The Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Thread

The reason Look North Hull is falling behind is obvious to me. Peter Levy is a very good broadcaster and is being made to look a fool by a constant daily pi*s take of him which has become both boring and embarrasing.

People are becoming uncomfortable watching the predictable silly banter and are turning off. I am sure If Look North Hull had more news and less fluff and was a bit more serious it would do better.

I have always supported the programme on this forum but the pointless filling of time really is getting out of hand. I know for a fact there is enough news out there to be reported and I am sure the programme would be better if the journalists were given a chance to do what they are paid for!

(Quote removed)

But, dear Mr Garnett, don't YOU see? You criticise it AD INFINITUM, even when there are many praiseworthy aspects of the programme's content. Even you surely have to concede that, whilst not perfect, when something bad happens in the region that it is sensitively covered by Look North, banter removed and the tone of the show altered to suit. There are presenters there doing a good job, reporters very competently doing the job they're paid to do. The quality of the opening titles is superb.

Anyway, most of my criticism is saved for sharing with the people that actually CAN make things better - Look North's producers and presenters. It is a pointless waste of time me putting it on here as the high-status people will be far too busy in their day to read it!

I have recently begun passing concerns in this thread, and others I have collected from people I talk with in the streets of my own home town, on to those at Look North where appropriate. If you wish, I will gladly share with you the latest batch of comments I have passed to Look North, where after mulling it over objectively for a while, weighing up the pros and cons, my mind WAS CHANGED on the matter of no news on Children in Need night. It led mt to doing an objective analysis of other parts of the show that could improve. I have let them know my opinions on all of the points.

Lastly, I DO have issues with the Hull bias on the show, shown by the Humber Corridor-dominated newspaper review slot, where only the local papers for Hull, Scunthorpe and Grimsby are reviewed to the detriment of all other newspapers in the region. And yes, I concede that the show should become less Hull-centric. But I'm not about to desert the show for Calendar. I will continue to support the programme through thick and thin by providing objective commentary. Commentary I repeat I'll post on here if anyones suitably interested in....

I would also be interested to hear if you have any POSITIVE points to make about the show!

I've received very reliable information indeed from one of my several million contacts at the show that say the ratings information posted on here is a 'complete load of inaccurate nonsense'.

The latest BARB figures across the region give Look North a 30% audience share compared with Calendar at 21% - gross viewing figures in the month of October were 650,000 viewers for Look North and 400,000 for Calendar. Belmont's audience share is the second highest in the country, only beaten by BBC Southwest in Plymouth.

That news just in from 'Contact number 600,000.55 recurring'. What people on here tend to forget is that any one of those contacts can give me the REAL story from Look North and not utter complete bunkum. I can check, and always do!

What 'the endless banter' which takes away from the fact that this is a news programme and stories are being ignored just so they can have a go at a third rate weather presenter at 6.45?
Paul is NOT a third rate weather presenter - he is in fact a highly competent forecaster who, unlike many ITV forecasters actually HAS qualifications in the field. He has a First Class Honours Degree in planetary physics, is an employee of the Met Office, has done plenty of international weather forecasting, is genuinely enthusiastic about the subject and a person I have a lot of respect for. I would rather receive my weather news from someone who is qualified to talk about it rather than someone who is close to being a pretty-face dullard avatar who doesn't understand the science behind weather. I bet a fair few of them don't even know how to calculate dew point, have never heard of a Campbell-Stokes sunshine recorder, are not familiar with the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane scale or explain the mechanics of tornadic supercells. Paul can, and he does so excellently.

A nuclear explosion goes off in Lincolnshire today. But enough fo that, heres Paul Hudson, so Paul, what jacket are you wearing today?
I think you'll find that the presenters treat those stories with respect. I have a very large resource library where I can check these things out.

WHAT? Image of Hull, another Image of Hull, image of Hull, image of Hull, then LOOK NORTH. Wake up and smell the coffee Katherine.
I think it's you that needs the cappuccino wafted under your nose on this - I don't think Spurn Point is Hull, the Red Arrows isn't Hull either, neither is the shot of the power stations on the banks of the Trent, the shot of Flamborough Head or indeed the ship sailing in the North Sea.

They most probably see you as an irritation but obviously cant tell you that.
I have plenty of evidence to prove this is nonsense.

