I agree James is a good newreader
When he first started appearing quite regulary he seemed quite wooden, but he has improved a heck of a lot.
James is very good for reading the news and not getting giggles etc unlike some others who seem to giggle or make little comments after a report, although I do like it when Al Stewart makes little comments on a report
James Mates is very good on the late news, but isn't so much suited to the earlier bulletins IMO if you know what I mean - he looks out of place on the Lunchtime News, unlike someone like Alistair Stewart who seems capable of being able to get the right tone whatever he presents.
I have got to be honest, and I know my opinion means FA to anyone here but..
I think Julie Etchingham has made a grave mistake in moving to ITV News. She is - after neariing on 3 months the 'dolly bird'. She is the 2nd to Trevor, Mark...maybe not James - I didn't watch Thursday night.
Ultimately she was Sky News' top female anchor. Kay Burley aside - it was Julie that was dispatched before an eye was blinked - not Kay.
I think unless ITV snap her up for other projects she will be lost in the mess and failure that is NAT, and a great shame it will be!
No matter how bad News at Ten is doing in the ratings, from a journalistic and career point of view Julie did make the right decision. Would you rather be on a digital channel in mid afternoon or on the number one commercial channel on a show that has history? Yes, ratings are bad but the show is of a high quality. And Julie now has far much more exposure than she did hidden away on Sky News.
Faliure? Ratings wise maybe, but not as a programme.
I could probably agree with you....but in this day and age - it is to the bosses at ITV all about ratings sadly, and I just feel she may have made a grave mistake. She is a rare talent and wasted on a 30min bulletin where she reads autocue and not much else!
Faliure? Ratings wise maybe, but not as a programme.
I could probably agree with you....but in this day and age - it is to the bosses at ITV all about ratings sadly, and I just feel she may have made a grave mistake. She is a rare talent and wasted on a 30min bulletin where she reads autocue and not much else!
Have the ITV bosses said this or are you putting words into their mouths?
Moving to ITV News is not a grave mistake. She is now mainstream with 3 million viewers every night, before she was unknown other than to Sky News viewers.
Faliure? Ratings wise maybe, but not as a programme.
I could probably agree with you....but in this day and age - it is to the bosses at ITV all about ratings sadly, and I just feel she may have made a grave mistake. She is a rare talent and wasted on a 30min bulletin where she reads autocue and not much else!
Very possibly - but I imagine there's more of a future for her at ITN than there is at Sky. It's a news channel that's badly lost its way and will likely soon be departing from Freeview. She'll get a lot more exposure on ITV.
I mean, let's be honest, apart from us news junkies most people wouldn't have the first idea who most of the Sky News presenters are. Julie Etchingham will become a much bigger name on NaT than she would staying at Iselworth. Assuming that's what she wants of course.
Faliure? Ratings wise maybe, but not as a programme.
I could probably agree with you....but in this day and age - it is to the bosses at ITV all about ratings sadly, and I just feel she may have made a grave mistake. She is a rare talent and wasted on a 30min bulletin where she reads autocue and not much else!
As a matter of fact, she has already been sent on location for NAT a couple of times and has conducted several big interviews - in the space of under two months.
Let's get this into perspective. The programme has been back on the air for 7 weeks. How anyone can judge it as a failure so soon is beyond me. I've never heard of such an exaggeration before in my life. For the final time: ratings aside, NAT is proving to be a good quality programme. It has very high production values and journalistically has been top-notch so far. The programme is offering an excellent package and I am tuning in more now than I did during the News at 10.30 years. Ratings do not mean everything. People are fascinated with these reality TV shows - they get huge audiences. I can't see the point of them whatsoever - to me, they're complete crap. On the other hand, a sitcom like 3rd Rock From the Sun which didn't get brilliant ratings in its day and isn't particularly well-known is very funny. Just because a show doesn't get great ratings doesn't mean it is rubbish. The smash hit sitcom Cheers bombed in its first season and nearly wasn't picked up for a second season. That eventually ran for 11 seasons and garnered many awards.
As far as Julie is concerned, she's now getting national analogue exposure on a well-respected programme and is rapidly becoming the female face of ITV News. Once Julie left Breakfast News in 2000, I completely lost track of her. The first time I saw her broadcasting again was when NAT started in January. I'm sure there are a lot of people with the same experience as not everyone watches Sky News.
However bad it does in the ratings, News at Ten on the CV can only be a good thing - and though it's not doing great, it's not doing bad enough to be an embarrassment. And 3m on News at Ten beats 50,000 on Sky News any day.
Julie is probably now the number 2 female at ITN behind Mary Nightingale, though I agree she needs the chance to be more than Trevor's sidekick on News at Ten - but it'll happen. It only takes one big news event where Julie finds herself at the centre of the coverage for her profile to rise dramatically.
ITV obviously will be dissapointed that NAT is not pushing BBC in the ratings, because they were obviously hoping it would, but I think they'll persist with it, as has been stated it hasn't had bad enough ratings to be an embarrasment and has actually been good in terms of content.
As for Julie, Sky News or News at Ten? I think it's pretty obvious which one is more high profile.
