Battle of the Tens
| 08:56 UK time, Thursday, 1 November 2007
It's official.
Sir Trevor is back.
ITV yesterday confirmed the story that was leaked to the last week - it's reviving "News at Ten", with Sir Trevor McDonald back in the slot he was first told to vacate in 1999.
I stood in the newsroom at ITN when the programme was axed. There were tears from many, angry claims that it was an act of cultural vandalism from others. What hurt was the sense that a programme that had been daring, challenging and innovative for decades appeared to be being cast aside, with little respect.
Years on it's come to be seen as one of the great TV scheduling blunders. The then ITV director of programmes, David Liddiment argued that "News at Ten" was a fixed point in the schedule that was boxing him in - if only he could shift it, he'd open the way for a brave new world where ITV could run films, longer form dramas and experiment with new programmes. He believed viewers would flock to the channel. He was wrong - as Michael Grade has admitted, ITV has never got it right at 22OO since then. Moreover, it allowed ´óÏó´«Ã½ News to move into the slot, and have a clearer, simpler schedule earlier in the evening that has been seen as a big success.
Three years after that announcement I stood in the ITV newsroom once again to hear ITN's chief executive, Stewart Purvis say, "A few years ago I stood here to tell you News at Ten was being axed...today I'm here to tell you it's coming back!"
I joined in the cheers at that time - but as every good journalist should know, you should always check the small print. The decision was a fudge between the regulator and ITV. The programme needed only be on at 10pm an average of three times a week. The rest of the time it was shifted round the schedules, and it was quickly dubbed "News at When".
Not so long after, I stood in the ITV newsroom to hear that it had been agreed to move the programme to 2230, five nights a week.
I wasn't in the ITV newsroom this time to hear that News at Ten is coming back - but I imagine there was another cheer. I read it on my ´óÏó´«Ã½ Blackberry - I moved to become editor of the Ten O'Clock News 18 months ago.
Given all the comings and goings, it's strange to think I will be in direct competition with a programme I once worked for - and that competition will be fierce. Having worked there, I know ITV News will throw everything at trying to make sure they are seen as top dog in the slot - both journalistically and in the ratings.
The sheer fact that you are reading this blog online may make you one of the people who believe this is an analogue fight in a digital world. That's an understandable position - but I believe it is wrong. Rumours of the death of the terrestrial TV news programme have been wildly exaggerated.
In the last year the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Ten O'Clock News has increased its audience by nearly 300,000. Its reach, the number of people who watch it at least once a week, is up by a million, to over 17 million people. It has the youngest profile of any ´óÏó´«Ã½ TV News programme. I'm quoting those statistics because I believe they prove there is still a big appetite for structured news programmes - and the fact that Sir Trevor's return made front page news proves others do too. More to the point, programmes with a deadline, give journalists the thinking time and the opportunity to gather "added value" material that can be sliced and diced for other formats.
So the big question - who will win the Battle of the Tens? One thing's for sure, the early ratings will mean little. In the "News at When" era, the first ITV programme received well over 8 million viewers - that audience soon died back after the initial surge in publicity. Sir Trevor is also a literary man, he will know 's assertion that, "You can't go home again." For the ´óÏó´«Ã½ it will mean its dominance in the slot is constantly under attack, and at a time when big changes are afoot here at Television Centre (including a move towards what will arguably be the most advanced multimedia newsroom in the world).
I'm under no illusion, ITV is a formidable adversary, but I believe in a year's time the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will STILL be the market leader for news at ten.
Comments
What were you doing in the ITN News Room , for heaven's sake ??
Why are you interested in ratings? The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is a public service broadcaster that should provide a regular news bulletin, regardless of viewing figures.
So will this be a race to the bottom or a race to the top, then?
Great News about news at 10. It's great that it's coming back. During the worst years of the troubles I feel that the programme give a balanced view of what was happining in Northern Ireland, unlike the ´óÏó´«Ã½, who under Thatcher's order's wasn't really allowed to do.
It was all very well shifting News at Ten but ITV films were STILL 'broken up'- I envisaged more good films being shown at 8 or 8.30 but instead the ycome on at 9 for an hour and a half with as little as half an hour carrying on after the news, or at worse, another hour-hour and a half taking midweek viewers past midnight!!