Look North Hull *IS* a waste of money.

I refuse to believe that - even during the time of the sub-opt, Look North were STILL receiving comments from viewers that they weren't doing the east of the area justice, and Lincolnshire (one of the largest counties in England) in particular. They tried in good fath to sort this out. It appears they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. The Belmont area is too large for a sub-opt to cope and coupled with Hull and the East Riding DOES have the potential to fill a half-hour.

What needs to happen is for more organisations and councils to provide them with news input. I did this with the new shopping development in Boston, they responded to it and an article was produced.

Anyway, I would rather support an organisation committed to MORE regional news centres, rather than an organisation that is continually making cutbacks, closing regional news centres, having presenters defect to the BBC and sacking staff too. I admire COMMITMENT, and ITV isn't giving that at present.

I'd bet none of 'em know any of that!

see below (someone please delete this post if possible it was a mistake!)

I am sure you know some of this Katherine but I'll say it anyway. ITV plc has a commercial bottom line and shareholders. Unlike the BBC, which can willy-nilly spend money poaching the likes of Doris Ackroyd from Calendar and no-one really bats an eyelid. Admittedly in times past ITV local companies have now and again spent quite large sums poaching presenters, eg. Mike Neville was poached from the BBC in the mid -1990s by Tyne Tees. In a multi-channel world however it would be very strange for ITV to operate in this way at a regional level - let's face it, why the hell SHOULD they, particularly since Ofcom seem sadly content to let them act as they please? Despite that ITV still produces distinctive and high quality local programmes, eg Meridian Tonight won the RTS award this year. Similarly, in many cases where there ARE cutbacks planned, ITV plans simply to move out of outmoded buildings and spend a lot on new buildings (eg Tyne Tees City Road is too big/outmoded for purpose these days and ITV News Group is in fact spending £6million on a new building in Gateshead - this is only the same argument BBC Leeds had in moving out of Woodhouse Lane). ITV is also spending a small fortune on customised and state-of-the-art Avid Newscutters which will allow journalists and cameramen to do more of their own editing. The planned use of this technology is - unfortunately - the reason for many of the job losses. Note also that ITV are not planning to bring in VJs on a large scale, many of whose pieces on BBC local telly are an insult to the viewer (not the VJs' fault but still the way it is).

Also, don't be too surprised if similar cutbacks happen in BBC regions in the future. It's said that the new Director General is going to bring the axe down quite heavily on news.

You also talk of 'supporting' the BBC (strange concept but hey-ho) rather than ITV as if it's your choice. Well in fact you don't have one - you like everyone else who owns a TV in this country has to support the BBC financially (or your parents do or whatever). This is patently also obscene where the BBC increasingly squanders money producing programming which is already well provided and much better done by the commercial sector. Fame Academy anyone?

Also, just to point it out, you talk as if ITV has no commitment to news and current affairs. Watch the ITV Evening News now and again INSTEAD of Peter and Paul (or maybe video Look North and watch it later so you have it for your tape collection). Watch the reporting of the likes of Julian Manyon, Robert Moore, Nick Robinson, Mark Austin and James Mates.

Hell, even watch Calendar now and again. - there are some excellent reporters and presenters. You might learn to like it - and when THEY do a special event, they can still be bothered to try and find some news, which is what most viewers actually want. For instance the Calendar Friendliest Street Competition final in January had an expensive OB with about 4 cameras, but they still provided a fully opted news roundup!! Funny that innit.

ITV is also spending a small fortune on customised and state-of-the-art Avid Newscutters which will allow journalists and cameramen to do more of their own editing.

Is this the reason why ITV have stopped sending their studio to all the Formula One races this past season, and now have Tony Jardine and Mark Blundell sharing the 'informed punter' position instead of turning up together?

ITV plc has a commercial bottom line and shareholders.

This is part of my reason why I don't watch ITV - I feel that viewers' opinions are heeded more by the BBC as they're more publicly accountable. I don't want to watch a channel where shareholders and advertisers seem to be more important than the viewers. Goes back to Formula One again (which is the crux point in my never viewing ITV; Formula One grievances) - I don't want to see the continuity of long-duration sporting events like Grands Prix being messed around because ITV have to please their advertisers, Corrie fans and big-briefcase funders. I don't like the way that shareholders and advertisers can seemingly dictate the terms of which races are shown live and which are subject to tape-delayed broadcast. We viewers should come first, not them.

