Good Morning Britain - Printable Version
+- Pres Café (https://pres.cafe)
+-- Forum: Pres Café TV and Radio Forums (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: News and Sport Presentation (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Good Morning Britain (/showthread.php?tid=60)
+- Pres Café (https://pres.cafe)
+-- Forum: Pres Café TV and Radio Forums (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: News and Sport Presentation (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Good Morning Britain (/showthread.php?tid=60)
RE: Good Morning Britain - Stockland Hillman - 12-10-2023
(12-10-2023, 02:47 PM)Scrotnig Wrote: Ed Balls hasn’t been an MP for a long time. I don’t care for the bloke, but it’s absolutely fine for him to interview current Labour politicians. He has a new career as a tv presenter, that’s literally his job now.
The issue with GB News is their use of CURRENT members of parliament. It shouldn’t be happening, and I say that as someone who quite likes the channel.
Ed Balls is still a labour party member, his wife is shadow home secretary, so dealing with policing, crime, immigration issues raises conflict of interest concerns (as does sitting MPs on GBNEWS)
People have objections to opinion content on TV, particularly in news-like programming. They object to Nigel Farage (like Ed Balls, a former politician) Piers Morgan, Patrick Crysties, Darren Grimes, Dan Wootton on new channels - not just sitting MPs
If anything, with use of ITV News branding (which is unequivocally PSB regulated news content in stand alone shows) and the lack of clear demarcation between GMBs top 'news' story interview and the actual news bulletins, it's probably less clear to the viewer that the word's coming out of the mouths of Martin Lewis and Suzanne Reed aren't news in the same way as Mary Nightingales are.
My point is far from being unique right wing fox news esq format from dastardly offshore shadowy billionaires, that caught a Ofcom off guard with tricks and grey areas, the hybrid talk/opinion/news formats is embeded in the core of UK broadcasting regulation, and used by our largest commercial broadcaster.
RE: Good Morning Britain - Scrotnig - 12-10-2023
(12-10-2023, 03:57 PM)Stockland Hillman Wrote: Ed Balls is still a labour party member, his wife is shadow home secretary, so dealing with policing, crime, immigration issues raises conflict of interest concerns (as does sitting MPs on GBNEWS)That’s a valid point, I’d forgotten about his wife and I hadn’t realised GMB were using itv News branding. Which isn’t terribly observant of me but I guess I don’t watch it that often these days.
People have objections to opinion content on TV, particularly in news-like programming. They object to Nigel Farage (like Ed Balls, a former politician) Piers Morgan, Patrick Crysties, Darren Grimes, Dan Wootton on new channels - not just sitting MPs
If anything, with use of ITV News branding (which is unequivocally PSB regulated news content in stand alone shows) and the lack of clear demarcation between GMBs top 'news' story interview and the actual news bulletins, it's probably less clear to the viewer that the word's coming out of the mouths of Martin Lewis and Suzanne Reed aren't news in the same way as Mary Nightingales are.
My point is far from being unique right wing fox news esq format from dastardly offshore shadowy billionaires, that caught a Ofcom off guard with tricks and grey areas, the hybrid talk/opinion/news formats is embeded in the core of UK broadcasting regulation, and used by our largest commercial broadcaster.
RE: Good Morning Britain - Andrew - 12-10-2023
If Ed’s wife gets a cabinet position in the next government and then is at the forefront of a controversial policy, it might be a conflict of interest.
Can you imagine him sitting there nodding along if Susanna was demanding that Yvette Cooper should resign over something she was embroiled in
RE: Good Morning Britain - Brekkie - 12-10-2023
Although as a professional impartial journalist it's unlikely Susanna would be "demanding" her resignation.
RE: Good Morning Britain - Humphrey Hacker - 12-10-2023
(12-10-2023, 11:48 AM)Keith Wrote: I think there's a few notable distinctions to be made when comparing GMB and GBN.
Firstly, Good Morning Britain is a three hour weekday programme on ITV1/STV, whereas GB News is a channel which has several programmes on it.
Secondly, as far as I'm aware Good Morning Britain isn't hosted by any current serving politicians, let alone having a current serving politician interview another current serving politician. By contrast some of GB News' programmes are hosted by current serving politicians, albeit some may be standing down at the next general election. Having one serving politician interview another gives rise to the accusations surround impartiality, especially when they're both on the same political party. Whilst Ed Balls does regularly present on GMB he hasn't been an MP since 2015.
One similarity both have (these days) is that they both have a separate newsreader, who reads the news summary/headlines. For GB News this allows them to claim that the news and 'opinion content' is clearly separated from the rest of the programmes. I imagine the same would apply for Good Morning Britain.
(12-10-2023, 01:51 PM)Brekkie Wrote: Seperation is the problem. Historically with British breakfast shows it's been clear what is the news content and what isn't - though with GMB the lines are blurred more with their pointless "debates", especially as they come from the news desk. With GB News though that seperation isn't there at all, despite what they may think.
