>My understanding is that in each TV market (or region, as you call it), there are only two stations with full-fledged news operations;

With the exception of a few areas with Restricted Service stations, there are 5 channels.
BBC1+BBC2 - News is mainly on 1, but there are a few bulletins on BBC2 to fill up space mainly.
ITV - news provided by ITN, local news by - well I think it's produced by the local station. Not sure.
Channel 4 - minority station (supposedly) far more hip and cool and with a nightly news programme at 7- also produced by ITN, tends to go in far more for politics and analysis, ITV's news has got a bit touchy-feelie - eugh!
Channel 5 - generally a bit of a joke, only received in some areas, news is by ITN again, but very informal, newscasters sitting on desks etc. Quite dumbed down.

also, in Wales, the BBC provides the Newyddion programme for S4C, the Welsh language channel.

>Also I get the impression (I may be mistaken here) that most British TV stations are not that competitive.


Not really - because there are relatively few stations everyone knows their place, BBC are good at drama and current affairs, C4 do documentaries, imports and edgy stuff, ITV caters to the lowest common denominator. There's been a lot of talk of how ITV is slipping and if you see what they've been putting out recently, it's not surprising.
>From the clips I've seen, I get the impression that there are relatively few live-on-the-scene reports in your newscasts.

No - because there are no choppers, no car chases and stuff like that, if something major happens, they go there live, otherwise, anything major and exciting will get onto the national news. Central News did a few "smiling anchors" boards a year or two ago - I didn't see the point - there are only 2 options for local news (generally)
>And I've also heard that the BBC stations compete with ITV stations. Why would the BBC want to compete with private stations?

If people stopped watching the BBC it would be failing in its duty to serve the public - remember that we all have to pay £100+ (over US$150) a year whether we watch it or not - so they do care. Competition isn't overt, they don't pitch their key soaps head to head (I don't think) but they like to be the best and most popular. Occasionally we get, for example, ITV "poached" BBC's sports anchor Des Lynham, and stuff like that, but not much.

>Also, I understand that the ITC is much more restrictive than our FCC

In theory it's great, but it only seems to regulate taste and decency (they are too strict on sex, not strict enough on violence - personal opinion)not quality - ITV like shows with the words "worlds most destructive..." or "...from hell" in the title - it's utter trash - and toothy, ginger Liverpudlians - they're never off ITV either. Where they do dictate types of programmes, it just seems to mean more bad shows of a type they have to have, when it would be better to have "too many" of something they're good at.
>I'm looking forward to your insights.
>Thanks.
>
>By the way, if you have any questions about TV in the States, I'd be glad to help you out.
>


OK - you notice I always use the network names (ITV, not Carlton or Meridian) day-to-day, would you refer to the local franchise-holder's name, or to the Network? I mean - which do you think of first when you turn on?

Thanks! I really appreciate your help.

Thanks for your help, Ben!

>>because there are no choppers, no car chases and stuff like that, if something major happens, they go there live, otherwise, anything major and exciting will get onto the national news.

Why no choppers or extensive live coverage?

>
>OK - you notice I always use the network names (ITV, not Carlton or Meridian) day-to-day, would you refer to the local franchise-holder's name, or to the Network? I mean - which do you think of first when you turn on?

It depends. When most people talk about network programming (i.e. Friends), they refer to the network (i.e. NBC). When talking about the local news, everybody refers to the local station (i.e. Channel 3, Channel 12).

When I turn my set on when local or syndicated programming (programming bought directly by the station, not transmitted by a network) is on, I think of my local licensee (as franchise holders are called here). When I watch TV during when network shows are on, I think of the network.

Of course, not all U.S. stations are affiliated with a network. In Phoenix, where I live, the top-rated station (Channel 3, a.k.a. "3TV") is an independent...in other words, it relies exclusively on its own local news (more than eight hours a day), and syndicated shows (Entertainment Tonight, Jeopardy! etc.)

There are ten major stations in Phoenix:

Channel 3 -- Independent with local news
Channel 5 -- CBS with local news
Channel 8 -- PBS (public) with a local discussion show.
Channel 10 - Fox with local news.
Channel 12 -- NBC with local news.
Channel 15 -- ABC with local news.
Channel 21 -- Religious with no local programming.
Channel 33-- Spanish-language with local Spanish news.
Channel 45 -- UPN with no local programming except basketball.
Channel 61 -- The WB with no local programming except hockey.