Ratings count because if no-one is watching, licence-payers can justifiably claim that their licence fees are being squandered. If only a small fraction of the audience watchers the ´óÏó´«Ã½ News over a similar, simultaneous ITV broadcast, then arguably the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not serving a unique purpose worthy of licence-funding, and there is a good case for turning the slot or budget over to an alternative current affairs programme.
Personally, I don't tend to watch the fixed-time evening news broadcasts simply because I've got into an evenings=leisure mindset, and I'll usually go to the web site if I feel the need for information.
So ITV have seen the light and returned to what the public wanted.
It is now time for The ´óÏó´«Ã½ to understand that what we The viewer wants is the choice to have news at ten or news at Nine.
So many bad programming decisions are made on the basis of ratings rather than customer service. When the ´óÏó´«Ã½ moved from 9 to 10 they didn't appreciate that they were affecting people's chosen life schedules. Alot of people depend on routine. For others the option of catching the news at 9 or 10 was what mattered. Now they have no choice. Scheduling news to compete means the content is less important than the presentation; and quality takes second place to sensationalism.
This will undoubtably mean a further dumbing down of the news to make it mere entertainment.
The radio news is far more informative.
I thought it was a good idea at the time - how many times have you been halfway through a film only to have to wait 40 minutes for it to resume.
However, ITV decided to then start films later and we still had the breaks for the news...!
#3: Hopefully the top. After Natasha left, the ideas of the 8pm "yoof news" slot seems to have died.
"In the last year the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Ten O'Clock News has increased its audience by nearly 300,000" - oh, come along, that is within the margins of statistical error much like the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s claim that NK's arrival on the 6 (the ´óÏó´«Ã½ version of ITN 10) was "ratings viagra" by adding 500K viewers. Seems maths is still a problem at ´óÏó´«Ã½ News.
I think that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will win the news is far more informative. Personally I never watch ITV's news.
I'm daring to hope that the return of News at Ten may also mark a return to the consistent high standards that once made the show so popular (and one of the few ITV programmes I ever bothered with).
Maybe it would also reduce some of the increasing pressure on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to sensationalise and reduce the quality of their output in order to chase ratings.
The world has changed beyond all recognition since NaT was axed in 1999, nowhere more so than in the media, and rarely for the better.
If 'original format' means that we see stories about Britney's haircut or Kate Moss's weight relegated once more to their rightful place in the "And Finally" section I'll consider this a good day.
oh dear Paris Hilton and ilk is going to be a big news item every night.
I wish the late news staff would teach their breakfast colleagues something. I have to get out for a bus to work, but I would like to hear the headlines first before I leave. Breakfast News seems to focus on one story, the rest of the headlines you might get five minutes later if you are lucky!
Hopefully, the winner will be the programme that offers the best news coverage. That is real news, not celebs, Diana, sport, and perhaps then more celebs.
´óÏó´«Ã½1's bulletins seem to be increasingly dumbed down to cater for a less knowledgable audience - whilst at the other end of the scale the "rolling news" broadcasters seem not to know when to stop running a (sometimes) not very important bit of "breaking News" which if it is "breaking", hardly constitutes "news".
Sadly I fear, News at Ten will fail to be interlectually challenging, since ITV requires advertising revenue, and that in itself requires the maximum number of viewers, which, by definition means even more dumbing down.
So this means we will have ITV1 films starting at 9pm being broken by adverts, News at Ten, more ads, local news, even more ads and not finishing much before 12pm!
Can think I will watch ITV1 after 9pm anymore.
Who cares? ITV news has been dummed down so much I am suprised that they have not asked Nigella to present.
I fail to see the star status given to Sir Trevor MacDonald. As a presenter he is stilted and wooded and in my view way past his sell-by date.
Sky is street ahead of both ITV and ´óÏó´«Ã½ for news but given they insist on those dreadful moving straplines - it is the ´óÏó´«Ã½ news for me - whoever presents it.
@Bedd Gelert
What was Craig Oliver doing there? working there of course. He makes it quite clear in the article. He used to work on in the ITN news room. Now he works on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ news at 10.
Personally I've always chosen ´óÏó´«Ã½ News over ITV news (but if ITV keep a traditional style - unlike the ´óÏó´«Ã½ who think it's a great idea to have people sitting on desks or walking around - I may be persuaded to change).
