The bongs verses the beats - or just old news?

When the print press turns its attention to the broadcast news industry, it is usually to report machinations that matter only to media insiders or to generate soap opera-style intrigue for the masses.  In both scenarios, the basis of the story is so often ITV's News at Ten.   Whether it be the original decision to axe the programme in the late 1990s, its various comebacks or a change to its many iconic newscasters, the programme has inspired more than its share of column inches.

Rarely has this been more evident than in the months since the channel revamped the format of what was the nation's first half-hour news bulletin. From the moment Tom Bradby was installed as the programme's new anchor, there has been an avalanche of articles focussing on the fluff -  his looks and royal acquaintances - and the facts - a serious attempt to overhaul a broadcasting institution.   Not to mention a spat over ratings with BBC counterpart Huw Edwards, which straddles both categories.   QED.

Bradby was brought in with the seemingly contradictory objective of making the programme less formal and yet also more upmarket.   However, October's overhaul was a soft launch (which fermented this week with a new on-air look) and so a degree of experimentation could be justified in the name of getting it right.   Since then, the strikingly conversational tone has been slightly subdued, but other editorial changes have bedded in - longer packages and a more analytical bent, in the form of extended conversations with correspondents.   Three months in, the strategy might now be best described as less formulaic rather than less formal, more interpretive rather than more intellectual (although the phrase "non-sequitur" made an unlikely appearance last week).

In spite of the breathtaking ignorance and arrogance which characterises much of what passes for informed media comment on this subject, ITN is simply building on what ITV News has always done best - bold, but accessible, thoughtful, yet meaningful television journalism. Unfortunately, the myopic actions of a malign ITV management regime nearly twenty years ago allowed a narrative to be woven which conflated a then downmarket trend in the channel with the quality of its independently-produced news output.   No such link existed, but the dye was cast and sadly stains to this day.

ITN weathered the 'News at When?' wilderness years and more enlightened channel bosses soon recognised what Trevor McDonald later described as the "shocking mistake" of sidelining news content and put it back at the heart of the schedule.   Yet, even today, broad-brush misconceptions persist, perhaps best crystalised by Polly Toynbee opining on Twitter that she would "hardly ever see" Robert Peston after his defection to ITV - as if her finger might dissolve should it even hover over the third button on her TV remote.   All too often, media commentators appear to have read the script, but not watched the output.  

Whilst it would be invidious to compare the relative merits of Bradby as a solo anchor to the established pairing of Mark Austin and Julie Etchingham, there is, in any case, much else about News at Ten's refresh which is worthy of comment.   ITV News seems to cultivate a culture of powerful and creative storytelling;  it is one one which has percolated through the ranks from one generation to the next, with a spine of long-serving correspondents at its core.   The likes of John Irvine and Geraint Vincent, amongst many others, turn the process into something akin to an art form.   So it makes sense to afford more time to the building block of TV news - the package - when it is such a well-practised craft.   

Similarly, the analytical weight offered by an expanded team of editors brings greater scope for context and allows for easier development of running themes.   Tracking a group of refugess across Europe was standout journalism of the type for which ITN (via ITV) is famed - at least by those who understand the history, rather than the histrionics, of broadcast news.   Dedicating the vast majority of one edition to disecting an interview with fomer Guantanamo detainee Shaker Aamer was something else - a statement of intent.

Yet as much as this revamp matters to ITV and ITN, it matters just as much to the wider broadcast news sector.   It's a stark fact that the audience figures over which Edwards and Bradby were quibbling late last year are down by around a combined seven million for the flagship BBC and ITV bulletins since the late 1990s, with ITV's audience barely a third of the level it once enjoyed.   Even allowing for the scheduling clash which has arisen since, that is evidence of a clear direction of travel, reflected in the decreasing share of total viewing accounted for by news.   So is appointment-to-view news just an ageing anachronism in an on-demand era?

Clearly, there are still millions who value the concept of a daily digest and many, like me, who would not want their news any other way.   Yet statistics unsurprisingly show a sharp decline in linear television news viewing within the youngest age groups.   Even amongst those for whom 'the news' has been a constant, the possibility of a drift to digital is a real one.

The evangelists say such a shift does not matter, that content is king.   Yet the ecosystem of broadcast news is delicate when transposed into a digital-only future.   OFCOM found that, whilst three in five people regularly use the BBC website or app, just one in twenty use that of ITV and, perplexingly, a meagre one in a hundred turn to the televisually-trusted Channel 4 News when operating in the on-line world (1).

That portends a significant future threat to a key component of a healthy broadcast news industry and one which this blog has regularly championed - plurality.   Should the sad day ever come when their primary on-screen product becomes unviable, it seems unlikely that commercially-funded operators will make the same level of investment in a digital offering with such potentially poor returns.