By the way, Phoenix is a bit atypical because it has more stations w/ local news than just about any other market in the country.

>There are ten major stations in Phoenix:
>
>Channel 3 -- Independent with local news
>Channel 5 -- CBS with local news
>Channel 8 -- PBS (public) with a local discussion show.
>Channel 10 - Fox with local news.
>Channel 12 -- NBC with local news.
>Channel 15 -- ABC with local news.
>Channel 21 -- Religious with no local programming.
>Channel 33-- Spanish-language with local Spanish news.
>Channel 45 -- UPN with no local programming except basketball.
>Channel 61 -- The WB with no local programming except hockey.

I forgot to mention: None of the local stations in Phoenix are owned by the networks. Generally speaking, only stations in the biggest markets (New York, Chicago, Philly) are owned by their networks. In cities such as Phoenix, the stations, which are owned by other companies (Belo, Gannett, etc.) negotiate multi-year contracts with networks to carry their programming. Before 1994, Channel 3 was the market's ABC affiliate, while Channel 15 was Fox. Network affiliations are not a static thing.

In the UK there is much more focus on national news than local news (possibly because it is a smaller country). Local news is only broadcast on BBC1 and ITV in the main (with occasional bulletins on BBC2). There is one major half-hour bulletin at 6 or 6:30 each night, with shorter bulletins at lunchtime (15 minutes) and in the evening after the main news (9:25 on BBC1, 11:20 on ITV). There are other "headline" bulletins during daytime. Becasue there is only this coverage there is therefore not the time to fill with live helecopter chases, and I know of no local news programme with one (some local radio stations have them, but only for commenting on the traffic situation). One reason could be that there are less in the way of car chases in the UK. Another could be that schedules are more determined, with the same programmes across the ITV/BBC network during most of the day.

In the UK, the BBC broadcasts across the country and does its own local news. ITV, rather than deing a "network" that stations affiliate to, it make up of 16 franhcises (14 geographical area (there are different franchises for London weekdays and London weekends and a seperate one for Breakfast) and these together make up ITV, with different companies providing programmes for the network. They used to be all seperate companies, but there are now 3 major companies - United, Carlton and Granada.

There are also some local stations developing, either on cable or on low power transmissions, but they are not major players.

Most ITV companies promote their local news at varying times on their stations, but it is not a major battleground between channels.

> Why no choppers or extensive live coverage?

'Cos nothing happens here in Britain! No seriously, it's probably because the stations don't like spending huge amounts on choppers when they could do it the cheap way (ie. buy footage from police cameras and dress it up as a "Police Camera Action" programme.)

>Do they even own choppers, or do they lease them?

Once or twice ITN (national) have used choppers in the past, but not to cover any dramatic "action" type events, more things like covering the journey the prime minister's car makes as he goes to Buckingham Palace after an election (it's a tradition when a new PM is voted in)

One reason for this is that news doesn't have the "showbiz" element it has in the states. The news, no matter how dumbed-down, is generally seen as being an important part of a television company's duty to impartially inform and educate, which probably goes back to the creation of the BBC and the values of it's first director general Lord Reith, who wanted to get the people to tune in (to the radio at the time) for the entertainment and then stay to be educated. For this reason also, British national news has more international coverage than many other countries. Another factor with ITV is that it has the ITC looking over it's shoulder making sure it's programmes are of a certain "quality".

As for local news, it has a lower budget than in the US, mainly because of the small areas covered. The ITV network also tends to think of the news as an unfortunate obligation that gets in the way of the ratings-winners.

>How agressively do these stations promote their news divisions?

In general, not agressively at all. Normally the only times promotion will be going on is when a show is relaunched. Stations seem to think there's no point bothering with the ratings too much in this area, the real battleground is with sport, drama, movies etc.

Like I say, regional news is more something they have to do than want to. The only reason ITV is going to do something about it's falling regional news figures at the moment (caused by a change of schedule) is because of a warning from the ITC.

