AL
Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but I completely disagree with that.
She was fine but nothing special; her emphasis on each of the headlines was identical, with her voice getting deeper and her delivery slower towards the end of each sentence, then throughout the rest of the programme her reading was very slow and steady. It was all a bit robotic and Sir Trevor's delivery was by far the more engaging.
(She also really didn't know what to do when it wasn't her turn to speak and usually resorted to smiling inappropriately or glancing furtively at her co-presenter).
I'm not trying to say that Julie was bad, because she wasn't, and I hope and expect that she will improve once her initial nerves have passed, but as things stand both Katie and Mary are better presenters.
I suspect she was hired so that they could be seen to have brought something new to News and Ten.
NBC posted:
Julie is a class act and I think now ITN's best female presenter by far.
Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but I completely disagree with that.
She was fine but nothing special; her emphasis on each of the headlines was identical, with her voice getting deeper and her delivery slower towards the end of each sentence, then throughout the rest of the programme her reading was very slow and steady. It was all a bit robotic and Sir Trevor's delivery was by far the more engaging.
(She also really didn't know what to do when it wasn't her turn to speak and usually resorted to smiling inappropriately or glancing furtively at her co-presenter).
I'm not trying to say that Julie was bad, because she wasn't, and I hope and expect that she will improve once her initial nerves have passed, but as things stand both Katie and Mary are better presenters.
I suspect she was hired so that they could be seen to have brought something new to News and Ten.