The difference, though, is in that case it is ITV or C4 who are paying the bill.
Under the proposed arrangemnts ITV will just provide the airtime (valuable though that is).
Precisely, If they 'cannot' or 'won't' provide Local News, and I am firmly in the 'won't' camp, incidentally, the changes should be microfranchising the news slots, as with 0600-0925 to new parties, over whom they have nil to minimal control.
It's tosh. ITVplc want their cake and eat it. I bet their idea is that license money is used to sponsor independent companies to produce a minimal amount of local news (no non-news programming), while they continue to take the advertising revenue, including the break in the middle of regional news programmes.
I say, it's part of their remit to provide local news and local programmes. They claim they can't do it anymore, though I bet it's more they won't. They should simply have almost all their franchises taken from them. Let them keep London re-advertise the rest.
How does the US affiliate system work? Isn't that like regional ITV but yet even more local. If I'm frank, being from Liverpool means not being interested in Manc-centric news or what's happening in Burnley. The Radio Merseyside region would be ideal.
How does the US affiliate system work? Isn't that like regional ITV but yet even more local. If I'm frank, being from Liverpool means not being interested in Manc-centric news or what's happening in Burnley. The Radio Merseyside region would be ideal.
The affiliate system deals with network programmes not the local side of things.
But it's nothing like ITV. They license individual stand-alone TV stations which then decide which of the networks (if any) to affiliate to and show their programmes. The big network affiliates do do their own news programmes (containing both national and local news) but I'm not sure they have to (the stations affiliated to the smaller networks tend not to have any news)
The boundaries of regional news is a whole different discussion, but having the American system here probably wouldn't mean different TV stations for Liverpool and Manchester, many of the US 'Markets' cover 2 cities when they are very close geographically. Here there wouldn't be enough content, money or advertising (or maybe frequencies) to have micro regions for multiple parts of Lancashire
But looking at the size of US affiliates, a region based on the Radio Merseyside area is standard and would even be considered one of the larger markets. I would've thought after analogue switch off, there'd be enough frequencies for regions similar to BBC Local Radio.
I think the problem here is that with digital, we've went for quantity of channels, rather than quality. The way I see it, the ITV regional franchise system was a good one. Each station had to run the gaunlet of franhise-renewal every few years, which kept them on their toes. I would've rolled out Channel 4 in exactly the same way, with it being in competition with ITV, so that each region would have had two stations in competition. Channel 5 too.
If ITV is to receive license money then we must reach consensus that ITV has a special status, like the BBC, and is not just another commercial TV company. If so, it must provide more than just bare bones local news. I say that ITV should give up controlling interests in all the regional companies bar London. It (and not ITN) will receive license money to provide London with a PBS commitment that goes beyond barebones local news. It should also provide local proramming for local issues and local events and get involved in the local commity. In the other areas, the local company will have the same commitments.
The difference, though, is in that case it is ITV or C4 who are paying the bill.
Under the proposed arrangemnts ITV will just provide the airtime (valuable though that is).
Still, I don't see what the problem is with the providers getting a kit of parts from ITV so there can be some on-screen consistancy.
The production companies will be in control of the important bits like editorial content
I have never understood why their needs to be onscreen consistency on regional stations. They are there to suit regional needs and represent that region.
Why ITV spent millions upgrading their studios to all look the same was stupid, the next person in a different region wouldn't have cared less if the set looked the same.
I have never understood why their needs to be onscreen consistency on regional stations. They are there to suit regional needs and represent that region.
Why do different regions need different sets and graphics though. What 'need' does it solve?
Quote:
Why ITV spent millions upgrading their studios to all look the same was stupid, the next person in a different region wouldn't have cared less if the set looked the same.
But it's to do with a consistent look for the channel, plus it saves money.
I have never understood why their needs to be onscreen consistency on regional stations. They are there to suit regional needs and represent that region.
I don't understand either. It must just be a vanity thing. Take the BBC's latest rebrand of regional news programmes. Now, beforehand, they'd all floated apart a little bit, but all still had a similar BBC style about them anyway, so why insist on identical sets and titles. Most people are only ever going to see two BBC News programmes... the national news and their regional news. The national news and North West Tonight don't identical sets & titles but North West Tonight and Points West do. But what's it matter to someone in Preston how similar North West Tonight looks to Points West?
Why do different regions need different sets and graphics though. What 'need' does it solve?
But it's to do with a consistent look for the channel, plus it saves money.
But I think it's more 'why do they need a unified look?'. Okay, it saves money, but North West Tonight had a superior set & titles which hadn't been in use for long and could've lasted for a few years. I don't think saving money was the main motivation for the last change in titles.