>And I've also heard that the BBC stations compete with ITV stations. Why would the BBC want to compete with private stations? I understand the BBC shows no advertising, so why would they care about how many people watch them? (After all, isn't the only purpose of ratings to determine advertising rates?)

In general I agree - why does the BBC pay big names stars to come over from ITV, apart from to inflate the corporation's ego? One thing that does matter though is that every ten years or so the BBC's charter has to be renewed in parliament, and if nobody was watching the BBC, some severe changes would be forced upon it. Likewise, if it's making quality popular programmes the govenment would make changes that it would like, such as allowing it more money.

>Aren't public broadcasters supposed to give priority documentaries and other programs that are not shown on the private television?

Well, yes, but the BBC has been putting out all sorts of trash that defies logic. Channel Four, a public broadcaster that is funded by advertising and doesn't make any of the programmes it shows does that better right now.

>If private stations air news, why does the BBC have to do it? Or is this viewed differently in Britain?

One reason here is choice, each station tends to have it's own style as detailed in one of the previous posts. Another is simply that it is one of the public service requirements it was built on, and it is generally thought in this country that the BBC is the place to go for strictly impartial and truthful news (although the other companies uphold these principles just as much, right down to sponsorship of news programmes being illegal here)

Incidentally, ITV is a public service broadcaster as well, despite being made up of private companies. That's why it is so tightly regulated by the ITC. We basically have a system around about half way between the state control of the old eastern europe and the free-for-all commercialism of the States.

Phew.. hope that wasn't too all-over-the-place!

As far as covering news with choppers is concerned, there was an exception to the rule in the late eighties. TVS used it's own helicopter to cover local news stories for a while when it had heaps of money to burn. The main reason for this was to get to stories in the Thames Valley area quicker. But things went downhill when TVS acquired MTM in the US in an ambitious attempt to make it across the Atlantic. It all went wrong as MTM continued to lose money at a staggering rate. Of course, TVS lost the ITV South of England franchise in 1991 due to the ITC deciding that TVS couldn't fund the ridiculously high bid that was tendered in that franchise round.

Thank you for your responses, guys! You really explained a lot. Just wondering, would the overall consesus be that British TV news has not become a big business because the UK is a much smaller country than the US? Or is the regulatory framework the key difference?

I think part of the thing is our attitudes to news. In the US, the stations seem to "make" the news - here it just happens and gets reported - there's not a lot of showmanship.

National UK TV news puts things into more context than US. It devotes longer to reports and analysis.

There has been a tendency to move on to live Q and A sessions on both local and national television news.
But they are irritating. All they really do is repeat what has just been said on the report shown immediately beforehand.
Occasionally, a late-breaking news point can be made. Then they're worthwhile.
But in the main, they're really saying: We can do a live link so we will.

British TV journalism would regard live car chases as pretty irresponsible reporting. It really is lowest common denominator stuff. They happen all the time, so aren't news, it's just action for the sake of it.
US TV seems unable to understand the difference.

And our contempt of court laws are stricter than the US's.
A crime is being committed and a jury could see the television coverage, so a trial could be jeopardised because of that very coverage.

British press journalism is far more outspoken and stylish than the US's because competition here is so much greater.

With more than 10 national dailies, it really is cut-throat. In most US cities, it's just one paper, with the New York Times and the exceptionally bland USA Today competing.
Television is less cut-throat here and more measured.

The networkds also go for different markets. You know here which channel's news you're watching. In the US, they seem pretty interchangeable.

I'm really enjoying this discussion. I posted a few other questions...Some may seem a bit provocative, but my only intention is to keep this discussion interesting.

>But in the main, they're really saying: We can do a live link so we will.


I've heard the same criticism here in the US. But if the audience wants this, why would a (private) station shy away from it? Isn't private TV's goal to create a truly popular newscast? Or does the British audience simply have different expectations?

>British TV journalism would regard live car chases as pretty irresponsible reporting.

