News at when?
Bong! . Bong! ITV says "it's got no plans". Bong! "No plans..." is what politicians say when something's leaked too early...
You'll find it hard to find anyone in broadcasting - and not just on the news side - who doesn't now believe that ITV was mad to kill off News at Ten. They also, you may recall, killed off the ITN branding. The 91Èȱ¬ could scarcely believe its luck, having been outgunned by its smaller rival for years.
Now ITV's new boss - until recently 91Èȱ¬'s old one - is said to want to bring back the old warhorse of TV news. A note of caution from one who, like Michael Grade, has worked for both sides. There is a big big difference between regretting the passing of News at Ten and talking about bringing it back.
There's an even bigger difference between talking about it and doing it.
I've no doubt that Michael Grade's talked about it - he's committed to news and it's just the sort of big gesture he'd love to make. Greg Dyke - who dreamed of taking over ITV after being ousted from the 91Èȱ¬ - talked in somewhat colourful language about what he'd do to the 91Èȱ¬'s Ten O'Clock News given half the chance. Equally, I've no doubt that the kings of TV channels - the schedulers and the market researchers - will tell Grade why it can't be done. What about those long dramas, those live footie games, the threat that Channel 4 will put Big Brother 26 up against News at Ten?
And what's my view now I work for the other side? Bring it on. Competition is as good for journalism as it is for so much else.
P.S. A thought provoking piece about how to improve the blog-alogue by Jonathan Freedland . I agree with his concerns, and his hopes that a solution can be found to reduce the anonymous testosterone-driven insults that too often spoil what could be a great place for debate.
I'm 
Comments
PBS used to rebroadcast ITN TV news in the New York Metro area before it broadcast 91Èȱ¬. I thought it was clearly superior. I'd like to see them switch back. For awhile I think they carried both...in addition to their own excellent one hour program of interviews and expert discussions on topics of the day.
If News at Ten does come back can we please also bring back the desk and a chair for the newsreader.
Standing around holding a piece of paper looks completely naff - even worse when there are two presenters standing side by side.
If ITV were to bring back News at Ten and make it in a similar fashion to their other bulletins the 91Èȱ¬ would dumb down the Ten 0 Clock News to hold ratings as they have with the Six. If on the other hand the Beeb did what it is supposed to do and provided a decent alternative rather than a copycat programme then this would be a positive move. Viewer choice should be the watchword not competing for the same viewers. Some of us don't want tabloid news.
As long as they get rid of this ridiculous 'standy-up and walking-about' news presentation. I'm suprised they haven't got a trampoline in the studio to bounce around on during, say, the sport section.
Sit at a desk, give us quality news. That's all I can ask for.
When I was growing up we always watched ITN not 91Èȱ¬, but after News at Ten was moved ITN News went totally down market.
Competition is a good thing, and the 91Èȱ¬ needs some tough competitors!
If News at Ten does come back I hope it brings with it the old format of starting with ALL the headlines, and not copy the 91Èȱ¬ habit of lingering on a specific story before giving us the other headlines some five/ten minutes later!
Broken News is the best news on TV, everyone knows that.......
As a news junkie it makes no difference to me what time ITV put their news on.I will just watch the News at Ten live on ITV then watch the Bbc version afterwards on the internet!
Freedland has got this completely wrong. Who is to 'police' the content of blogs? Freedland and those of similar ilk?
Blogs, in the main, are privately owned. Those that are not should be viewed as partial. If owners of blogs are prepared to allow gratuitous insult, bias or downright untruths then so be it.
I am instintively wary of these calls for (covert) censorship. We get enough of that kind of interference already from central government and various others who regard themselves as 'authorities'. Moral superiority? I don't think so.
"No plans..." is what politicians say when something's leaked too early...
Read Arrows item from 91Èȱ¬ News:
"But in a written response to an online petition, Mr Blair said there were no plans to slash spending on the team."
Time for the pilots to start looking for a new job then Tony?
...but what difference does it make to have the programme at 10pm, and called The News At Ten? What am I missing here? Why is that different from news at any other time?
"No plans..." is what politicians say when something's leaked too early...
Red Arrows item from 91Èȱ¬ News:
"But in a written response to an online petition, Mr Blair said there were no plans to slash spending on the team."
Time for the pilots to start looking for a new job then Tony?
Not sure I care whether the ITV News is at ten or ten thirty. However, I earnestly hope that for the weather forecast they continue to resist the urge to zoom around the British Isles as the 91Èȱ¬ does, presumably in the mistaken belief that it is somehow 'trendy'. On the big screens which are the norm in our homes these days, I'm sure a lot of viewers find, like me, that the experience is not illuminating; simply nauseating..
