YO
I don't think having more then one announcer is un-organized, it's quite good, I think having the same announcer all the time can get a bit booring.
Have they scrapped the ticker? Still not back on...
And, I think the male announcer announcing one hour and then the female announcer the other hours a bit un-organized. But just an opinion.
And, I think the male announcer announcing one hour and then the female announcer the other hours a bit un-organized. But just an opinion.
I don't think having more then one announcer is un-organized, it's quite good, I think having the same announcer all the time can get a bit booring.
BP
I don't think having more then one announcer is un-organized, it's quite good, I think having the same announcer all the time can get a bit booring.
when do they use the male announcer, I havent heard him yet!
Have they scrapped the ticker? Still not back on...
And, I think the male announcer announcing one hour and then the female announcer the other hours a bit un-organized. But just an opinion.
And, I think the male announcer announcing one hour and then the female announcer the other hours a bit un-organized. But just an opinion.
I don't think having more then one announcer is un-organized, it's quite good, I think having the same announcer all the time can get a bit booring.
when do they use the male announcer, I havent heard him yet!
BP
also liking the new Headlines Strap that comes up at quarter past & quarter two.
It's hideous. They have a great news logo and in Futura Ultra Bold next to it, twice the size "HEADLINES".
It is rank.
Totally agree, not only have they abolished the news from the desk which was a stupid decision, they can't even be bothered to make the current set up decent!
What makes your opinion any more valid than those who think the changes have improved the programme?
This goes to the lot of you children posting things like "stupid decision", "can't be bothered", "more training needed" - do a media studies course when you grow up enough to be given a choice. You'll actually be taught to analyse why things are done in the media, and it's almost certainly never because someone makes a stupid decision, people can't be bothered to do something or the people working are insufficiently trained. There's a lot of posts on this thread from people who think they know everything - you're wrong.
I know people who have, and still do, work on GMTV. I find it very insulting to their skills and abilities when you lot decide they're idiots because something changes which you don't like. I'm confident that none of you posting these comments would be able to last more than 5 minutes doing their jobs.
If you're going to keep posting such stupid things, at least back them up with some reasoning. If you think something is a stupid decision, state why.
What gives you the right to decide whether people are old enough to use the forum? you have no proof of age, and I am not a child. And I stand by what I stated earlier, it was a stupid decision that your 'mates' made. Okay?
also liking the new Headlines Strap that comes up at quarter past & quarter two.
It's hideous. They have a great news logo and in Futura Ultra Bold next to it, twice the size "HEADLINES".
It is rank.
Totally agree, not only have they abolished the news from the desk which was a stupid decision, they can't even be bothered to make the current set up decent!
What makes your opinion any more valid than those who think the changes have improved the programme?
This goes to the lot of you children posting things like "stupid decision", "can't be bothered", "more training needed" - do a media studies course when you grow up enough to be given a choice. You'll actually be taught to analyse why things are done in the media, and it's almost certainly never because someone makes a stupid decision, people can't be bothered to do something or the people working are insufficiently trained. There's a lot of posts on this thread from people who think they know everything - you're wrong.
I know people who have, and still do, work on GMTV. I find it very insulting to their skills and abilities when you lot decide they're idiots because something changes which you don't like. I'm confident that none of you posting these comments would be able to last more than 5 minutes doing their jobs.
If you're going to keep posting such stupid things, at least back them up with some reasoning. If you think something is a stupid decision, state why.
What gives you the right to decide whether people are old enough to use the forum? you have no proof of age, and I am not a child. And I stand by what I stated earlier, it was a stupid decision that your 'mates' made. Okay?
:-(
I've completed A Level Media Stuides course and it does help in understanding why things are done on television, althoug just because I've completed that does not make me an expert. If people want to offer their opinions of what they see on here I think that is fine, although people should not generalise that if you don't like it then no one does.
YO
I don't think having more then one announcer is un-organized, it's quite good, I think having the same announcer all the time can get a bit booring.
when do they use the male announcer, I havent heard him yet!
It's A rare one iv herd it twice at 6am on different days and once at 7am.
Have they scrapped the ticker? Still not back on...
And, I think the male announcer announcing one hour and then the female announcer the other hours a bit un-organized. But just an opinion.
And, I think the male announcer announcing one hour and then the female announcer the other hours a bit un-organized. But just an opinion.
I don't think having more then one announcer is un-organized, it's quite good, I think having the same announcer all the time can get a bit booring.
when do they use the male announcer, I havent heard him yet!
It's A rare one iv herd it twice at 6am on different days and once at 7am.
DO
1) They're not my 'mates', they're people I've worked with in the past, and hopefully again in the future. Outside of school, it perfectly reasonable and normal to work with people, and respect their abilities without them having to be in your group of friends.
