On what criterion should newsreaders be selected ?

I read an article a few weeks ago where Jan Leeming was talking about the time when she got the boot from reading the BBC news. She said that the BBC wanted to move away from recruiting newsreaders who had a background in theatre and wanted to concentrate its efforts on recruiting trained journalists to read the news instead. She said that she felt that this was wrong as thespians are used to performing in front of audiences and hence were perfect for the role of reading the news.
Of course, she is right in a way as a natural presenter is born not made. However, if the news stations took her stance it would surely discourage the journalists of tomorrow , knowing that there would be a ceiling on their career progression.
People have often debated this point concerning the BBC and ITN weather people as ITV prefer presenters and BBC only take trained meteorologists. Which do people here prefer ?
Andrea Catherwood and Katie Derham only serve to highlight this conundrum. Andrea is a very good, heavyweight journalist with excellent interviewing skills but she is distinctly uncomfortable and stiff as a presenter. She is not a natural presenter at all. Katie on the other hand is a very lightweight journalist but a first rate presenter who seems born to do the job. Would TVF members like to see newsreaders recruited from
grass roots journalism or from the performing arts.

Basing an entire career on one single criterion is surely implausable for any position at any company, newsreader or not.

http://homepage.mac.com/robertpalmer/tvforum/sig.gif

I'd like to hear what others think about facial hair. I'm not talking about eyebrows, but beards and other such nasties. I find facial hair on newsreaders most distracting, and can't help but think it conceals a hideous rash.

You'll note that the BBC must think pretty much along the same lines, as very few prime time newsreaders have facial hair.

The problem is that newsreaders didn't really have to interview people in those days but now there are lots of live interviews, not just on the rolling news channels, but also in the main news programmes. This means that the presenter needs to be able to do more than just read from a script.

There are differing opinions about what makes someone a journalist - I certainly believe it's to do with a lot more than the certificate you get at the end of a post-grad course - but the person doing the interviewing does have to have those journalistic skills.

Not all journalists make good presenters, just as not all presenters make good journalists, although having heard and seen both types I'd say that an intelligent presenter will generally make a better job of it than a journalist with no presenting ability. Of course the ideal is to find journalists who can present programmes, which seems to be what the BBC is doing these days. I think the days of recruiting actors and actresses for newsreading or announcing have pretty much gone - there's a big difference between performing in front of an audience and talking into a camera or microphone where the whole point is that you're supposed to imagine you're speaking to one person.

I think noone should be chosen as a newsreader if they have a compulsive disorder that makes them knit while talking.

Well, personally I think Andrea Catherwood is one of the better female newsreaders.

Disagree with Jan Leeming - newsreaders should have a background in the news, but it depends on the programme.

Similar arguments have arisen over sport coverage - are ex-sport stars better hosts than those who've spent their full career in sports journalism?

Newsreaders often have to do late-breaking interviews, fill time, ad-lib, etc so being a journalist and knowing all the background to the news is pretty much essential these days.

That's a bit diffrent as they will have a specialist subject, just like any other correspondent. They will have lots of contacts, inside knowledge and passion for sport which enhances their reports.

It's just like a former politician or political worker who becomes a political correspondant or someone from showbiz who becomes entertainment reporter.

But then some do make better presenters than others, Gary lineker for instance. Others have all the contacts and knowledge, but can't present for toffee

I've said it before in another thread, so please forgive me for repeating it here

The time is soon coming when newsreaders/presenters will be threwn on the scrap heap where most of the continuity announcers have already been dumped.

CGI news presenters/readers are the future since they will be far cheaper and infintely more reliable,
and can be custom created to serve the market the broadcaster is trying to reach.

What nonsense! Multi skilling is the way forward. Besides, I knitted a lovely sock for my new baby, while reading the late night news opt and pedalling the autocue. Presenters today? Don't know they're born!

I don't see that happening - I certainly wouldn't want to watch a news programme read by a computer. Just imagine a programme like Breakfast, for example, without personality presentation. And how could a CGI presenter deal with breaking stories and live interviews? I honestly don't think it will happen.

In more general terms, I think that it is important that newsreaders have a journalistic background. There are many correspondents of very high calibre who have very successfully made the switch to news presenting - Bill Turnbull, Gavin Esler and George Alagiah are prime examples. The advantage they have is a knowledge of news at the sharp edge, which presumably aids their understanding of the stories that are coming in.

It doesn't always work though - as shown by Andrew Marr on Breakfast with Frost last week. He is a supremely talented correspondent and a great journalist, but he looked completely out of place in the studio last week.

Basically, some people can make the switch (and when they do it makes them excellent presenters), others can't.

In the TV of tomorrow there will be no live TV, except under very exceptional circumstances.

Just think of how little live tv there is today and how much there was say in the 60s or 70s.

Even some portions of news programmes have been recorded for some time.