Competition can only be a good thing.
#2 (Robert) - presumably to ensure that we, the public, are being delivered value for money "due to the unique way in which the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is funded" ?
Just because the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is a public service provider doesnt negate the fact it should provide high ratings programmes and provide value from the public money. Roll on the future battle.
Personal I like it at 10.30 it gives you a choice. If you are watching something at 10 you can watch the news at 10.30. Isn't that what broadcasting is suppose to be about, offering choice. Now the viewers will not have one.
I agre with Matt and others if ITV start spilting films it will be a disaster. It is 40mins out of the programme, by the time you take in the Local News and adverts.
All well and good - but cant we have some-one other than the venerable Mr McDonald presenting I'm sure there is some other budding news reader looking for a career break.
Does that mean that there won't be another series on News Knight with Trevor McDonald? I loved that.
What is the problem here? ´óÏó´«Ã½ delivers a service as does ITV - one at 10.00 p.m. - one at 10.30 - if you are watching something which finishes at 10.00 you watch ´óÏó´«Ã½ - if you watch something that finishes at 10.30 - you watch ITV. This move will actually restrict the viewer's choice. I don't believe the majority of viewers are too concerned about whether they watch the News on ´óÏó´«Ã½ or ITV, after all they are the same stories - just with different presenters/reporters who may or may not put an alternative slant on a story or offer a different perspective.
Ref Post 21: here in Salmondland we have news presenters standing behind a laptop stuck on top of a pole. What sort of viewer actually thinks this make the programme (sorry, "show") better?
Every TV news editor should be forced to watch The Day Today or On The Hour once a month to avoid becoming a laughing stock.
The question is how long before the ´óÏó´«Ã½ revives the 9pm news?
Having one news bulletin on both channels simultaneously is a gross waste. The choice should not be which channel to watch, but what time is the most convenient at which to watch the news.
What's needed is a regular 10.30 news programme. This would give time for the occasional film at 8.30 or 8.45 - just after dinner, or after MY dinner at any rate - without having a break for the news. Films starting at at 9.00 with breaks for news and adverts go on too late for an early start the next day. And I like the news at the same time every evening on working days.
I think everyone should stop moaning and just get freeview or Sky then you can vote with your feet and not watch ITV. I have 24/7 news channels and 27/7 film channels. I have no need to watch ITV or the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for that matter. ITV splits all their films and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ cuts everyone of theirs without reason so I don't watch films on any of their channels.
What a pity they are moving ITV news to 10 pm - I shall miss having the choice to watch the ITV news at 10.30 when I have not been able to watch the ´óÏó´«Ã½ news at 10.
Can Trevor really go back to 'serious' work anyway, now that he is a celebrity? Oh yes of course he can, its ITV!
I can't always take ITV News seriously. The graphics and studio are so ridiculous it makes the excellent spoof show The Day Today look like a subtle winning formular. Too much of the "and finally" silly stories and celeb 'gossip' find a slot on ITV! Their local news is no better! Leave this rubbish for Lorraine Kelly!
The news making the news? Bit pathetic really isn't it. Maybe Trevor should go back to Have I Got News For You to let us witness his complete inability to read a joke and get a laugh again.
The news is the important thing NOT the reader - it has always amazed me that news readers believe they are important.
Now we have two sets of news clashing at 10.00 is this really a good idea?
In the words of Dermot Murnaghan on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Breakfast website "I wouldnt want to do any other job". There are very few in ´óÏó´«Ã½ News who would turn down an offer to work on ITV News At Ten if the money was right.
You call that a blunder? "That ain't spit" as we say here on my side of the pond. In what had to be one of the stupidest and most contemptible moves ever made in American television, PBS fired Louis Rukeyser from his program Wall Street Week. Not only had this been the single longest running and most popular show about money and finance on American television, when PBS was financially "on the balls of its ass" after Congress reduced its funding, it was Rukeyeser who marshaled private American corporations large and small to rescue it from oblivion. And why was Rukeyeser pulled? New management felt he was not appealing to a younger audience with his format. Rukeyser had a panel of regulars among whom were the top stock market stock pickers in the world and managed to get guests every week from among the most high profile personalities in the world of finance and economics such as Malcolm Forbes, Sir John Templeton, Milton Freeman, and many others of their ilk often appearing many times. Not one of the regular panelists would remain with the show after Rukeyeser was fired and as it was taken over by a gang from Forbes Magazine. Rukeyser was "picked up" by CNBC (Cable News Business Network/Financial News Network) in exactly the same format and time slot as he'd had previously, running directly against Wall Street Week and CNBC even dispensed with the commercials they usually had so that his show would be exactly as it had been on PBS. The revulsion with PBS was so complete and the loyalty to Rukeyser so overwhelming that PBS was forced by its viewers to rebroadcast it...after it had first been shown on CNBC but who cared by that point.
