.
Some people on this forum should get oout more, get over it and not worry over trivial little things, it is a website that discusses TV presentation but whittling on about starting times is becoming tedious and tiresome.
I think some times people seem to forget that ITV is a commercial channel, if it was ok to run adverts in some news programmes before 1999 why is it not ok now?!
BR
Also worth reminding people that News at Ten
never
started on time back in the nineties either.
Anyhow - got an idea for Big Ben with a blob - not ideal, but would work better IMO if they somehow morphed the "XI" logo onto the clockface and then had that zoom* out (as it does in the headlines) and then they continued.
BTW, is Big Ben seen at all anywhere in the background for News at Ten?
* probably the wrong word
Anyhow - got an idea for Big Ben with a blob - not ideal, but would work better IMO if they somehow morphed the "XI" logo onto the clockface and then had that zoom* out (as it does in the headlines) and then they continued.
BTW, is Big Ben seen at all anywhere in the background for News at Ten?
* probably the wrong word
JH
Hmm. Maybe better not to see it at all!
No. The view is looking in the opposite direction.
Brekkie Boy posted:
Anyhow - god an idea for Big Ben with a blob - not ideal, but would work better IMO if they somehow morphed the "XI" logo onto the clockface and then had that zoom* out (as it does in the headlines) and then they continued.
Hmm. Maybe better not to see it at all!
Brekkie Boy posted:
BTW, is Big Ben seen at all anywhere in the background for News at Ten?
No. The view is looking in the opposite direction.
LO
Interesting week three analysis from Mark Lawson in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv_and_radio/story/0,,2249534,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv_and_radio/story/0,,2249534,00.html