But again, if the people want to see them, why would an ITV station show them? I can understand that the BBC wouldn't go along with that, but what about a private ITV company? After all, even a car chase can, arguably, be covered in a responsible, journalistically sound way. I totally agree that it is showbiz. But aren't local, private stations allowed to mix a bit of showbiz into their news (as long as they do not violate any journalistic principles)? After all, I'm sure that local British stations run stories about health, fitness, the royals, etc. (correct me if I'm wrong). Those stories aren't exactly hard-hitting journalism, but they sure get ratings.

>And our contempt of court laws are stricter than the US's.
>A crime is being committed and a jury could see the television coverage, so a trial could be jeopardised because of that very coverage.

But, speaking as a naturalized American, should that concern be balanced against the public's right to know?

I was born in Europe (in Slovenia). I have also studied TV news in various countries and I know that populist TV newscasts have succeeded elsewhere across the world (Nova TV in the Czech Republic, POP TV in Slovenia, RTL in Germany, etc.) Are the expectations of the British that much different from those in the US and in countries such as the Czech Republic? Or does it all have to do with how the system was set up? After all, British TV seems to be more tightly regulated than TV in most Western countries. I am familiar with the regulatory systems in Italy, Slovenia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Poland, Germany, Australia, Mexico, etc. and they all (without exception) allow private broadcasters much more freedom (in scheduling, in content, etc.) than what the ITC seems to allow, (from what I gather from the conversations on this board). On the other hand, British TV IS among the very best in the world.

Looking forward to your responses! And, again, I did not mean to offend anyone...I just wanted to be a bit provocative.

> Or does the British audience simply have different expectations?

It's lazy, it's not good television - And surely it must be irritating to hear "We interrupt this fabulous, award-winning drama programme to bring you some guy who just robbed a parking meter" - or whatever - all the time
>
Car chases - I don't believe UK audiences would watch them. And they happen so very rarely that it is really a non-issue
>
>But, speaking as a naturalized American, should that concern be balanced against the public's right to know?
>

Legally, we have no right to know anything! seriously. But it would probably be illegal to show it, as it might bias the trial of the person being filmed.

Are the expectations of the British that much different from those in the US?

Yes - I think so, US-style factual programmes look ever so shallow and pathetic by our standards. I saw "60 Minutes" on Carlton World once and, even though it's supposed to be the flagship factual show, it was pathetic and didn't really aim any higher than kids' intellect.

Or does it all have to do with how the system was set up?

Yeah - we kind of expect our TV to stretch us and teach us something sometimes. I think it's also in the national psyche - Americans hate to be taught anything - that would suggest they didn't already KNOW everything!

> On the other hand, British TV IS among the very best in the world.

Exactly! BBC and ITN sell their news to all kind of independent TV stations in the US - when we see that working the other way round, we'll take ur news seriously!

Yes, I agree with everything you say Ben.
The last time I was in the US, I had to switch off the TV because I was sooooo bored of it. And those adverts are in your face like every 5 minutes, sometimes you wonder what the hell it is your supposed to be watching.

I've been to a few countries, and I have to say that British TV is the best.

>I saw "60 Minutes" on Carlton World once and, even though it's supposed to be the flagship factual show, it was pathetic and didn't really aim any higher than kids' intellect.

Wow! I can only imagine what you would think of other US newsmagazine shows. "60 Minutes" really IS considered the newsmagazine of record (both in terms of ratings and journalistic integrity).

>Yeah - we kind of expect our TV to stretch us and teach us something sometimes. I think it's also in the national psyche - Americans hate to be taught anything - that would suggest they didn't already KNOW everything!

You are right, many Americans have an aversion to TV that "teaches".

>BBC and ITN sell their news to all kind of independent TV stations in the US - when we see that working the other way round, we'll take ur news seriously!

Im not sure about that. I'm not familiar of any independent US stations that use reports from the BBC or ITN. (Some public stations do carry their newscasts, though). You may be thinking of the networks, which do use quite a bit of ITN stuff for their international coverage (Isn't NBC...or maybe ABC...a shareholder in ITN?.

I would argue that it DOES go the other way. After all, isn't CNN widely admired in Britain? And I know that Sky News uses quite a bit of CBS's stuff.

>I would argue that it DOES go the other way. After all, isn't CNN widely admired in Britain? And I know that Sky News uses quite a bit of CBS's stuff.

