The article makes interesting reading in that Peter Fincham isn't NaT's biggest fan, but yet Michael Grade favours it greatly. They'd be silly to move it again, but Grade is the boss and they know at ITV that 11pm didn't work and 10.30pm doesn't work, the 90 minute Dramas didn't catch on, neither did the 10pm series, 10pm is a better time to have the News on. Face it that they'll get BBC ratings, but they can always aim for the close second.
But saying that the lead in's usually help the ratings, other than the Champions League Final this year, I can't think of a lead in programme for NaT that has got more than 6/7 Million viewers, although it'll be interesting to see what effect I'm a Celebritiy.. will have on NaT in terms of ratings.
Maybe they could move Mary to the News at Ten Mon-Thursday with Mark and have Julie co host the ITV Evening News with someone else at 6.30pm? (Bill Neely or James Mates perhaps?)
I think Mary is good on News at Ten - I believe she is presenting this week?
Now that Media Guardian article makes for very interesting reading. Bringing Mark Austin in as the main presenter will be a real insult to Etchingham.
How on earth would it be an insult. It was absolutely clear from the start that Mark would replace Trevor within the year, and Julie would have known this.
It's not as if they'll be a lead presenter anyway - and if they're is it would be a bigger insult not giving it to Mark (who has been robbed of the position once) than not giving it to Julie. I think though like the other bulletins they'll just lead the bulletins on different nights.
Now that Media Guardian article makes for very interesting reading. Bringing Mark Austin in as the main presenter will be a real insult to Etchingham.
How on earth would it be an insult. It was absolutely clear from the start that Mark would replace Trevor within the year, and Julie would have known this.
It's not as if they'll be a lead presenter anyway - and if they're is it would be a bigger insult not giving it to Mark (who has been robbed of the position once) than not giving it to Julie. I think though like the other bulletins they'll just lead the bulletins on different nights.
I saw no need to bring Etchingham in anyway. But if you co-host a bulletin and the lead anchor goes, part of you must secretly want to be moved up to the main anchor role.
Now that Media Guardian article makes for very interesting reading. Bringing Mark Austin in as the main presenter will be a real insult to Etchingham.
How on earth would it be an insult. It was absolutely clear from the start that Mark would replace Trevor within the year, and Julie would have known this.
It's not as if they'll be a lead presenter anyway - and if they're is it would be a bigger insult not giving it to Mark (who has been robbed of the position once) than not giving it to Julie. I think though like the other bulletins they'll just lead the bulletins on different nights.
Exactly, but that would mean the papers would lose lots of column inches. We all knew Trevor would leave after a short while, so it's not exactly a story now
How about Mark Austin being the main anchor and he has a regular rota of co-hosts? I think that would work.
I don't mind Julie Etchingham, but the question is posed: Why didn't ITV look for somebody already there to promote?
Alternatively, I believe it would have made effective headlines if Moira Stuart was asked. Now, Trevor and Moira would have made a good team, in my opinion.
Also, why not make NaT the only dual-presented bulletin for "added effect"?!
And, seeing as it is almost inevitable Austin will present News At Ten, he'll have to stop presenting the Evening News. It has to be one or the other!
How about Mark Austin being the main anchor and he has a regular rota of co-hosts? I think that would work.
I don't mind Julie Etchingham, but the question is posed: Why didn't ITV look for somebody already there to promote?
Alternatively, I believe it would have made effective headlines if Moira Stuart was asked. Now, Trevor and Moira would have made a good team, in my opinion.
Also, why not make NaT the only dual-presented bulletin for "added effect"?!
And, seeing as it is almost inevitable Austin will present News At Ten, he'll have to stop presenting the Evening News. It has to be one or the other!
How about Mark Austin being the main anchor and he has a regular rota of co-hosts? I think that would work.
I don't mind Julie Etchingham, but the question is posed: Why didn't ITV look for somebody already there to promote?
Alternatively, I believe it would have made effective headlines if Moira Stuart was asked. Now, Trevor and Moira would have made a good team, in my opinion.
Also, why not make NaT the only dual-presented bulletin for "added effect"?!
And, seeing as it is almost inevitable Austin will present News At Ten, he'll have to stop presenting the Evening News. It has to be one or the other!
I agree, if Mark Austin is presenting the News at Ten I see now reason why the Evening News can have just 1 presenter (Mary or even Julie, and then move Mary to News At Ten)
I do think Mark should step down now from the Evening News and there isn't any need for it to continue with two hosts. Mary should be made the main anchor, but with Mark keeping his link as a regular stand in and also co-hosting shows when on location.
I think the whole "news at 10 returns with sir trev" thing was just one big short term novelty anyway which is why I have never tuned in yet. It seems the novelty has gone. The only reson why he was brought back in the first place was just a publicity stunt for the shows return.
Mary would be great as the sole anchor for the Evening News. Mark (no matter how much I dislike his 'arrogant' attitude..) and Julie would be perfect for News at Ten, though I would like to see Bill, James, etc co-present if Mark isn't there. Ditto Mary and perhaps Katie if Julie is absent.
Incidentally both the Evening News and NaT so far this week have been presented by Mark and Mary. Random useless piece of info... but anyways.