Competition between the main players in broadcast news has always been to the benefit of the viewer.   Coincidence of timing it may be, but the BBC has this month lengthened its own ten o'clock bulletin as a new front opens in the ratings battle.   And whether or not it is so manifestly overt as it has been in recent months, professional pride will always engender a desire to be the biggest, the fastest - or simply the best.    That makes for better content across the board and helps television defy the digital odds and remain the most popular platform for news consumption (2).

So whatever judgment is finally made about the latest News at Ten revamp, it will hopefully have achieved one thing for which even its competitors should be thankful - making a demanding and distracted audience think again about television news.

(1) OFCOM News Consumption in the UK 2014    
(2) OFCOM News Consumption in the UK 2015 

Making the news

It's a game we've all played at one time or another - fantasy TV news running order.   Just me?  I doubt it.   There aren't many households where someone hasn't openly berated the faceless executive who decided this story or that should lead the bulletin - or even have a place in it at all.   Not to mention questioning why that piece you half-heard on the radio during the day - and of which you would quite like the full story - has been afforded only the briefest of mentions on the evening news.  

Well it seems that after a hard day's work, Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham arrived home on Sunday evening and ended up playing a spin-off version of this innocent family favourite - fantasy TV news running order:  deluxe.   This version proceeds in exactly the same way as the original, with one notable exception.    While the mild opprobrium inherent in the game usually limits itself to some channel hopping or a tossed remote control, the deluxe version takes things to the next level - a letter of complaint.

Or, to be precise, in this particular instance, a letter of concern.   For Mr. Burnham has stopped short of making a formal complaint about what he described as the BBC's "cursory" coverage of a protest march condemning health service cuts and the backdoor privatisation of the NHS. 

The lead story on both of BBC1's main news bulletins on Sunday was the opening day of the Tory party conference in Manchester and the bringing forward of the government's help-to-buy scheme.   An estimated 50,000 people gathered for the anti-cuts rally just outside the venue.  In wrapping up the day's events, the BBC linked all three aspects of this political story in one package at the top of the programme.

This was all perfectly sensible and editorially justifiable.   Andy Burnham's complaint, though, was that the presentation of the piece relegated the aspect with which he was most concerned to a side issue.   The report did contain some general shots of the protestors and the correspondent gave a brief overview of the reason for the march and the numbers involved.   There was, however, no contribution from any of the individuals in attendance who might have put their point more forcefully.

If this hadn't been a short Sunday evening bulletin, there is every likelihood that the protest would have been picked up in a related, second package in the running order.   As it happens, there was indeed such a follow-up package - unfortunately for Burnham and the protestors, it was an explanatory piece about help-to-buy, not NHS cuts.   And given the time constraints, there was no prospect of a third report on the same overarching political story.

So does the Shadow Health Secretary have a point?   Let's try to apply some oft-maligned BBC balance to the issue.  On the one hand, it was perhaps surprising that a march of that magnitude didn't even merit a vox-pop with those involved.   Such a contribution might not have significantly furthered the story, but potentially could have been slightly more illuminating for the passive viewer.

On the other, could any brief clip of a protestor's comments really have added much to public understanding of the issue?   There surely comes a point in stories which have a thread lasting several years (like this one) when some cumulative knowledge has to be assumed.   This is particularly true in daily news programmes when time is tight.   Occasionally, the most basic definition of news - reporting that which is new - has to be applied.   In this instance, the march was the story;  the reasons for it had been heard many times before and there wasn't time to repeat them, preferable though that might have been.

Perhaps an argument could be advanced that the specific issue of health service cutbacks has come second in broadcast coverage to similar changes in the benefits system.   As discussed here, that might have more to do with the ease of crafting effective human interest reports out of benefit stories as opposed to the more amorphous structural issues often associated with the NHS.

Ultimately, though, it is difficult to argue that broadcast reporting of health service challenges and reforms has been anything other than comprehensive.   Those who really want the finer details might have to look further than daily TV news programmes and consult more specialist, long-form output - or even just their regional counterparts which are past masters at incisively highlighting wider issues with case studies close to home.   Yet whilst acknowledging that half-hour bulletins can never be a televised version of Private Eye (now there's an idea), it seems to me that broadcast news has got the balance just about right.

Sometimes the news agenda isn't exactly how we might fashion it if we were the ones in sole charge.   Stories are always jostling for position and agreement about what makes the cut and what doesn't is never universal - least of all amongst reporters themselves.   Politicians, meanwhile, already have far greater influence over what hits the headlines than most other groups in society, so can they really complain when the news agenda doesn't match their own? 

        

While Andy Burnham's point about this particular example of reportage is a legitimate one and he is right to raise it with the BBC Trust if he feels strongly enough, I am glad that he has resisted the temptation to make a formal complaint.    It would have cast an unnecessary shadow over the insightful work done by newsrooms across the industry to bring to life these complex subjects for the widest possible audience - in other words, broadcast news at its best.