Well, given that cable/sat hasn't yet got quite the same sort of audiences (in terms of percentages) lots of people haven't seen it but due to it's general fame it's grown to be a bit of a byword for American TV news. This means that it's tarnished a bit by the trashy reputation of lots of US TV news. However, in times like the Gulf War CNN makes a good name for itself.

As far as Sky News' use of CBS News goes, it's basically used as a bit of a filler, moved around (and in and out of) the schedules and rarely gets anything remotely near significant in terms of ratings. The only times Sky makes any big use of it is when there's a big story there, like Clinton's impeachment, in a "let's see what they think of it over there" kinda way.

>
>>I saw "60 Minutes" on Carlton World once and, even though it's supposed to be the flagship factual show, it was pathetic and didn't really aim any higher than kids' intellect.
>
>I'M NOT SURPRISED IT IS A CARLTON OWNED CHANNEL ISN'T IT THAT'S WHY IT'S SHITE

Carlton World WAS shite, Carlton scrapped it in favour of Discovery Wings, which isn't much better IMHO.

Sky News - pretty shallow and americanised, Never used to watch it, always go for News 24. CNN was ok during the Clinton impeachment, but even that was well covered on BBC Parliament (a vastly underrated channel) even though their coverage comes from C-SPAN. I have little time for news shows like that, I can only just bring myself to watch ITN!

US channels do take ITN sometimes - I dont know which, but I've seen screenshots and stuff.

>US channels do take ITN sometimes - I dont know which, but I've seen screenshots and stuff.

No dispute there...a number of public US stations carry ITN or BBC newscasts...
I just said that I wasn't aware of any INDEPENDENT stations that use their material.

Unfortunately, my public station in Phoenix doesn't carry any British newscasts.

Sorry to but in here... with regards to the local bulletins in the UK, the glitz and showiness of American broadcasts has been shown to be actually a turn-off in the UK. Granada (the ITV service for the North-West of England) had a highly successful regional news programme in the 1980's and early 90's. But then they went in for the tabloid lightness and their ratings have plummeted. On the other hand Border Television (which serve around 400,000 people around the Lakes and the Scottish Borders) have a distinctly low-key and "cuddly" (in a British way) local news programme, which just tells the news in an understated way in the main, and it's audience figures are the highest of any ITV station. So I just don't think the showmanship works...

Another turnoff would be the fact that US news shows rarely show anything international... One of Bill Bryson's articles (published as Notes From a Big Country) documents one episode of CNN's Wor;d News (or whatever it's called) that apparently lasts about an hour, and contained only 30 seconds of news froum outside the USA.

I may be erroneous here, as it's a long time since I read Notes, but from 6 months of US TV and news, Btryson seemed to be correct. thank heaven for BBC America.

I came up with a few other questions on this subject:
**What do you think of US consultants working for British TV news operations? After all, this may be an even more pervasive way of importing American news values than simply using video from US networks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the BBC currently using consultants from Magid (the folks who created "Action News"? I think that I already know what your opinion will be, but I'm still interested.

**In the Sates many local stations feature investigative reports (usually titled "3 on Your Side" or something similar). They usually spotlight crooked pool cleaners, misleading "charities," dirty restaurants, and the like. Anything similar on British TV news?

What do you think of US consultants working for British TV news operations? After all, this may be an even more pervasive way of importing American news values than simply using video from US networks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the BBC currently using consultants from Magid (the folks who created "Action News"? I think that I already know what your opinion will be, but I'm still interested.

Doesn't surprise me. The BBC uses consultants all the time. It's a more painless but expensive way for management to make unpopular decisions. They can blame the consultants and not feel so guilty.

It's nothing new though. Every time there's a revamp, they look at US shows. The BBC format of newsreader's head appearing at the start and reading the headlines before the titles was borrowed from the States.

It might just be style, not content. Hope.

>**In the Sates many local stations feature investigative reports (usually titled "3 on Your Side" or something similar). They usually spotlight crooked pool cleaners, misleading "charities," dirty restaurants, and the like. Anything similar on British TV news?

Are crooked pool cleaners of great concern in the US?

Granada used to have Granada Tonight Investigates. It was soon scrapped. It's more the role of turgid consumer programmes.

