A crap end to a crap television service. I applaud ITV for not making a big deal out of it.
I know that it's your opinion, but would you care to elaborate just a little bit? I agree that the ending was less than fulsome and, as many on here have asked already, after 17 years would it have been all that difficult to do something special, but to make a glib statement about GMTV being 'a crap television service' is unfair. On what basis do you make such a claim? It wasn't crap. There were times in its history when it was very good and there were times when it was less so. Admittedly, in recent years, there had been a lack of investment and focus in the broadcast - did anybody know what GMTV was trying to do or be? - but that shouldn't count against it. For all the grievances and criticism levelled against it, I am of no doubt that the staff tried their best to produce a broadcast a) of which they could be proud, and b) that met the satisfaction of ITV plc.
The end, as I've said, was poor, but that shouldn't be a criticism of GMTV. The editorial team were in the unenviable position of having to say goodbye and produce a farewell for a show that has been overshadowed significantly by its successor. In the event that GMTV had spent the entire broadcast navel-gazing, saying 'look how good we are' or 'these are our achievements', then there would of been ample criticism on these boards because of it. It would have been difficult, also, because a vast majority of the production staff will remain on ITV and work on Daybreak. If a fare-thee-well was appropriate, then it would have been fore those in front of the camera, such as Andrew Castle and Emma Crosby.
This of course raises another issue. It reveals more about ITV than it does about GMTV. The manner in which ITV has gone about the relaunch of GMTV (as it was first reported), then the announcement of Daybreak, then the uncertainty regarding jobs and presenters is abysmal. I appreciate that the likes of Penny Smith and Ben Shepherd were given suitable farewells but it was the least that could be done given the protracted snafu that surrounded the relaunch and transition to Daybreak. For many years now ITV has been unwilling to invest significantly in its output, and not just at GMTV; there has been a lack of direction in primetime programming, with commissioning editors content to fill the schedules with talent shows, reality shows and multiple episodes of soap operas (which have become a pastiche of themselves); daytime broadcasts show no innovation and are dominated by Jeremy Kyle or a chatshow by whomever happens to be the favourite at the former Network Centre (though this is applicable equally to other broadcasters too); the consolidation of regional news output has eroded not only the last vestiges of the old ITV network nor the regional character for which they were known, but also the quality of the journalism that was at its heart; and the repeated cancellation of News at Ten, its reintroduction, its first relaunch and its second relaunch and its third relaunch, etc. have damaged the reputation of a) a fine broadcast, and b) a once exceptional news service.
GMTV has been a victim of this decay. Without sufficient direction and a clear idea of what GMTV should be, or could be, there was insufficient investment and putrefaction. The attitude of ITV in its approach to the launch of Daybreak - with vast sums of money committed to the salaries of its anchors, with the uncertainty and the lack of compassion that hovered above the heads of the existing presentation team at GMTV - is abhorrent. The somewhat lacklustre farewell this morning is only the tip of the iceberg of the pathology that troubles ITV.
