When a breaking story happens, it's a godsend to have two presenters on set. The producer can talk to one whilst the other one talks on air, one presenter can check the desk PC for updates whilst the other one talks - it gives far more flexibilty. With one presenter, the production team is relying on that individual's ability to listen to output, listen to the guest and formulate a question at the same time. There aren't many who can do that.....
IMO the Six o'clock News was better with just the one - I just can't take to George and Sophie as a partnership
Yes, I agree. There is absolutely no chemistry between George and Sophie. Who on earth decided to lump those two together?
I don't think chemistry is a key factor in a BBC1 bulletin. It's important for News 24 where there is more flexibility, but a BBC1 bulletin needs to be more formal. George and Sophie seem to get along, and for me, that's quite enough. Remember the Virtual Era days? The Six used to be a lot more formal with different presenters virtually every day! That's how I think it should be.
IMO the Six o'clock News was better with just the one - I just can't take to George and Sophie as a partnership
Yes, I agree. There is absolutely no chemistry between George and Sophie. Who on earth decided to lump those two together?
George and Sophie seem to get along
Yes, I know they get along, even George said so in a Newspaper interview and even refered to her as his ''on-screen wife''. But, like I said, there is no chemistry between them, they just don't gell. I think chemistry is an important factor for every news programme orn whatever channel (if there are 2 or more presneters) because it makes the programme more watchable and more appealing to the viewers.
Oh dear - I overlooked this thread. How careless of me.
Your argument, winifred, is a POINT OF VIEW. Nobody is RIGHT. The sooner you learn that, the better. My point of view is that a BBC1 bulletin doesn't need chemistry - it needs formality. I don't want jokes every five minutes on the Six O'clock News. A more formal presentation style is what is required for the bulletins on BBC1.
My point of view is that a BBC1 bulletin doesn't need chemistry - it needs formality. I don't want jokes every five minutes on the Six O'clock News. A more formal presentation style is what is required for the bulletins on BBC1.
I agree with that. What is needed is jokes later on Breakfast, after 8.30, where it is less news and more light hearted. There shouldn't really be any jokes on any of the other BBC ONE news programmes unless it is an increibaly light hearted story. Perhaps a few more jokes in the morning and afternoon over on News 24.
Oh dear - I overlooked this thread. How careless of me.
Your argument, winifred, is a POINT OF VIEW. Nobody is RIGHT. The sooner you learn that, the better. My point of view is that a BBC1 bulletin doesn't need chemistry - it needs formality. I don't want jokes every five minutes on the Six O'clock News. A more formal presentation style is what is required for the bulletins on BBC1.
There, that's my point of view.
Thank You, a man of logic.
Firstly Winifred as you seem to have taken particluar offense to my *views* try this: Natasha is a second rate bimbo with an inabilty to read an autocue and the only reason she got Breakfast was that veiwers in the morning need eye candy.
*Right now respect my view point*
Moving on, BBC One bulletins don't need jokes and "interaction" I sure I could live without having Sophie and Geogre cracking naff jokes. BBC News on One need formality and authourity. Micheal and Peter are an excellent example of this. I hat the way BBC News is moving. Please return to a more "newier" format and for gods sake get rid of that thing used as a set on the National.
Right rant over and soapbox snapped in half.
Oh dear - I overlooked this thread. How careless of me.
Your argument, winifred, is a POINT OF VIEW. Nobody is RIGHT. The sooner you learn that, the better. My point of view is that a BBC1 bulletin doesn't need chemistry - it needs formality. I don't want jokes every five minutes on the Six O'clock News. A more formal presentation style is what is required for the bulletins on BBC1.
There, that's my point of view.
Thank You, a man of logic.
Firstly Winifred as you seem to have taken particluar offense to my *views* try this: Natasha is a second rate bimbo with an inabilty to read an autocue and the only reason she got Breakfast was that veiwers in the morning need eye candy.
*Right now respect my view point*
Oh dear - I overlooked this thread. How careless of me.
