Right...well maybe "formula" wasnt the right word. But many have said its stale.....so what would you do to change it so that its not stale as some have commented?
Right...well maybe "formula" wasnt the right word. But many have said its stale.....so what would you do to change it so that its not stale as some have commented?
I wasn't criticising your use of the word - I'm sure many believe that there is a formula for a more exciting news programme. (geez)
i agree with him. the BBC's journalism is unarguably high quality, solid and has the trust and affection of most of the public but when was the last time they broke a story first for instance or had a genuine exclusive? The less said about the news channel the better, it has followed Sky right from its inception, right down to the paper reviews now on at the same time with an identical format and Twitter hashtag(!).
ITV might not have the same audience (which has a lot to do with how the channel has treated its news and current affairs over the last decade) but it has most recently employed the go-getters - and guess what, the BBC have been poaching them so they must be doing something right.
i agree with him. the BBC's journalism is unarguably high quality, solid and has the trust and affection of most of the public but when was the last time they broke a story first for instance or had a genuine exclusive? The less said about the news channel the better, it has followed Sky right from its inception, right down to the paper reviews now on at the same time with an identical format and Twitter hashtag(!).
ITV might not have the same audience (which has a lot to do with how the channel has treated its news and current affairs over the last decade) but it has most recently employed the go-getters - and guess what, the BBC have been poaching them so they must be doing something right.
He may have made some solid points, but he never really suggested any solutions.
Then again, He said the BBC didn't implement things from his report
In news, content is king. That's why the BBC wins, and criticising them for not changing a winning formula is a bit daft. After all, why fix something that isn't broken.
ITV and Sky only innovate and change their presenting style because they aren't getting the results that the BBC does; if ITV News were the leaders they would be just as formulaic and 'stale' as BBC News.
In news, content is king. That's why the BBC wins, and criticising them for not changing a winning formula is a bit daft. After all, why fix something that isn't broken.
ITV and Sky only innovate and change their presenting style because they aren't getting the results that the BBC does; if ITV News were the leaders they would be just as formulaic and 'stale' as BBC News.
this isn't about the presenting. It's about the way they handle the news
I'm doing an analysis of both News at Tens this week, BBC and ITV, partly inspired by this thread. I'd say there are stories that are covered by one that isn't covered by another, but largely the big stories are treated in similar ways. Both exhibit original journalism.
The BBC showed how strong its international coverage was last night with two very strong reports from International Correspondent Ian Pannell talking exclusively to ex-Syrian prisoners disputing the suicide of a British prisoner in Syria, and Jeremy Bowen on Shia rebels fighting against ISIS. Two long reports, roughly 3-4 mins, both original journalism. Another on loneliness in old age.
ITV meanwhile had a report on Ebola and a live from Guinea with Dan Rivers. They also ran reports from Israel, on the fine handed to Network Rail, and another report on Cambridge Spies. None of these were covered by BBC.
BBC had a report on the inquest into death of student killed by polar bear. ITV gave it 20 seconds in in-brief.
What I mean to show with this is that there is variation between the two, and neither bulletin covers exactly the same stories. They covered the child abuse enquiry in largely the same way, and ITV covered a lot more news still 'in brief'. BBC ran 7 reports, ITV 8 reports.
The key to a good bulletin is variety, and both channels definitely achieve this to a high standard.
In news, content is king. That's why the BBC wins, and criticising them for not changing a winning formula is a bit daft. After all, why fix something that isn't broken.
ITV and Sky only innovate and change their presenting style because they aren't getting the results that the BBC does; if ITV News were the leaders they would be just as formulaic and 'stale' as BBC News.
How is the content of BBC News any better?
BBC, ITV and Sky all have excellent journalism and the news they're reporting is the same! How do you know that BBC News has the best content?
BBC News will obviously have more viewers but that does not mean that they're better.
I've read a lot of posts saying that the BBC is stale, but I've yet to read any posts from people describing what exactly they would change.
I was thinking the same. IMO ITV and BBC do excellent journalism. But does that address the idea that some have mentioned on these threads the BBC could be a bit stale in its presentation. If you are one of those that feel its so how would you change it to make it energetic or inventive as Mr Pollard says like Sky News? (And yes i know some have the viewpoint "if it aint broke dont fix it".) I guess those that think its stale are hesitant to comment as they will get flamed and trawled by the usual suspects.
I've read a lot of posts saying that the BBC is stale, but I've yet to read any posts from people describing what exactly they would change.
I don't think the bbc are stale at all, certainly the news channel in presentation terms is at it's best, I prefer the bbcs approach it's not sensationalist, and the gimmicks whilst it's there it's not detracting from the story presented to the viewer, sky news is stale in presentation but they tried the gimmicky approach and got their fingers burnt.
But many have said its stale.....so what would you do to change it so that its not stale as some have commented?