PBS has made other blunders too by trying to pander to a wider audience with less sophisticated and demanding expectations. Frequent appearances of performers like Andre Rieu and Yanni are strong evidence for this as are broadcasts like the performance of La Boheme without any sets by an Australian producer. The widely hated left wing "journalist" Bill Moyers who sold out to commercialism by going from PBS to CBS some years ago is back, apparently having made enough money from the capitalists. It was the left leaning skewed reporting of much of PBS and NPR which among other factors led Congress to cut its funding in the first place and threaten to cut more if it wasn't corrected.
Still PBS does have the best news program on television, PBS Nightly News Hour which kills ´óÏó´«Ã½ World's program, and it has Washington Week and Charlie Rose, two more excellent programs while some PBS channels carry the Leon Charney Report (the most authoritative reporting of the Middle East by far of any broadcast anywhere I know of.) Were PBS to demise, I'm sure these outstanding programs would survive finding other outlets on cable channels. They are simply too valuable to disappear.
The untimely death of Louis Rukeyser a few years ago after an automobile accident and long convalescence might or might not have occurred had PBS continued to keep him as host of his show but I, and I'm sure many other former viewers will never forgive them and they will never see another dime of my money, that is a certainty. There is no guarantee that things will stay as they are forever, apparently something people who work in jobs funded by the government and by donations often forget. In the rapidly changing world of media, PBS may become an obsolete anachronism.
As i see it
ITV panders to the Market and ratings.
´óÏó´«Ã½ panders to the Govt. and ratings.
neither has ever really delivered any ground breaking news and they both seem to waste money going live to round the corner. For all purposes they are the same programme from the similar subjective viewpoints
How about the British Independant Television Brodcasting Corporation News at 10.
for heavyweight newsreaders you could have
Richard Bacon and Kym Marsh
followed by the weather
I live in Spain, where commercial breaks alone can run long enough to put in a news program! I've often completely forgotten what film I was watching and realised hours later that I never made it to the end!
If ITV didn't slavishly feel the need to have soaps on every day of the week, it would have the time before the news to fit entire films/dramas in and still have a regular 10pm news slot.
I could work out quite well ... let ITV take the trash news, brought to the viewer in short, 20sec snippets and get ´óÏó´«Ã½ to bring us the important news, from all over the world, in a longer but therefore more complete and informative format.
After all, they recently said they wanted to cut the number of programs and increase the quality of those that stay.
This is their golden opportunity to do so with the NEWS at 10.
ITV's still going?
We won't have a problem watching the news at 9 o'clock if we want to. There is a perfectly good one on the Digital ´óÏó´«Ã½ News 24 channel these days.
The day that Carlton took over from Thames, all scheduling certainties became moveable feasts. Whereas NEWS at TEN had theretofore commenced AT 10 o'clock, it transformed into News at Ten and a bit (where the bit could be as little as 20 seconds or as much as 4 minutes or so.
This was no accidental overrun: I recall contacting an ITV sales company at the time, purporting to be interested in placing an advert just before the news bulletin, and every day offered a slot AFTER ten.
Carlton destroyed ITV, and it should be no wonder that everyone who appreciated that entity laughed themselves silly when Michael Green (who was to commercial TV what Piers Morgan was to tabloid journalism) was prevented from taking up the top job when 'his' company merged with Granada.
If ITV wants to keep films intact, etc., they should take up ´óÏó´«Ã½ NEWS's former slot - 2100.
Having recently returned from the united states i believe that ITV had it right when they were showing the news at 11pm, as it allows primetime television to be shown in the 8,9 and 10pm slots allowing three hours of quality programming every evening.