>**In the Sates many local stations feature investigative reports (usually titled "3 on Your Side" or something similar). They usually spotlight crooked pool cleaners, misleading "charities," dirty restaurants, and the like. Anything similar on British TV news?

Only on the worst regional news programmes. 'The Rights Angle' on BBC North East & Cumbria's Look North springs to mind. Mind you even the mightily brilliant BBC North West Tonight had Beswick's Beat where middle aged local DJ Alan Beswick went round 'investigating' things - the last one I saw had him trying to find out why there was no bridge over a stream in a field.

Amazingly some people like these features. Look North's offering just bored me.

Incidently, if you want to see the state of the worst of the UK's regional news programmes, try reading 'And Now The News Where You Live' at http://www.durge.org/~bods/tv/nwyl.html - its very good. Okay so I wrote it but most of it is based on watching bad regional news programmes in the UK. Granada Tonight was a prime candidate of material...

Yay - it's Focus North!! =o)

As for those consumer report bits (particularly Carlton's awful "Your Shout", basically members of the public moaning about thier pet hate/why doesn't my hobby get more coverage? etc.), they really get summed up brilliantly in On The Hour's "Your Things"

"We got her to read it out so she'd feel like she's really in charge"

*smiles*

One good thing about American news is that you get regular ad breaks to ease the tedium.

Mmm, TapLight.

One of the weirder things about watching news abroad is the sponsorship. I was in Asia and it was like "now another look at the headlines with Marlbro"

Which of course would be illegal on two counts in this country!

"Nutrition today, brought to you by Oreos..."

*laughs*

the commercial newscasters get around the legal problem of sponsoring the news by getting companies to sponsor the weather.

"and now the forecast with staybrite windows"

what *was* that slogan?

"...whatever the weather" I know it was.

*groan* Ruddy Newsroom Southeast.

ooh!

I know the one - but I can't remember it.

"powergen - bring you power whatever the weather" I think.

Mmm, powergen.

shivering blue balls of fluff?

oops, got me password mixed up with me name

You probably shouldn't have mentioned that...

*ahe*

it was only one letter of it, I've done worse.

But anyway.

Done the same thing meself. But then my password isn't 'Sndrew' :)

....I wish they'd bring back Coast to Coast.

Well I think I know what your password is Andrew... roughly anyway...

No, not Coast To Coast!! Bring back Day by Day!! Then have Brian Nilsen (the old smoothie) to introduce it invision, "This is Southern Television"

But I can't remember Day by Day. However, all i can remember of Coast to Coast is ...something about... blue.

Was the title sequence blue? Or am i merely remembering the old News At 6 title sequence...?

>....I wish they'd bring back Coast to Coast.

It had a great title sequence where the TVS logo did its thang, but the 'TELEVISION' bit below disappeared shortly after appearing and the whole damn thing spun round to reveal a map of the south coast.

I will put it up on the internet some day, though I expect somebody already has.

>No dispute there...a number of public US stations carry ITN or BBC newscasts...
>I just said that I wasn't aware of any INDEPENDENT stations that use their material.
>
>Unfortunately, my public station in Phoenix doesn't carry any British newscasts.

I found this on the ITN website:

ITN World News for Public Television is broadcast each weeknight on 56 stations nationwide, reaching 50 per cent of all US households.

Watch it live here at 22:30BST

Interesting. I had no idea they reached that number. No wonder the BBC wanted a presence in America if ITN had already been there!

>Interesting. I had no idea they reached that number. No wonder the BBC wanted a presence in America if ITN had already been there!
>


Which reminds me - has out American friend seen BBC America? What does he think of it esp4ecially compared to US TV

>Well I think I know what your password is Andrew... roughly anyway...

If you think it has the letters b,o,d and s in it, then you're very wrong.

However there was one time when I hit the wrong key on the keyboard...

BBC America is just about to show Ghormenghast. it's full of "as time goes by" episodes, sadly.

Also shows series one of TLoG, there appear to be no plans to show series 2. Some of the best is on there, sadly, some of the worst is, too: lots of Eastenders, and All Rise For Julian Clary, which I'm *sure* no-one but ex-partriots like I actually "get".