2) Did you read the last line of my post? It's fine you having the opinion that it was a "stupid decision", but if you're not a child, back that opinion up with some reasoning. If you don't have the ability to do this, or can't be bothered, please keep your worthless opinions to yourself. Remember, stuff you post online will stay there forever, and future employers may find your posts. Presenting yourself as articulate, and capable of coming up with reasoned opinions will put you in good stead for the future.
3) Under the age of 16 you are legally a child. Feel free to prove otherwise, but your posting style, times that you post, programmes you watch, and the way you present yourself indicates that you are under 16. I'd hazard a guess at probably 13, but I don't know you well enough to tell. I'm not trying to have a go at you, so you can remove the giant chip from your shoulder. Read what I've said in a calm manner, not in a ranty voice, and you'll see my posts on this thread have been full of advice to make your posts seem more mature, and acceptable to adults (which the vast majority of posters on here are). At the end of the day, if you want people to take your opinions seriously, make sure you can back them up (tip: look at skyfan's BBC rantings - he never posts anything to back up his assertions, and results in him being considered an imbecile by other people). Finally, congratulations :- you're making an effort with your spelling and grammar, which is a lot more than can be said for most of your age group.
What gives you the right to decide whether people are old enough to use the forum? you have no proof of age, and I am not a child. And I stand by what I stated earlier, it was a stupid decision that your 'mates' made. Okay?
1) They're not my 'mates', they're people I've worked with in the past, and hopefully again in the future. Outside of school, it perfectly reasonable and normal to work with people, and respect their abilities without them having to be in your group of friends.
2) Did you read the last line of my post? It's fine you having the opinion that it was a "stupid decision", but if you're not a child, back that opinion up with some reasoning. If you don't have the ability to do this, or can't be bothered, please keep your worthless opinions to yourself. Remember, stuff you post online will stay there forever, and future employers may find your posts. Presenting yourself as articulate, and capable of coming up with reasoned opinions will put you in good stead for the future.
3) Under the age of 16 you are legally a child. Feel free to prove otherwise, but your posting style, times that you post, programmes you watch, and the way you present yourself indicates that you are under 16. I'd hazard a guess at probably 13, but I don't know you well enough to tell. I'm not trying to have a go at you, so you can remove the giant chip from your shoulder. Read what I've said in a calm manner, not in a ranty voice, and you'll see my posts on this thread have been full of advice to make your posts seem more mature, and acceptable to adults (which the vast majority of posters on here are). At the end of the day, if you want people to take your opinions seriously, make sure you can back them up (tip: look at skyfan's BBC rantings - he never posts anything to back up his assertions, and results in him being considered an imbecile by other people). Finally, congratulations :- you're making an effort with your spelling and grammar, which is a lot more than can be said for most of your age group.
BP
1) They're not my 'mates', they're people I've worked with in the past, and hopefully again in the future. Outside of school, it perfectly reasonable and normal to work with people, and respect their abilities without them having to be in your group of friends.
2) Did you read the last line of my post? It's fine you having the opinion that it was a "stupid decision", but if you're not a child, back that opinion up with some reasoning. If you don't have the ability to do this, or can't be bothered, please keep your worthless opinions to yourself. Remember, stuff you post online will stay there forever, and future employers may find your posts. Presenting yourself as articulate, and capable of coming up with reasoned opinions will put you in good stead for the future.
3) Under the age of 16 you are legally a child. Feel free to prove otherwise, but your posting style, times that you post, programmes you watch, and the way you present yourself indicates that you are under 16. I'd hazard a guess at probably 13, but I don't know you well enough to tell. I'm not trying to have a go at you, so you can remove the giant chip from your shoulder. Read what I've said in a calm manner, not in a ranty voice, and you'll see my posts on this thread have been full of advice to make your posts seem more mature, and acceptable to adults (which the vast majority of posters on here are). At the end of the day, if you want people to take your opinions seriously, make sure you can back them up (tip: look at skyfan's BBC rantings - he never posts anything to back up his assertions, and results in him being considered an imbecile by other people). Finally, congratulations :- you're making an effort with your spelling and grammar, which is a lot more than can be said for most of your age group.
If you are this upset about my one post, then I shall remove it. I couldn't bare to think that you were having sleepless nights over this.
And I shall state why. I think it was a bad decision for some very simple reasons. GMTV has always in the past been slammed for not being newsy enough, and too celebrity endorsed. So, having quarterly news headlines from a news desk, aided the program in appearing more news based. I know that GMTV is a breakfast channel, but it does provide some news, and from the desk it was very clear that news was being delivered. A second point is one that has already been brought up. In the current set up, the presenters read the news. If they are talking about a serious headline with great gravity, seriousness and depth, forexample, the death of a soldier, then it seems almost offensive to then start talking about Katie Price's newest bood job.
I hope this satisfies and you will learn to accept others opinions.