Matt Fogarty is right. Bring back Broken News!!
They should bring it back, but in the style of Brass Eye.
Good to see we're all commenting on the actual journalistic content of the respective news programmes. Honestly, who really cares if anchors are standing or sitting? If that's the main sticking point, why watch it in the first place? If we were talking about quality, there would be no contest - ITN/ITV reporting is utterly shameful, poorly researched and full of erroneous hyperbole. If ITV News were a person, it'd be that awful Francis chap who does the weather on Sky News. Horrific.
is nick robinson a political journalist?
since when does reporting on tv schedules come close to political journalism?
he really needs to get out there and do some investigative reporting...
I gave up watching broadcast television over a year ago and have "no plans" to watch it again. The last programme I watched was the news but its dumbed down, gimmicky, and frenzied presentations were the final straw. Wake me up when it has something useful to say.
The points Jonathan Freedland makes about the "blogosphere" are nothing new but a useful refresh. As with school and politics, rules of behaviour, attitude, and common ground do matter. It's all very simple. I'm glad to see the "high attention earners" have developed a clue.
Neither television or blogging is new. They're just a new spin on how things are, and the same rules of mutual success, or positive consensus apply as much as they do today as they did when the first person made a speech or scratched a clay tablet with a stick. Quality matters.
Nick, Johnathon Freedman's whole premise is that web spaces are like the unwashed getting rowdy at a public meetings. They aren't. End of story!
As a blog owner you have the ability to delete any comments you don't like (something everyone at the 91Èȱ¬ is well versed in). However, your real concern isn't squabbling on web pages, I think it's more to do with people growing wise to the likes of you and the mainstream media in general regurgitating 'spin' word for word and presenting it as fact. You pretend to want moderation for the greater good, but what you actually want it protection for you to carry on not reporting important developments, thus keeping you in favour and a job.
To be honest I used to watch News at ten. It had class. Now I watch 91Èȱ¬ News which I think is much better especially with Trevor Macdonald. I also think that they could give the ITN branding back to the programme.
How soon before the only newsspeak we are allowed to receive will be broadcast for the speakers attached to the CCTV cameras?
i like reading the light hearted comments that might otherwise be filtered out. Gives a nice break when reading pages of comments...
Nick, I do not post on the 91Èȱ¬'s Have Your Say or related pages because they are moderated heavily. When I have done so in the past, it is notable that those of my comments that which broadly accord with the 91Èȱ¬'s received world view are selected for publication, while those which do not, are not. Testosterone has nothing to do with it.
British people hold far more divergent views on far more subjects than most journalists appear to realise, and the internet and blogs are a great way of expressing those views. Sadly, the 91Èȱ¬'s own efforts to capture those views have been lacklustre, and reflect a patrician wish to control the masses that your own piece has once more illustrated.
I do post on the Guardian's Comment Is Free, because while it is more of a bear pit, widely differing views actually get a chance to be put against each other. The most significant thing in Jonathan Freedland's article is his admission that he has had to raise his game. The rough and tumble is having a positive result on journalism.
Why is the 91Èȱ¬'s Political Editor blogging as if he's the 91Èȱ¬'s Media Editor?. How TV companies arrange their schedules is not the main political story of the day.
If ITV were to bring back news at 10pm, could we please have 91Èȱ¬ news back at 9pm? Those of us who need to rise early in the morning cannot stay up for news at 10pm, so a spread through the evening would be helpful.
Chuck (no.9),
If you comment on my blog, and I delete your comment, I have neither censored you nor circumscribed your freedom of speech. You are as free as you ever were to reply to me on any forum which will give you a platform, and I cannot and would not stop you.
However, I am not personally obliged to give you that platform, just as I am not obliged to invite you into my sitting room when you wish to insult me. Equating that to "free speech" cheapens the latter concept into meaninglessness.
Honestly, sometimes I honestly wonder if that's the objective.
As with some others who have commented above, I no longer watch news programmes on either channel. It isn't because I don't like the presentation styles - that in itself is entirely irrelevant.
Why then? Three reasons:
1) It is because it seems to me that most news items are poorly chosen, poorly researched, poorly presented and over-sensationalised.
2) With very few exceptions, the reporters give me the impression that they don't have an authoritatve knowledge of the subjects which they cover.
3) I am totally fed up with being presented with items that are passed off as being headline news when in fact they are pure speculation on the basis of leaked information which may be completely inaccurate. For example... "The ABC report to be published in three days time will say xxxxx".
Can we PLEASE stick to high quality accurate reporting of genuine news items?