Good Morning Britain - the launch

I'd say ditch Andi Peters and put the weather on the OB as Sunrise does in Australia.

It's quite funny isn't it however much we like something we're all wanting to change things or predicting who will be first out. One thing I would say is if it is successful I'd be tempted to extend it through to 9.25am - I felt Lorraine afterwards was fairly jarring, though it doesn't help they don't close the show properly. I'd then move Lorraine to the afternoons.

I dont think Lorraine should be moved. She is the queen of Breakfast TV - and her show is successful in its current slot.

Lorraine's programme averages around 1m doesn't it? So I doubt they'd be willing to move it anytime soon.

My views so far:

Titles are very nice, although at the start i thought it was a break bumper.
Graphics aren't 'beautiful' like the insiders had said, they do the job (nicely, it has to be said) although, i paid no attention to the ticker, as there was too much going on. They have a subtle hint to ITV news, i like the itv news and sport graphics.
The studio looks stunning, and the desk works well, i'm not convinced on the weather screen, it needs to be a little bigger, the graphics give much more depth and detail, which looks a lot better on screen.
The soft area is okay, the sofa is on the small side tho. And, i really like the 'developing' story graphics. They've already proven they can handle breaking news, unlike Daybreak v1. I remember watching them trying to cover the dale farm incident a few years back, with christine at the helm. I'm not convinced in the chemistry tho, ben and susanna's seems forced.
Sean's role is very much low key, i assume that's why he never appeared in the interviews.
The content is very much news driven, which is great.
The local news was apparently extended, which i find hard to believe. It should be a five minute roundup, with a 2 minute summary before the TOTH. Also, they made a whole thing about 'travel news' when there was none covered here in Scotland.
I just hope they let it grow into what it's going to be, let them all bed in, and don't change anything. A clear contender to breakfast.
Lorraine's new set is nice alsom the theme and titles are a little hit or miss, personally i like them. But i didn't like how they kept cutting to the kitchen, and the lack of a newspaper review, it had no structure. And i'm glad they've animated the titles/ in and out of break graphics properly ...
Also, it shows what you can do with the space. In it's GMTV days, studio 5 looked tiny, with the same style sets over the years.

EDIT: the six am hour was much better than the other two, too many ad breaks, and stories dropped/ and just when the interviews were getting interesting, they were cut short! Also, the Andi peters competition was beyond a joke, it dumbs down the content/ feel of the show. They should be kept to Lorraine. Given it was their first day, a job well done i'd say.

Please explain the commercial realities in this sense? Because as far as I can see, it is perfectly acceptable to hope that a programme format be given time to settle, irrelevant of initial ratings, considering the investment put in. That would make more commercial sense.

I really don't understand why they find travel news so hard to do.

View a third party source that compiles it for you, type it onto some slides and then read it out.

Before you know it you've got 30 secs more content for minimal effort and the regional bulletin looks more substantial as a result.

Was there any kind of promo for GMB this evening? Daybreak aired theirs before Emmerdale if I remember rightly. Strange we haven't seen any, as Helen Warner said we'd see some after launch day showing what people have missed that day?

And she name checked the wrong weather guy

Its brilliant!

Did she? It was Luke who presented the forecast and Luke who she referenced.

For the life of me I can't follow how anyone can legitimately claim the programme was too fast paced. Perhaps splitting the stories between all of the presenters had something to do with the illusion, but to me the pace was just right.

I really don't buy the equal-presenter format, though, there needs to be more of a difference between Susanna/ Ben and Charlotte. The other issue with this format is the likelihood of any one presenter being off on a morning is reasonably high; that will be more noticeable if the four all feature predominately, as potentially 1/4 of the intros will be by a stand-in on many mornings.

It's also a bit jarring for Sean to pop up randomly every now and then, only for them to formally 'throw' to Sean for the sports bulletin (unlike, say, Charlotte's headlines). Laura's positioning and involvement also awkwardly makes her seem like an outsider to the group.


For the record, for anyone suggesting Charlotte and Sean are the 'answer', I'd disagree. I think the issue is Susanna and Ben bring similar qualities to the role - both work well on the prompter, are competent interviewers, are a bit calmer and quieter than some presenters, and are generally good all-rounders. Neither would have made it as a respected political correspondent in all likelihood, and indeed I don't think either has a particularly extensive reporting background.

You can love or hate Matt Lauer all you like, and I am in no way suggesting he's in league with the Paxmans, but he is a deft interviewer. His rather prominent interview with Tom Cruise is a good example, managing to confidently handle a fiery topic with a delicate interviewee so as to limit the chances of failure, while at the same time not shirking away from the meatier topics or questions, and responding to Cruise's points with on-the-fly follow-ups. Charlotte and Susanna, and I suspect Ben, are of the 'Person A: this isn't so bad, is it? Person B: person A has a point. Person A: care to not-surprise us by disagreeing? Person B: Let's agree to differ; we've run out of time; send us your emails so we can repeat those same views repeatedly to you' kind of interviewer. The kind who essentially has a predictable, generic formula to interviewing and where instances of them adapting to the answers is triggered as much by the sound of the answers, than the greater realities and implications.

Having one of those is fine - necessary, even - but the other co-host needs to be stronger; have a clear journalistic ear and not be afraid to push. And when I've watched her interviewing over the years, I've sensed that Charlotte makes a far better newsreader and generalist presenter than a journalist who can properly engage with a concept and generate a meaningful interview or debate.

Essentially, for every Natasha Kaplinsky you need a Dermot Murnaghan. Or perhaps the terrifyingly current example might be for every Holly Willoughby you need a Phillip Schofield*. None of these presenters are Willoughbys, but equally you can't imagine any of them making it to serious news broadcasts, like 'Today' or 'Newsnight'. And achieving your morning balance by casting three mid-level presenters together, as opposed to at least one with stronger journalistic instinct, may be where the news-driven angle ultimately fails.

*Fair warning: Anyone who even dares use the phrase 'journalist' in the same sentence as 'Phillip Schofield' deserves to be cut off from the internet.

'Earlier on Good Morning Britain' trailer just ran on ITV.