What gives you the right to decide whether people are old enough to use the forum? you have no proof of age, and I am not a child. And I stand by what I stated earlier, it was a stupid decision that your 'mates' made. Okay?
1) They're not my 'mates', they're people I've worked with in the past, and hopefully again in the future. Outside of school, it perfectly reasonable and normal to work with people, and respect their abilities without them having to be in your group of friends.
2) Did you read the last line of my post? It's fine you having the opinion that it was a "stupid decision", but if you're not a child, back that opinion up with some reasoning. If you don't have the ability to do this, or can't be bothered, please keep your worthless opinions to yourself. Remember, stuff you post online will stay there forever, and future employers may find your posts. Presenting yourself as articulate, and capable of coming up with reasoned opinions will put you in good stead for the future.
3) Under the age of 16 you are legally a child. Feel free to prove otherwise, but your posting style, times that you post, programmes you watch, and the way you present yourself indicates that you are under 16. I'd hazard a guess at probably 13, but I don't know you well enough to tell. I'm not trying to have a go at you, so you can remove the giant chip from your shoulder. Read what I've said in a calm manner, not in a ranty voice, and you'll see my posts on this thread have been full of advice to make your posts seem more mature, and acceptable to adults (which the vast majority of posters on here are). At the end of the day, if you want people to take your opinions seriously, make sure you can back them up (tip: look at skyfan's BBC rantings - he never posts anything to back up his assertions, and results in him being considered an imbecile by other people). Finally, congratulations :- you're making an effort with your spelling and grammar, which is a lot more than can be said for most of your age group.
If you are this upset about my one post, then I shall remove it. I couldn't bare to think that you were having sleepless nights over this.
And I shall state why. I think it was a bad decision for some very simple reasons. GMTV has always in the past been slammed for not being newsy enough, and too celebrity endorsed. So, having quarterly news headlines from a news desk, aided the program in appearing more news based. I know that GMTV is a breakfast channel, but it does provide some news, and from the desk it was very clear that news was being delivered. A second point is one that has already been brought up. In the current set up, the presenters read the news. If they are talking about a serious headline with great gravity, seriousness and depth, forexample, the death of a soldier, then it seems almost offensive to then start talking about Katie Price's newest bood job.
I hope this satisfies and you will learn to accept others opinions.
Last edited by bpmikey on 9 October 2009 5:16pm
BP
Thankyou for clearing that up!
They have used the male announcer when one presenter was in one place and another in a different place. Like when Penny was in London, John in Manchester and also when Emma & Richard were in London and John in Manchester.
Thankyou for clearing that up!
CR
Thankyou for clearing that up!
Can I just say that that should be Andrew Castle, not Richard, but I blanked out on his name for a minute, so put Richard down!
They have used the male announcer when one presenter was in one place and another in a different place. Like when Penny was in London, John in Manchester and also when Emma & Richard were in London and John in Manchester.
Thankyou for clearing that up!
Can I just say that that should be Andrew Castle, not Richard, but I blanked out on his name for a minute, so put Richard down!
DO
Retracting posts because someone challenges it is almost never a good idea, unless you yourself feel you were out of line when you wrote it and wish to apologise for it's content. I can assure you, TV Forum has never given me sleepless nights. The day it does is the day I cut off my internet and book myself into the funny farm.
I'm perfectly fine with accepting other people's opinions, but you can expect me to challenge your opinion when you state that people "can't be bothered" to do stuff when you know nothing about the situation, and don't have the skills to deconstuct what you are seeing on screen to understand the decisions made. I know for a fact that everything you see on screen (failures, unforseen circumstances and the like withstanding) is the result of a decision made somewhere by the production team. It's never because somebody couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. TV doesn't work that way. Whether or not you agree with those decisions is up to you, and if you want to challenge those decisions, some evidence that you understand that a decision has been made and that you understand the reasons behind it are a necessary part of an opinion.
If you are this upset about my one post, then I shall remove it. I couldn't bare to think that you were having sleepless nights over this.
Retracting posts because someone challenges it is almost never a good idea, unless you yourself feel you were out of line when you wrote it and wish to apologise for it's content. I can assure you, TV Forum has never given me sleepless nights. The day it does is the day I cut off my internet and book myself into the funny farm.
I hope this satisfies and you will learn to accept others opinions.
I'm perfectly fine with accepting other people's opinions, but you can expect me to challenge your opinion when you state that people "can't be bothered" to do stuff when you know nothing about the situation, and don't have the skills to deconstuct what you are seeing on screen to understand the decisions made. I know for a fact that everything you see on screen (failures, unforseen circumstances and the like withstanding) is the result of a decision made somewhere by the production team. It's never because somebody couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. TV doesn't work that way. Whether or not you agree with those decisions is up to you, and if you want to challenge those decisions, some evidence that you understand that a decision has been made and that you understand the reasons behind it are a necessary part of an opinion.