Whilst it's good GMB isn't as sickly sofa-ery as GMTV was it probably wouldn't harm the show to be softened a bit more around the edges.
Both the above posts sum up the situation as I see it. To me a news bulletin should be just that with a clear delineation between the news and what I called features such as interviews, comments etc. It's an idea that was done away with a long time ago with the creation of "news magazine programmes".
It's right to say that GMB and GBN are different entities but the principle is the same specifically what should be said by who and at what point. GBN has started to rectify that with the brief bulletins but they're so quick and ill-defined that it's a mess.
GMB is the same but with more awareness of what goes where. I think an issue is the doubling up. You have Susanna or Ben reading out the headlines and then going straight into the issues of the day both from the desk. Surely the couch would be better.
RE: Good Morning Britain - XIII - 12-10-2023
Thing is if you ban every former politicians or someone who happens to be part of one particularly party from doing programmes like GMB then you're restricting yourself in terms of both presenters and guests.
RE: Good Morning Britain - Stockland Hillman - 12-10-2023
(12-10-2023, 07:11 PM)Brekkie Wrote: Although as a professional impartial journalist it's unlikely Susanna would be "demanding" her resignation.She's not working in the role of professional impartial journalist. She's working as a presenter on an entertainment show.
A professional impartial journalist wouldn't be rolling her eyes at her co host for twitter likes and providing the 'balancing viewpoint - such a person would be getting a guest to provide those bits while remaining, you know, professional and impartial.
Maybe the GBNEWS like format has confused you to think its a regulated news bulletin?
RE: Good Morning Britain - Richard H - 12-10-2023
(12-10-2023, 08:20 PM)Stockland Hillman Wrote: She's not working in the role of professional impartial journalist. She's working as a presenter on an entertainment show.
A professional impartial journalist wouldn't be rolling her eyes at her co host for twitter likes and providing the 'balancing viewpoint - such a person would be getting a guest to provide those bits while remaining, you know, professional and impartial.
Maybe the GBNEWS like format has confused you to think its a regulated news bulletin?
Not only that she and all of the presenters leave the viewer in no doubt what their opinion is on everything and is one of the reasons I have stopped watching GMB totally this year
I much prefer news when the presenter tells us the facts not their spin and opinion on it. Leave that for the guests
I used to find Susanna much better in the Piers Morgan days but these days she just annoys me with the constant faces she pulls, the ways she slows down her talking , clutching on to a mug for dear life, the way she speaks to politicians.
The problem with GMB is no matter what someone in power does they will always criticise them for not doing the opposite and expect things sorting in the click of a finger knowing full well its not possible but it stirs up anger for the viewers on Twitter
Add in the pointless debates which become shouting over each other matches and trivial fluff they obsess over like presenters hair or clothing and its a total turn off for me these days
RE: Good Morning Britain - Bluecortina - 12-10-2023
(12-10-2023, 08:59 PM)Richard H Wrote: Not only that she and all of the presenters leave the viewer in no doubt what their opinion is on everything and is one of the reasons I have stopped watching GMB totally this year
I much prefer news when the presenter tells us the facts not their spin and opinion on it. Leave that for the guests
I used to find Susanna much better in the Piers Morgan days but these days she just annoys me with the constant faces she pulls, the ways she slows down her talking , clutching on to a mug for dear life, the way she speaks to politicians.
The problem with GMB is no matter what someone in power does they will always criticise them for not doing the opposite and expect things sorting in the click of a finger knowing full well its not possible but it stirs up anger for the viewers on Twitter
Add in the pointless debates which become shouting over each other matches and trivial fluff they obsess over like presenters hair or clothing and its a total turn off for me these days
It seems to me the self appointed role of the media these days is to sow the seed of doubt in the public's mind about pretty much anything and everything to do with day to day life, to undermine people's trust in the governance (not government) and institutions of the UK. We call it 'gaslighting' these days don't we?
Long gone are the days when television news was presented in a straightforward 'looking down the barrel of the lens' to the viewer manner. I used to watch BBC news many years ago but gave up due to the utter pomposity of its presentation. I turned to C4 news but increasingly find myself developing an urge to throw a slipper at the screen, so occasionally now I'll watch ITV's NAT but given the main presenter's passion for huffing and puffing and outright sneering at what he so obviously personally disapproves of I suppose I'll abandon that too in the end.
As the saying goes 'A man who doesn't believe in God doesn't believe in nothing, on the contrary, he believes in anything and everything', and that's what the situation is becoming in UK news provision. For 'God' you can substitute News, for 'anything and everything' you can substitute the www. What a very very sad state of affairs.
RE: Good Morning Britain - RhysJR - 17-10-2023
Richard Madeley and ITV have apologised for his phrasing of a question to Lib Dem MP Layla Moran this morning. Although this has made a few headlines and publicity for the programme, it might be getting a little worrying how frequent Madeley can clumsily phrase stuff.
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-10-17/madeley-sorry-for-asking-if-there-was-word-on-the-street-before-hamas-attack