In the US there are national news bulletins at 6pm and 11pm with the local news in the following half hour slot. Which seems to be popular with viewers as its the same on all major networks over there.
But then again they also show their soaps during the daytime hours, maybe if we had a nation of people more interested in the news, factual programming or quality drama, instead of soaps, we wouldn't actually be debating what time the news is shown at, we'd be more interested making the networks provide better programming instead. Instead of the many cheap novelty, simple diy or reality shows we are currently getting.
Time to get real people, yes the news is important but if i want to see it I'll watch at 11 if its the only time its available to me, but if I'm that desperate is that not why we have news 24 and sky news broadcasting so that we can get the news when we want it?
In a "Red Button" world, I'm suprised all those staticstics still count... When I want my news fix, I want it now, I dont want to wait until whatever o'clock.
Why not just have an viewer opt out at 10? If you want to continue watching the film, then the news, push red now, otherwise stick around for the news.
What exactly is going wrong with ´óÏó´«Ã½ News across the board? International coverage has never been worse, as the ´óÏó´«Ã½ continues to fixate about some piddling national issue for the first 10-15 minutes of every broadcast.
News24 seems to follow the same pattern, with international snippets stuck on the ticker. Even the regions seem relegated.
Thank goodness for Channel4's ITN-gathered broad perspective, and for Channel4+1 allowing me to catch up at 8pm if I've missed out earlier.
The world does not, and must not, stop at the Midlands.
They'll be like buses - you wait all night and then 2 come along at the same time!
Nonetheless, it's the content that'll determine the "better" one rather than a ratings "winner". Having been weaned on ´óÏó´«Ã½ World TV, I long for the day when it'll be added as a digital channel in the UK or the quality / coverage of its World News Bulletin seeps into at least ´óÏó´«Ã½ News24.
Given that most people can watch any of the 24 hour news services using the Red Button to get to the points, it's a moot point.
I haven't watched a regular news broadcast in years.
I don't watch TV news any more - I get the information I need from this website and others like it. I can't bear watching films on ITV when they split it with the news. For those of use who work the next morning it's a pain.
As for having Sky - we have that too, but you can guarantee there's still nothing decent on when you want something.
One thought to end on, just to be devil's advocate - do we need a nighttime news slot at all? After the lunchtime and 6 o'clock, can we just wait 'til morning?
BONG!
Confident the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will be the leader? It might help if the news was read as the news and not as an excuse to get the prettiest newsreader on the tv standing up.
News is a serious business (most of the time) and should be treated as such. Most of the viewers are not "yoof".
I suppose it takes up a block of primetime TV meaning that ITV don't have to try putting on anything entertaining. It's a guaranteed ratings winner for them and they will be able to feature "I'm a celebrity" updates as the "...and finally.." segment!
9-10 = weak drama
10-11 = news, weather and local news
11 onwards - nobody cares, we're all in bed or watching another channel.
I have always been a ´óÏó´«Ã½ viewer, but just lately with the absolutely terrible graphics in use (I'm certain they were better a few years ago!) and the patronisining "I'm going to talk to you like a 5 year old child with no knowledge of the subject at all - but I'll smile whilst doing so so that you remain happy" attitude I'm starting to switch off.
It's a real shame that ´óÏó´«Ã½ News is going down-hill at such an alarming rate - the only good bit now is the theme tune most days.
Still, a bit of competition in the market place can't be bad - and if ITN seize the opportunity for high-level intellectual broacasting I'm certain that quality will be raised across the field.
So you're the reason why I don’t watch the ´óÏó´«Ã½ 10 O’Clock News anymore
If the demise of the 6 is anything to go by, then 10 will also plummet in quality against competition.
Can somebody in ´óÏó´«Ã½ News please tell me why the non-story about JK Rowling was considered to be higher up the news agenda than the Northern Rock fiasco and falling stock markets?
And will someone tell George Aligiah to stop smiling.
´óÏó´«Ã½ news is class. It has quality not only in presenters. But more important in the stories and the journalists. ´óÏó´«Ã½ news at 10 then newsnight at 10.30. Great hour of bbc news. i hate itv and sky news, its so bad.
I for one am glad the ITV news is back with Sir Trevor. Having such a respected anchor present each night is what the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is lacking.
Just look at CBS's Evening News and the NBC equivalent.