You like everyone else who owns a TV in this country has to support the BBC financially (or your parents do or whatever).

I pay half the licence fee voluntarily despite being in long-term receipt of benefits (Income Support and Disability Living Allowance). My parents pay the other half. And gladly, as the amount of BBC stuff (local and digital radio as well as television) we get in my opinion more than justifies paying the fee. I feel that nearly all of the output is better and more thought-provoking in quality to ITV (Blue Planet, Walking with Dinosaurs, Horizon, Human Body, Brain Story, The Planets, Antiques Roadshow, Royal Institution Christmas Lectures in the past, David Attenborough series, Newsnight, Daily Politics). Even Fame Academy, where 24-hour live links provided an educational element, especially to those like me who want to pick up hints and tips about singing and musicianship in general. ITV's equivalents seem more obsessed with frothy friction between judges' confrontational comments to competitiors and contestants.

Hell, even watch Calendar now and again. - there are some excellent reporters and presenters.

Sorry, I'm not prepared to compromise my loyalties, and I'm ALREADY boycotting ITV regarding their Formula One coverage. I am too angry with them for their slipshod and inconsistent commitment to 100% live coverage of races and qualifying, especially when held outside Europe. This anger being exacerbated by Bernie 'Tit' Ecclestone axeing the vastly superior quality Pay-per-view service, F1 Digital Plus. Made me MORE loyal to the BBC. If ITV lose rights I might reconsider my boycott but until then I'm not prepared to patronise their output in any way, shape or form.

My contact has also asked me to pass the following on regarding the apparent rise in Calendar viewers:



Seems that the only reason Calendar's figures are buoyant is due to the number of people who can't be bothered to change channels after Paul O'Grady. I don't think it's to do with Calendar's output at all.

The only reason Look North usually wins is because people can't be bothered to change channels after Neighbours. The argument works both ways.

Talking about the Hull show and my opinion is the over reliance on banter and fluff. I like the banter but sometimes its like the whole show is based around the banter and the other items are fitted around it. At least on Lunchtime Look North the banter used to just naturally feature at the end and it wasn't actually part of the running order as such.

With Paul appearing so early at about 6.40pm, you get 10 mins of news at most, which includes various 'before 7' previews and other filler and sometimes the dull sports section. Once Paul has been it is just light filler from then on. The newspaper secton is pointless, surely if you live in Hull you'll already have the paper and if you don't live in Hull you won't care what is in it anyway.

Using the ITV PLC is making cut backs argument is not valid either. Everyone who works at ITV Yorkshire is still committed to making a quality news programme, the fact the suits in London may have other ideas is neither here nor there.

Finally, what with you always mentioning your surveys that you may carry out. It would be interesting to see whether the full 30 minutes of Look North Hull actually carrys many more proper news stories than the first 10 mins of Calendar and then the 5 mins sub opt of Calendar East

I think I know what the outcome of THAT survey would be!!

Actually, I think that to be a very valid point. The mid-point weather forecast is used to go from the news into the fluff. There is no way they can do a serious item after Paul has bantered about Peter's love life, hair and the colour of Paul's jacket. It is somewhat restrictive.

So it does tend to mean that you get 10 minutes of news, 5 minutes of banter and then fluff and features.

If they are adamant they are going to have a full half hour for East Yorks and Lincs then they need to bite the bullet and record the forecast and put it out at the end. For the sake of a bit of banter it ain't worth it.

Although it's supposed to serve me better, I've always resented the full Hull programme actually, because I don't feel as if I'm getting the full picture from the wider Yorkshire region. It's strange that big events going on down the road in Sheffield, Doncaster, Leeds, Bradford, West Yorks don't even figure. Am I supposed to forget these places exist after a few decades of coverage and make do with a bit of banter and a pre-recordedchat with a z-list celeb with a tenuous link to the region ie, they did panto in Hull 10 years ago. Half the time these celebs are sat in another BBC region somewhere and not even in the region.

This is why I prefer Calendar, you get the main news in the whole region, an opt-out of pure news for the East, a region wide sports round-up and a live feature OB every night. And as somebody who watches both Calendar and Look North, I feel my reasoning to be more objective than some around here.