Archive: ITV News

The 1979 ITV strike was the longest in the history of British television. It was also the last major strike. When service resumed after ten weeks, this is what viewers saw.

With this naff jingle, viewers must have immediately wished that ITV never came back.

Following the ten week break, it would be a further ten weeks until new original programming was ready to air again as all of the regional stations had stopped making programmes during the strike. It must have been a long struggle for ITV to win back viewers from the BBC after this five month period.

In the first few days following the end of the strike, the station had to make do with generic ITV presentation, hence the generic ITV clock. This generic approach had only been used once before, during the 1968 strike, although it is pretty much the norm today.

Brilliant ITN theme music.

So “Sir Trevor McDonald” (it is illegal to say ‘Trevor McDonald’ without putting ‘Sir’ in front of it) has just completed his second gruelling week back at the helm of the resurrected News at Ten. It doesn’t seem to have worked for ITV.

They’ve made a big fuss about how they are bringing back an institution, even though they killed if off in the first place so that it wouldn’t get in the way of the football or something. And they are making a big deal about how Trevor McDonald is back presenting it while keeping quiet about the fact that they spent years shunting him around various scheduling back-alleys in the ignominious “News at When?” days.

I don’t even get all of the fuss about Trevor McDonald. Everyone goes on about how he’s the country’s favourite newsreader. I don’t get it. His delivery is wooden and robotic. His is like one of those voices that blind people have to put up with on their screen readers on their computers. And have you ever seen him smile? I haven’t.

So if it seemed like his heart wasn’t in it originally, imagine what it must be like now! He thought he had finished with all of these late nights. Now he is being paid £1,633 per minute to deliver the news in his odd staccato drawl.

And that brings up the next thing that’s wrong with News at Ten. It is so painfully obvious that he refused to come on board if he had to do all the heavy lifting. So the bulletin is shared with Julie Etchingham. Presumably they couldn’t use Mark Austin (how pissed off must he be about all this?) because having two male presenters would be, like, so gaaay or something. As if doing it (the bulletin, I mean) with someone young enough to be your daughter is any less perverse.

But since when was the “heavyweight” late-night bulletin double-headed? This must be the first time it’s happened. I thought the point of having two people presenting the news was so that you could have all of that cringeworthy banter during the light moments, which is why until recently they had two people presenting the Six O’Clock Tabloid News, which is all light moments apart from the faux Daily Mail-style scaremongering bits at the start.

But News at Ten is not meant to have banter, except for the ‘and finally’ bit, but there is only one ‘and finally’ story so there’s not much space for banter there. No, Julie Etchingham is just there so that poor Trevor McDonald can save his breath. He now only speaks for around three minutes per programme apparently.

Then there is this monstrosity.

“This is the news!”

All I can say is, it must have been fun to be that timpani player.

ITV seem to think that reviving News at Ten would give them credibility, gravitas and prestige. But it has actually highlighted many of its major weaknesses. It’s just quick fix after sticking plaster.

Throw money at a problem. Bring in a big name star. Remix the theme tune to the point that it becomes self-parodying. Use overly-flashy computer graphics which make it look more like the deck of the USS Enterprise than a newsroom.

The fact is that ITV News is still rotten. It is focussed too much on gimmicks and sensationalism. It doesn’t matter how much of an ‘institution’ the title of the programme and its main anchor are. If the programme is rubbish, people will not watch it.

That is why by the third day of the new run of News at Ten it had lost a third of its viewers and remained over 2 million behind the BBC Ten O’Clock News. Which has no gimmicks at all.

Have you seen that advert for ITV News? I think it sums up ITV News perfectly.

If you haven’t seen it, basically it’s got lots of journalists putting on their best “I was inches away from having my face blown off and I didn’t even flinch” voices, which ITV News is really good at. This all happens to a computer generated backdrop of ridiculously unrealistic scenarios.

I mean, bombs going off behind an infeasibly unflappable journalist’s shoulder is one thing. But that bit when a plane flies about three feet overhead. I mean, for fuck’s sake. Do they think we are really stupid or something? We need a fucking massive plane to swoop across really close to the ground to signify that this is REALLY IMPORTANT NEWS. And don’t forget to tune in tonight at 1830.

Christ. ITV “News”. I don’t know how they find all the brass for that neck. Are they not even really really embarrassed, or anything?

I would seriously rather get my current affairs fix from Nuts And / Or Zoo Magazine.

On the fifth anniversary of the attacks, I thought I would write a post about my memories of that day. This is partly because it is really the first news story in my life where I might be asked the question, “where were you when you heard…?” Well, there was Princess Diana’s death, but I couldn’t give two shits about that, and it’s a really boring story anyway: I was in bed and my brother was in my room because he wanted to play the PlayStation.

When the attacks happened I was sitting in a classroom waiting for the most dreaded subject to be taught to us. German Writing, the worst subject I have ever had by a country mile. It got so bogged down in mundane technical stuff like grammar and suchlike that they actually separated it from the rest of German.

But ten minutes had gone since the period started, and there were no scrawls on the whiteboard. Our teacher went in between our classroom and the staff room sporadically. Eventually, one of the times he came back into the classroom, he did so while wheeling in a television. Needless to say, we weren’t going to be taught any German Writing that day.

He said something to the effect of: “I just want to show you this, because this is going to have some major implications for foreign policy in the future…” He explained that planes had crashed into the Pentagon. That scared me a bit, because I thought if the Pentagon’s been destroyed, how can the USA defend itself?

