GI
I totally agree building on from previous discussion about a 'newshour' the show does need more agenda setting and news related features. The viewing figures actually speak for themselves for example with the exemption of the Bank Holiday Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday there was good coverage on the death of Osama Bin Laden but during the course of the week Daybreak when back to normal in terms of content.
Ratings for Last Week
Bank Holiday Monday - 400,000
Tuesday 3rd May - 911,000
Wednesday 4th May - 816,000
Thursday 5th May - 800,000
Friday 6th May - 805,000
These figures show when it comes to more focus on big news stories ratings can potentially rise.
I would agree, there is a lot of experience in the presentation team in covering news and I would say it has the potential to produce better coverage than Breakfast. The current format is fine and I will watch it and is much better they had mid-november to early this year however GMTV as much as I hated it got MP's and newsmakers on the sofa where as Daybreak fails to do unless there is a massive story such as Bin Laden. It was handelled extremley well and they made use of their resources with Cordellia who was US correspodent giving her views, the panel of experts and Adrian and Kate both were crediable Journalists before going onto lighter stuff were exceptional. The format should be more newsy in the first hour, introduce a slight more news edge between 7 and 8 but maintain better features and TV Matters moved to 7:55 and then post 8 do what they do.
I watch Daybreak every week day from 6.30am to 7.00am, and I will continue to do so because I like Adrian and Christine as a partnership, always did. I like to catch the news update at 6.30am and the 'TV matters' feature at 6.55am. I can, however, understand why the show is not meeting the expectations of so many that expected a more hard-hitting news based show than GMTV (as promised). Daybreak's lower viewing figures than BBC are easy to resolve, bring back the 5- a - day feature, more news stories and features instead of animal/pet features, but reported in a 'lighter' manner than BBC and I strongly believe there will be more viewers and criticism will die down.
I totally agree building on from previous discussion about a 'newshour' the show does need more agenda setting and news related features. The viewing figures actually speak for themselves for example with the exemption of the Bank Holiday Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday there was good coverage on the death of Osama Bin Laden but during the course of the week Daybreak when back to normal in terms of content.
Ratings for Last Week
Bank Holiday Monday - 400,000
Tuesday 3rd May - 911,000
Wednesday 4th May - 816,000
Thursday 5th May - 800,000
Friday 6th May - 805,000
These figures show when it comes to more focus on big news stories ratings can potentially rise.
I would agree, there is a lot of experience in the presentation team in covering news and I would say it has the potential to produce better coverage than Breakfast. The current format is fine and I will watch it and is much better they had mid-november to early this year however GMTV as much as I hated it got MP's and newsmakers on the sofa where as Daybreak fails to do unless there is a massive story such as Bin Laden. It was handelled extremley well and they made use of their resources with Cordellia who was US correspodent giving her views, the panel of experts and Adrian and Kate both were crediable Journalists before going onto lighter stuff were exceptional. The format should be more newsy in the first hour, introduce a slight more news edge between 7 and 8 but maintain better features and TV Matters moved to 7:55 and then post 8 do what they do.
