>Let's have a “Ten O'clock News from the BBC” and not “BBC News at Ten”.

When News 24 had a "Ten O'Clock News" programme to fill the gap left by ITV, the graphics said "Ten O'Clock News" but while the presenters called it that at the start it was later BBC News at Ten, then BBC News at Ten O'Clock

NNnnnnnnnrrrrrrrrrrughguuughhhhhh.....



HHHHHUUUUUUUURrrrrrrrrghghnnnnnuuughhhh....


HeeeeuurrrrrrGGGHHHHUURrrrrrrrrr.....


Nope. I tried, I really did, but I just can't care. Sorry.

Perhaps with all the new presenters, formats and 'humour', we can expect "The Show at 11", tonight.

The American band At The Drive-In will have to become O'The Drive-In when they tour Britain.

>But I still prefer the “O'clock” names.
>Let's have a “Ten O'clock News from the BBC” and not “BBC News at Ten”.

One report on BBC News Online says it will be the BBC Ten O'Clock News. We can but hope.

>One report on BBC News Online says it will be the BBC Ten O'Clock News. We can but hope.

We'll know in two weeks!

>One report on BBC News Online says it will be the BBC Ten O'Clock News. We can but hope.

We'll know in two weeks!

Just seen Peter Sissons end the programme saying 'that's all for the NINE o'clock News', with particular emphasis on the NINE!

>I can understand why the BBC has made the change; it wants to turn “BBC News” into a brand in its own right,

How do you "understand" that? How could that make sense except to a grey-suited man with a mahogany leather-topped desk and a retractable pencil up his arse hooting "ooh yeah, this is gonna be a fucking massive brand, baby"? Not saying that's what you are, I mean the people at the BBC who thought of it.

>Just seen Peter Sissons end the programme saying 'that's all for the NINE o'clock News', with particular emphasis on the NINE!

The little rebel.

>How do you "understand" that? How could that make sense except to a grey-suited man with a mahogany leather-topped desk and a retractable pencil up his arse hooting "ooh yeah, this is gonna be a fucking massive brand, baby"? Not saying that's what you are, I mean the people at the BBC who thought of it.

Are you eavesdropping on all my fantasies?

The Mirror says it will be called the Ten O'clock News. So it must be. Piers Morgan never gets anything wrong, ever. No, really, he doesn't.

Oh, and it says Sir Trevor McDonald is going to be offered £1.5m a year to present it.

>Oh, and it says Sir Trevor McDonald is going to be offered £1.5m a year to present it.

Sir Trev should stay on ITV where he belongs!

and turn down £1.5 million??
Are you suggesting he is mad?

>and turn down £1.5 million??
>Are you suggesting he is mad?

No -I am saying the BBC shouldn't take him. He is okay for ITV, but I think Peter Sissons and Michael Buerk are good newsreaders and I don't think they should be replaced. The others who occasioanlly present, such as George Alagiah are good too.

The beeb could do a 'dumbing-down' and call it "BBC News at Ten o'Clock ... with Trevor McDonald as news presenter".

They could have that large clock in it, too....

Yes, you're all totally right, who cares about reporting, or editorial control, or content? Let's get a presenter who can fill a tabloid newspaper talking about his favourite brand of teabags. Who cares about providing information and facts?
Better still, let's go the whole way, and scrap the news altogether. We could have topical chit-chat. How about CArol Smilie meets some American who got stuck on a ramp on a Los Angeles freeway? Or maybe Jeremy Paxman does a stand-up routine with some MPs?

For goodness sake people, CONTENT is what is important in any news or factual programme. Did any of you read the media section latest issue of Private Eye? Television is losing it's ability to inform and educate (as well as to entertain). If all you care about is revolving numbers, or who the soddin' presenter is, then you may as well scour the gutter press and broadcast tits 'n' ass television. It's called DUMBING DOWN, and believe me folks, we've gotta fight this - or your worst nightmares about broadcasting will come true. Take my own *local* programme BBC Look East. A full five minutes on two of their bleedin' presenters getting married. That isn't news, it's z-celeb gossip. Meanwhile another load of folk get screwed by a corrupt council. But that rarely gets reported, if ever.

Yes, the above ispessimistic, and I don't hold anything against anyone here, but debating who the next news presenter will be looks as if everyone has lost their sense of perspective.

