Daybreak

Thanks for that in depth analysis, perhaps you could reserve judgement until at least 1 minute of the show has gone to air.

well Im entitled to my First option, thank you, and from what I so on the ITN news was copy cat of the one show. expect the seats are purple...

I'm with Square Eyes - think it's a little rash to dismiss Daybreak before its even gone on air!

From @tvrav on twitter

http://twitpic.com/2l3rhy

http://twitpic.com/2l3ri4

The Deputy Editor of Daybreak, who was formerly a Senior Producer on The One Show, and has been referred to as "Adrian's comfort blanket" in the press, worked on The Big Breakfast...

That's "Seamless Plasma" - they're effectively plasmas without the normal plastic cases around them, meaning you can get them pretty close together.

They are a lot brighter than most projectors (including Barcos) - you'd have to pay a LOT more for a projector as bright - and they take up a LOT less space and need a lot less maintenance. There are LCD solutions with smaller seams (as used in the BBC Election set for the main big screen I believe) but you can't use LCDs if you are using polarising filters on your cameras. LED is still too coarse-pitch for use in such a small space.

Seamless plasma is probably the only solution, and I think quite a nice solution - with a slight retro edge. If you're going to have lines in your video wall - embrace them, don't try to ignore them (as with Barcos)

I'm sure the Breakfast team would love £1.5million to make some effort with - and a fully crewed studio with fully manned cameras and no requirement to re-set for Newsnight, Newsround, Hardtalk, The Politics Show and the Andrew Marr Show between their shows (with only two or so people to physically do it). They have a standing set just for their show 2.5 hour daily show - the BBC have to use the same studio for a lot more than 2.5 hours day, and have to run their studios with far fewer people.

Daybreak are very sensibly putting their money on the screen - and they have a lot more of it than Breakfast.

They have clearly looked at what Breakfast CAN'T do - and done it...

I stand by Breakfast, which has much more credible journalism. I think a sticking point to Daybreak is fundamentally the presenters. They lack any real experience or crudentials in news. I feel Christine will really struggle with serious interviews with politicians, and handling breaking news, say on wars and conflicts etc.

I'm not criticising Breakfast at all. I think Bill and Sian are past-masters at handling serious breaking news and the lighter post-8.30 stuff. They're both very experienced journalists and very watchable presenters.

However Adrian is also very strong journalistically - he has bags of FiveLive experience behind him, and hours of Working Lunch gave him huge experience of serious stuff. Yep it was financial - but it was still most definitely decent journalism. (And I suspect he can spot bogus stats a mile off as a result - which many other presenters and journos don't - happily trotting out percentage and risk stats with no clue whether they are true and no understanding as to what they mean)



I don't see Christine struggling at all when she's with Adrian. He asks questions of one sort, Christine has always been brilliant at asking the questions that reconnect with the audience - "the questions you'd have asked" etc. Christine and Adrian interviewed all the main party leaders on The One Show - and none of their interviews were embarassing.

I'd be much more worried about Tasmin Lucia Khan than Christine if I were at Daybreak. Let's hope she's just asked to read an autocue and not do anything more...

They? Nah, Christine lacks news, Adrian is a proper journalist afterall, as the decade plus on Working Lunch showed....he handled a fair variety of things on that!

If they are plasmas I am surprised they are using a static image on it, how long until the image burns into the screen.

I never dismiss the show, all I said was it looks just like the one show.