I guess in hindsight the really important defence work (as opposed to paper-pushing, which I guess is what the Pentagon is for) is probably done 300 miles underground and not in a big distinctive, conspicuous building which practically has a pentagonal sign saying “bomb me” written on it.

But the pictures on the television were showing a very fuzzy shot of the World Trade Centre from long distance. Our teacher chose to show us ITV News’ coverage, which seemed to be a bit poor to me, not that I could see what the BBC were showing at the time. By the time we started watching one of the towers had collapsed. I didn’t know what the World Trade Centre was, and I remember just thinking, “what’s that?; it’s just a tall building”.

Then, still on the same long-distance, shaky shot, we saw the building collapse. The feeling in the room was that the collapse was a bit of a foregone conclusion. We’d already heard that a building had collapsed, and I wasn’t sure if I was watching delayed footage of the first collapse or what. If I recall correctly we were initially told that the building had 20,000–30,000 people working in it, which made the enormity of the situation sink in. Never mind the fact that the actual figure ended up being around a tenth of that.

Over the course of the coverage we began to piece together what happened. One of my classmates in particular had real trouble understanding it. He could just about understand that somebody had hijacked a plane. He could just about understand that a plane had crashed into a building. But he had real difficulty comprehending the fact that somebody would hijack a plane then deliberately crash it into a building. We all laughed at him, but I guess his was in some ways the most reasonable reaction: disbelief.

That was my last class of the day, so I went on my way home still thinking that the proper big event of the day was the Pentagon crash. Although we’d seen pictures of the World Trade Centre collapsing, the picture was poor and it really just looked like a tall building falling down.

When I got home I found my parents watching the BBC — my father had coincidentally taken the day off work. I stayed glued to the coverage until about 6pm. It was those later pictures taken from the ground, of fast-approaching dust clouds and hysterical pedestrians, that really made the horror of the situation sink in.

The endless repetition of those pictures could have lessened the long-term power of the images. In some ways I think they have, but the images are so unique that it’s still shocking to see the fast-approaching dust cloud engulfing the bus station and suchlike. I noticed that radio has its own way of reminding you of the situation: a sound clip of a rumble and somebody shouting “holy shit!” Even though there are no pictures, you don’t need to be told what that clip is of.

The following week felt very scary. But I think today is more dangerous than the 12th of September 2001. It might have been different with wiser leaders. Instead, over the past five years our leaders have repeatedly stuck our cocks into hornets’ nests — 77% agree.

It’s not just fear of a terrorist attack or worrying over the situation in the Middle East. It’s the fact that our civil liberties are being eroded to the point where you can be stopped under anti-terror laws for taking photographs or walking on cycle paths. What’s the point in preaching to the rest of the world about freedom?

In some ways it’s difficult to believe that the attacks happened five years ago. In other ways I feel as though I was so young at the time. I’ve lived a quarter of my life in a post-9/11 world, which is mind-boggling to me.

Update: Cynical Chatter From The Underworld: Five Years On:

For days, if not weeks, the USA was in a powerful position, as one French newspaper put it, “we are all Americans today”. America was the underdog, a wounded one at that, but its leadership squandered the good will.

I recently read a webpage that talked about events from 1994. I was surprised at how much I remembered — I was only 8.

The BBC Editors blog asks, what do you remember from the news from when you were nine? Use Wikipedia to take a look. I’m using 20th March 199519th March 1996. Here’s what I remember:

  • Oklahoma bombing
  • French nuclear tests
  • O.J. Simpson trial
  • Brent Spar oil rig disposal debate
  • John Major resigning then unresigning
  • The huge success of (What’s The Story) Morning Glory?
  • US government offices closing
  • Rosemary West being found guilty
  • Deep Blue beating Garry Kasparov
  • Dunblane massacre

I am quite surprised by the number of major events that completely passed me by, others that I never learned about until years later (e.g. Nick Leeson), while there are other stories that I remember so vivdly. I’m amazed that some of these happened when I was nine. I thought I was about 14 when Rosemary West was found guilty.

I was definitely a bit of a news junkie by the time I was nine though. I always came home for lunch from school, and I always watched the news because it was the only interesting thing on.

This brings us on to the whole cause of this news nostalgia. Newsround is now aimed at a younger audience: 9 years old and under. Cue the inevitable accusations of dumbing down, despite the fact that Newsround has always been a “dumb” news programme because it’s aimed at children, which are mostly pretty stupid people.

But what is the use in a dumbed down news programme, whether it’s the ITV Lunchtime News or Newsround? I hated Newsround when I was a child; I never watched it. The reason is simple. When I wasn’t interested in the news I didn’t want to watch Newsround. When I became interested in the news, I wanted to watch the news, not some patronising children’s TV presenter giving me news-lite or some boring story about a panda taking a shit.

This is the same reason why the DCMS’s big idea of getting BBC Three to do yoof news (which I mentioned in my previous post) completely flopped. I actually quite liked BBC Three’s news programme because it was sometimes quite amusing, and it was generally quite a good programme. But I didn’t watch it because of the news it gave me. I liked BBC Three news for what it was, but I didn’t kid myself on that I was watching the news. Deep inside I knew that if I actually wanted to watch the news I would have been watching Channel 4 News or News 24.

This is such a simple idea, but broadcasters don’t seem to grasp it. If you want the news — whether you’re 9, 20 or 50 — you are going to watch the actual news, not the news pretending to be something else, or something else pretending to be the news, or some kind of pseudo-news aimed at a particular demographic.

Via Currybet.