>Television is losing it's ability to inform

And you're using your ability to use apostrophes properly.

>If all you care about is revolving numbers, or who the soddin' presenter is, then you may as well scour the gutter press and broadcast tits 'n' ass television

The presenter is important as you need a good person to get the news across. And in interviewing, a good interviewer is essential. Take the likes of Paxman.

>Did any of you read the media section latest issue of Private Eye? Television is losing it's ability to inform and educate (as well as to entertain).

I try not to read anything about TV in the printed press. The anti-BBC bias of the Murdoch papers (like so much else of their editorial stance) tends to distort all journalists' view of 'public opinion'.

Look at the current situation - the BBC is being accused of losing its public sevice ethos because ITV have made a mess of the News at Ten situation. Have the press looked at ITV's stance? Has anyone commented on the blatant hypocrisy of ITV's statement on the BBC's decision this week?

>>and turn down £1.5 million??
>>Are you suggesting he is mad?
>
>No -I am saying the BBC shouldn't take him. He is okay for ITV, but I think Peter Sissons and Michael Buerk are good newsreaders and I don't think they should be replaced. The others who occasioanlly present, such as George Alagiah are good too.
>
>


Okay.

>The presenter is important as you need a good person to get the news across. And in interviewing, a good interviewer is essential. Take the likes of Paxman.
>
I understand your point fully Richard. What I loathe is the fact that news presenters are these days more like celebrities than journalists, or editors. I know that it isn't an entirely new thing, but it makes me cringe.
Paxman or Humphries on form is a joy to watch, I won't argue against that. But there is a deep sense that news content and coverage is becoming a secondary concern of the broadcasters. That worries me the most. I don't want news or documentaries to become all style and no substance - and I'll fight against any lowering of standards.

>I try not to read anything about TV in the printed press. The anti-BBC bias of the Murdoch papers (like so much else of their editorial stance) tends to distort all journalists' view of 'public opinion'.
>
>Look at the current situation - the BBC is being accused of losing its public sevice ethos because ITV have made a mess of the News at Ten situation. Have the press looked at ITV's stance? Has anyone commented on the blatant hypocrisy of ITV's statement on the BBC's decision this week?

I haven't read a newspaper since April - I now get my news from 24 hour news channels, tv bulletins or the internet. That said, the BBC bashing by the Murdoch press has been going on for a long time - but one of the reasons I don't buy newspapers is because of their opinions, or mind-numbing columnists.

Yes, I am aware of what ITV has said and I agree with you on that.

>What I loathe is the fact that news presenters are these days more like celebrities than journalists, or editors.

THESE DAYS?
George, this has always happened.
You must have seen that clip of Angela Rippon on Morecambe and Wise in the seventies.
On that show, all the BBC newsreaders appeared dressed up in song and dance routines.
BBC News management would not allow that today.


When there were just two television news outlets, anyone who appeared reading the news was a "star".
Now, with more and more news, it will be harder and harder to attain star status.

However, the danger is that might lead us down the American route, so that the news presenter becomes much more important to make the programme stand out. In the States, it's not the CBS Evening News, it's the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather (even when Dan's on holiday).

It happened in the early days of 5 News, when Kirsty Young became not only the face of the news, but the face of Channel 5.

ITV and ITN have tried to do it with Sir Trev. Note who'll be MCing at the National Television Awards again next week.

But I don't think there's anything especially new about all that.

What is new (or newish) is the way that the newspapers focus more and more on celebrities. This is as true of The Guardian as it is of The Sun. That's not television's fault. It's partly to do with the vast number of pages they all have now. In the eighties, the Daily Mail used to boast on its front page when it had 48 pages. Now it routinely has 96, with supplements on a Saturday. They've all gone the same way.

I think most of the dumbing down on television argument is cod. Last night's Nine O'clock News was sheer brilliance. Its coverage of Yugoslavia was intelligent, comprehensive and easy to understand. After seeing television news from abroad (personally, in detail, US and Australian), it brings home just how good our telly is.

And I think far from getting worse, it's got better, especially on the BBC. Foriegn coverage (thanks, in part, to better technology) is far better than in the 70s.
Domestic coverage has also benefited from more specialist correspondents and the longer bulletins we have these days.

Also, the more "humorous" and human interest stories are either downplayed or ignored. Actually, I think that's to the detriment of the programmes.

