New low for Daybreak - just 630,000 viewers

I would say very little. That show works because of the time slot and content.

I don't consider The One Show as anything special or requiring specific presentation skills.
It's half an hour of linking generally lightweight items and some superficial chat.
Any presenter not able to do that just isn't a presenter.

The hype around Adrian and Christine baffles me. Why presumably skilled TV execs saw fit to throw so much adoration and money at them is a mystery to me.
 
I don't think that will happen, but if it did, it would endear viewers to ITV1. People like others who admit their mistakes.

What will likely happen in reality, is content and presentation tweaks until Daybreak essentially is GMTV.
 
Both Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley annoy me intensely. Niether of them are serious journalists who should be fronting a Breakfast News Chanel, they are both dull, dull, dull.

Having said that, the reason why I don't watch is that I particularly liked the presenters on GMTV e.g. Ben and Emma Crosby and didn't like the way they were treated, particularly Emma as she hadn't been there that long. It just seemed to me that she would have made a far better job of presenting than Christine Bleakley could ever do and I felt that Emma was pushed out in favour of Christine and Ben was pushed out in favour of Adrian Chiles - absolutely no comparison imo. I, for one, am glad that it has flopped spectacularly - could have told you not to bother, but there you go.
 
Strangely enough when AC was with the Beeb and before The One Show started, he was presenting football on BBC TV and Radio 5 Live, as well as doing The Apprentice You're Fired.Then, nobody had a bad word to say about him. Quite the contrary. It's only since TOS started that people began throwing bile about him being ugly and a useless presenter. But his style has been the same all along.
Very odd indeed.
 
Exactly, it wasn't about them so much as they believed in their heaRAB. Mileene Klass who originally did the show was better in the role than Christine before she started firing sprogs out but yeah its more the shows format that made it good.
 
I honestly don't understand why people have gone off them so much. I think it's to do with the money they're getting paid.

I just cannot understand why people dislike Christine because she's a WAG. I understand dislike for WAGs who are famous for being a WAG, but she was already famous and then happened to start dating a footballer. I just don't get it why people are so anti-WAG regardless of the person and the situation. Christine was hugely popular in 2008 - she got so far in Strictly that year, despite her hit-and-miss dancing. I think she seems a very nice person, but everyone keeps throwing the word fake around??! Why?? Because she seems happy? Smiles? Is pretty?? I know lots of people like that and they are genuine and likeable.

I wonder if it is jealousy, but I can't imagine people would be that silly. Adrian is Adrian as he always has been as far as I can see. I did tune in for Christine on the One Show and now for Daybreak, and will always do so as long as she is on TV, I think she comes across as a lovely person. I wonder if it's the money and the exposure which put people off, but I can't imagine if I was offered that sort of money, that I would turn it down flatly for loyalty to a job that I'd already done for 2.5 years.

Whoever said we all want GMTV back is wrong because I never watched that, and much prefer Daybreak. I did feel sorry for Emma Crosby and the fact she hadn't been there long, but she was never very good in her role on GMTV, and she will surely get a proper news job to which her style is much more suited.

I honestly think the Daybreak team work quite well together; Christine, Adrian, Dan, Kate, Steve and Kirsty seem to get on really well. Much better in fact than the majority of GMTV presenters (Kate and Andrew were perhaps the worst combination).

Maybe it's the way it was all handled?? The way some seemingly-nice people were suddenly out of a job? Maybe a change forced upon us. If the majority of GMTV presenters had decided they wanted to leave, and Christine and Adrian happened to be the replacements, without any talk of money, perhaps people wouldn't feel so strongly.

I, personally, enjoy waking up to Daybreak, this may be due to my belief that Bill Turnbull is awful and should not be allowed to present the news/be allowed on TV at all. Sian, Susanna and Charlie are all very capable presenters and was/am happy to watch them occasionally. I just prefer the Daybreak team. It neeRAB some ironing out, but I think people should stop being so stubborn about the presenters, until they can actually come up with real reasons for disliking them (Christine being a WAG is not a reason). I wish they'd ditch the competition slot, but it is ITV after all, I'm not sure Tasmin was the best choice for news presenter, it just seems to be one long sentence with her and sometimes it's hard to tell when she's moved from one story to the next. I don't know who I would suggest in her place, but I do feel she's the weak link.

The programme has performed a miracle, in that I have warmed to Kate Garraway which would never have happened on GMTV, mainly because of the dopes she was paired with.

(I would like to apologise for the standard of English in this post, and it's rambly nature, it is the middle of the night after all, but it is one of the only times I get to write for long perioRAB).
 
Chiles has previous with the BBC and Working Lunch and other stuff to do with finance so he's not a total dimwit. They don't need to be serious journalists anyway, just people that the viewing audience can connect with. I get the impression Chiles won't be doing this gig for too much longer. It's really not suited to his demeanour.
 
The main reason I don't watch it - or GMTV when that was on - is because of the almost non-stop advert breaks. They just irritate me, so I watch BBC breakfast instead. That said, I also much prefer to watch Sian Williams and Bill Turnbull to any of the ITV presenters - far superior, in my opinion.
 
That is a fair point, do ITV shows have much more adverts these day, X Factor is painful to watch on a Sat now with adverts after 1 act. I'm sure it never used to be this many. This morning is as bad, it's more adverts than program.
 
I have never been a fan of ole grumpy chops, but for all that I dislike Daybreak, it isnt either of the main presenters fault.

Frankly, I dont care a stuff what either of them earn, but for me, both of them (certainly AC) have a style of presentation not suited to the timeslot. Surely the main reason for them being hired by ITV was their supposed on screen "chemistry", which simply doesnt sit well with a breakfast audience.
 
I dont get the bigd eal. Yes, different presenters, but IMO its virtually the same thing, they just changed the name, basically it IS GMTV... people are really over dramatic.

Complaints being made and that.... people should really relax with life. Just don't watch it, stick to BBC Breakfast.
 
He was certainly criticised when he presented MOTD2,particularly for his ridiculous obsession with WBA.And he was constantly criticised when he fronted The One Show for slouching on the sofa, squinting at the autocue (which he continues to do on Daybreak - buy yourself some glasses, you can afford them) and his general sloppy demeanour.
 
Probably because TOS boosted his public profile (on a programme where his demeanour was more apparent), and that profile became known to sections of the viewing public who had previously been unaware of him.
 
Back
Top