The Jeremy Kyle Show, Judge Rinder and Jeremy Kyle's Emergency Room are produced at Media City, in addition to Corrie near by. Leeds and Salford are two important production hubs for ITV.
Drama and docs are also made outside the capital. In any case, the supposed London-centricity of ITV is nonsense. It's a national channel with some programming produced in London for a national audience.
It's similar to how Radio 1 was perceived as a London station, when it was clearly national in nature compared to Capital Radio which shouted London from the rooftops as a local radio station.
As a result, places like Birmingham, Norwich, Newcastle and even Glasgow has little if anything filmed for TV, while all the decisions; broadcast facilities, and filming happens in London.
It's not about harking back to 2002, it's about the serious lacking of any production and decision making outside of London.
So are you suggesting it would have been better for ITV to have kept its production facilities open across the country so that they could still make Loose Women at Anglia and Family Fortunes in Nottingham? Would that have set it on a stronger footing in the new age of television?
There is a degree to which I'm always going to see it as a shame that we no longer have programmes coming in from all different parts of the country, and competition between different franchises to get on the network. From my own viewpoint, I worry somewhat for the Scottish media scene and find myself regularly comparing it to Ireland, which has far more opportunity.
That being said, Scotland is part of the UK - it had the choice to change that and didn't - and therefore it is not surprising that most shows come from the capital, and in the current era it would make no sense to artificially maintain so many different studios. We have a higher quality of programming these days than we ever did back in the day, and ITV after an exceptionally shaky period during the early days of a single-branded station now produces some really good stuff.
The best we can hope for from ITV is that the current set-up is maintained, and that if ITV takes over Scotland it maintains a level of programming it provides to Wales. As much as moving many of its operations to Salford has been a comprehensive pain for the BBC (and in some cases isn't ideal - Breakfast interviews down the line vs those in person are never going to work quite as well) there's no reason why other programming such as Sport, Children's etc couldn't come from almost any built-up area of the country. It would be good to see that trend continue, and possibly more involvement of regions in the sometimes England and Wales/London-centric national news.
The Jeremy Kyle Show, Judge Rinder and Jeremy Kyle's Emergency Room are produced at Media City, in addition to Corrie near by. Leeds and Salford are two important production hubs for ITV.
Drama and docs are also made outside the capital. In any case, the supposed London-centricity of ITV is nonsense. It's a national channel with some programming produced in London for a national audience.
It's similar to how Radio 1 was perceived as a London station, when it was clearly national in nature compared to Capital Radio which shouted London from the rooftops as a local radio station.
I never mentioned Manchester as it's never really suffered from the merging of the ITV companies with Corrie continuing its filming in Mancs and Media City opening in Salford.
I disagree that the London-centricity of ITV is nonsense. Even STV film network programmes there. Most of the programming is from London and the south east, not some. Dramas are filmed across parts of England, but all of these decisions are made in London.
It may come across that I don't like London, which is far from the case, I love London. I just disagree with all the media decisions being made there. On that, we will have to agree to disagree.
As a result, places like Birmingham, Norwich, Newcastle and even Glasgow has little if anything filmed for TV, while all the decisions; broadcast facilities, and filming happens in London.
It's not about harking back to 2002, it's about the serious lacking of any production and decision making outside of London.
So are you suggesting it would have been better for ITV to have kept its production facilities open across the country so that they could still make Loose Women at Anglia and Family Fortunes in Nottingham? Would that have set it on a stronger footing in the new age of television?
There is a degree to which I'm always going to see it as a shame that we no longer have programmes coming in from all different parts of the country, and competition between different franchises to get on the network. From my own viewpoint, I worry somewhat for the Scottish media scene and find myself regularly comparing it to Ireland, which has far more opportunity.
That being said, Scotland is part of the UK - it had the choice to change that and didn't - and therefore it is not surprising that most shows come from the capital, and in the current era it would make no sense to artificially maintain so many different studios. We have a higher quality of programming these days than we ever did back in the day, and ITV after an exceptionally shaky period during the early days of a single-branded station now produces some really good stuff.
The best we can hope for from ITV is that the current set-up is maintained, and that if ITV takes over Scotland it maintains a level of programming it provides to Wales. As much as moving many of its operations to Salford has been a comprehensive pain for the BBC (and in some cases isn't ideal - Breakfast interviews down the line vs those in person are never going to work quite as well) there's no reason why other programming such as Sport, Children's etc couldn't come from almost any built-up area of the country. It would be good to see that trend continue, and possibly more involvement of regions in the sometimes England and Wales/London-centric national news.
I really can't see ITV taking over STV for the reasons of uncertainty I gave a couple of days ago. It wasn't back to the status quo for Scotland the day after the referendum and it is likely there'll be another within the next 5 to 10 years. So the affiliate agreement will suit them both in this respect.
The network has upped its game from 2002. Its hard to believe it used to air Club Reps; Survivor etc, so it's done something right, although it is showing way too much in soaps; X Factor and BGT.
As a result, places like Birmingham, Norwich, Newcastle and even Glasgow has little if anything filmed for TV, while all the decisions; broadcast facilities, and filming happens in London.
Loads
gets made out of Glasgow. I wouldn't be surprised if more gets made there now than 20 years ago. The indie sector has really flourished in Glasgow thanks to the nations commitments the channels have to adhere to.
The network has upped its game from 2002. Its hard to believe it used to air Club Reps; Survivor etc, so it's done something right, although it is showing way too much in soaps; X Factor and BGT.
I don't like them, but they're massive revenue earners for the company. If it means we get another Downton Abbey, Victoria or even Newzoids, it's worth it. After all, ITV is a general entertainment channel as well as a PSB.
You're right a lot does get filmed in Glasgow for the BBC, but very little, if any, for ITV. It was the other way around until the noughties. The Hub at PQ does have a lot of indies for production, and I'm not complaining about that, but for the Channel 3 network it is very Londoncentric. Decisions are made there; production companies from anywhere in world make the programme in London and south east, programme is broadcast from London.
As a result, places like Birmingham, Norwich, Newcastle and even Glasgow has little if anything filmed for TV, while all the decisions; broadcast facilities, and filming happens in London.
It's not about harking back to 2002, it's about the serious lacking of any production and decision making outside of London.
So are you suggesting it would have been better for ITV to have kept its production facilities open across the country so that they could still make Loose Women at Anglia and Family Fortunes in Nottingham? Would that have set it on a stronger footing in the new age of television?
You're being flippant.
I've made my point. We'll agree to disagree.
I'm not being flippant - the point you are making is that ITV have substantially damaged television production outside of London - I'm asking if you feel it would have been cost effective for one company to have kept such large production centres open across the country?