>In the States, it's not the CBS Evening News, it's the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather (even when Dan's on holiday).

I really hate this. At least have a generic one if he's not there. You'll also see this happen from UK Outlets - watch some local TV stations in the states and you'll see 'ITN World News with Daljit Dahlliwell' even when she's not there.

I find that annoying as well. At least over here programmes like North East Tonight can be bothered to drop the "With Mike Neville" bit when he's off somewhere. What I do like about the US news though is ABC's news with Peter Jennings. That guy (and the programme) has such a loose, almost unprofessional style. It's great, right down to the way he flings himself back from the desk and starts nattering away to colleagues at the end whilst still in-view, sometimes taking his mike off and walking round the studio. Really lightens the whole thing up. And the camerawork... it's like there's a 7-year old swinging it around all the time. I love that programme. So yes, the presenter makes a huge difference.

Five Live Breakfast played the three main American news themes back to back last week - they all sounded the same. Great montage :)

As for the At or O'Clock debate - BBC ONLINE's Whats On pages lists it as... BBC NEWS at 10 O'Clock.

Interestingly it lists the 6 and 9 just as BBC NEWS.

>As for the At or O'Clock debate - BBC ONLINE's Whats On pages lists it as... BBC NEWS at 10 O'Clock.

Maybe they want to emphasise the time. Still wondering what the titles will be like. I wonder will there be trails - they might contain snatches of the new titles. Anyway, we'll find out on Sunday!

>Anyway, we'll find out on Sunday!
>

Maybe not. George Aligiah is presenting, although it is at 10pm, according to RT. So I doubt they're doing the new Ten O'Clock News at Ten until Monday.

A whole 24 hours extra to wait.

>>Anyway, we'll find out on Sunday!
>>
>
>Maybe not. George Aligiah is presenting, although it is at 10pm, according to RT. So I doubt they're doing the new Ten O'Clock News at Ten until Monday.

George Aligiah is a regular on the Nine anyway - okay not as regular as the other two, but regular enough. I wonder will they trail panorama in the Ten News Headlines like they do with Dataline London on News 24.
>
>A whole 24 hours extra to wait.

ok ITN news is better than BBC news. I am fucking fed up with beep beep beep BEEP all the time for every fucking news related programme. Also ITN stick to the same presenters all the time and they do actually speak in a clear voice unlike most bbc presents who start of too quite & finish too loud. I have always prefered ITN news to BBC news as ITN never get too embarassed to say that they or itv have done something wrong bbc just basically say today the bbc go tinvolved with an argument or something like that & try to milk it when any other channel get in trouble. ITN is the best BBC is shite especially the new breakfast programme

> as ITN never get too embarassed to say that they or itv have done something wrong

ROTFL

I'd love evidence of this!!!

>ok ITN news is better than BBC news.....

Yeah, right! ITN is much more dumbed down than the beeb. And look at the fiasco with News at Ten. Have ITN ever said ITV was wrong? No. It always talks about itself in the third person as does the BBC.

I do agree that Breakfast is not very good, but hopefully it'll improve.

I like Breakfast!

> I like Breakfast!

So do I - but it's not right for News 24.

Interestingly the weekend version is presented in completely standard News 24 style, except for the Breakfast titles and music.

>Interestingly the weekend version is presented in completely standard News 24 style, except for the Breakfast titles and music.

Although for some reason it does revert back to Weekend 24 on Saturdays at 8. Don't quite understand that one.

The studio I can understand - the Breakfast studio gets used for a lot of programmes, including Breakfast With Frost

>Although for some reason it does revert back to Weekend 24 on Saturdays at 8. Don't quite understand that one.

The should do a variant on the News 24 titles for BBC Breakfast - get rid of the god-awful ones they have now- present it from the News 24 studios seven days a week. They should have it the way News 24 is normally but with regional news. That is the way to go IMHO.

>The should do a variant on the News 24 titles for BBC Breakfast - get rid of the god-awful ones they have now- present it from the News 24 studios seven days a week. They should have it the way News 24 is normally but with regional news. That is the way to go IMHO.

Politically, taking it from the N24 studios is a bit dodgy. It looks more like N24 taking over BBC ONE rather than joint programming.

I will say though that the final hour of Breakfast is so out of keeping of N24's style. I wouldn't be surprised if we either see a change to the last hour, or N24 end up leaving early.