Your argument, winifred, is a POINT OF VIEW. Nobody is RIGHT. The sooner you learn that, the better. My point of view is that a BBC1 bulletin doesn't need chemistry - it needs formality. I don't want jokes every five minutes on the Six O'clock News. A more formal presentation style is what is required for the bulletins on BBC1.
There, that's my point of view.
Thank You, a man of logic.
Firstly Winifred as you seem to have taken particluar offense to my *views* try this: Natasha is a second rate bimbo with an inabilty to read an autocue and the only reason she got Breakfast was that veiwers in the morning need eye candy.
*Right now respect my view point*
Matrix Official Winifred annoyance buddy.
Well, I'm REALLY annoyed by that comment.
I'm sorry in advance to everyone else for shouting, but
WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU ANNOYED BY THAT COMMENT?!!
Someone disagrees with you. Big deal. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert and Matrix, why oh why can you not accept that different points of view exist?
Instead you continue to fawn sickeningly over Natasha, Fiona and others. I like Natasha Kaplinsky. I like Fiona Bruce. But your inane, ridiculous and frankly obsessive comments are, as I've said before, making any threads about BBC News presenters or programmes frankly tedious to read.
Until you learn to express your opinions calmly and sensibly without shouting others down about theirs, I suggest you either be quiet or go away.
Oh, and incidentally, you say you want to be a "newsreader" (note newsreader, not journalist) - accepting and trying to understand the opinions of others is a central skill required to do the job.
Oh, and just imagine if, by some stroke of luck, you did manage to achieve your ambition - how would your future colleagues (Natasha, Fiona and the like) respond to knowing what sorts of things you go around saying/thinking about them? They'd find it very hard to take you seriously, surely?
Normally people apologise for ranting, but I make no apologies for this because, as yet, I've seen no apologies from Winifred for her almost-always ridiculous posts.
Oh dear - I overlooked this thread. How careless of me.
Your argument, winifred, is a POINT OF VIEW. Nobody is RIGHT. The sooner you learn that, the better. My point of view is that a BBC1 bulletin doesn't need chemistry - it needs formality. I don't want jokes every five minutes on the Six O'clock News. A more formal presentation style is what is required for the bulletins on BBC1.
There, that's my point of view.
Thank You, a man of logic.
Firstly Winifred as you seem to have taken particluar offense to my *views* try this: Natasha is a second rate bimbo with an inabilty to read an autocue and the only reason she got Breakfast was that veiwers in the morning need eye candy.
*Right now respect my view point*
Matrix Official Winifred annoyance buddy.
Well, I'm REALLY annoyed by that comment.
I'm sorry in advance to everyone else for shouting, but
WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU ANNOYED BY THAT COMMENT?!!
Someone disagrees with you. Big deal. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert and Matrix, why oh why can you not accept that different points of view exist?
Instead you continue to fawn sickeningly over Natasha, Fiona and others. I like Natasha Kaplinsky. I like Fiona Bruce. But your inane, ridiculous and frankly obsessive comments are, as I've said before, making any threads about BBC News presenters or programmes frankly tedious to read.
Until you learn to express your opinions calmly and sensibly without shouting others down about theirs, I suggest you either be quiet or go away.
Oh, and incidentally, you say you want to be a "newsreader" (note newsreader, not journalist) - accepting and trying to understand the opinions of others is a central skill required to do the job.
Oh, and just imagine if, by some stroke of luck, you did manage to achieve your ambition - how would your future colleagues (Natasha, Fiona and the like) respond to knowing what sorts of things you go around saying/thinking about them? They'd find it very hard to take you seriously, surely?
Normally people apologise for ranting, but I make no apologies for this because, as yet, I've seen no apologies from Winifred for her almost-always ridiculous posts.
1. What do you mean by ''Oh, and just imagine if, by some stroke of luck, you did manage to achieve your ambition''? It won't be a stroke of luck because I'm very determined to become a Newseader and when I'm determined to do something I ALWAYS achieve it.
2. Why do you have a problem with me wanting to be a ''Newreader'' instead of a ''Journalist''?
3. How on earth will Natasha, Fiona and co. know about the comments I've written on an Internet forum?
