Does anyone agree with me Or am I just grumpy ?

Gemini1789 - there's a good reason for the way the news is presented and that is simply to show you where the action is and to give you a more comprehensive picture. Personally, I think this is necessary otherwise we remain impassioned - it does us good to see a reporter walking amongst dead bodies, or children running from bomb attacks because it awakes a consciousness within us which is in danger of being lost as we all become so concerned with what we want. If you don't like this method of news presentation you can listen to the radio where you see nothing but do get the news. Maybe ask yourself why you want to watch it but not hear it, and what's the difference between focusing on a person sitting at a desk and reading from a script, or listening to a person doing the same thing.

I'm getting really fed up with everyone using the word "iconic". It's as if someone told them all in January that this is going to be word of the year, who is going to get the prize for using it most?!

Oh I so agree with you all. All these new ways of reporting are soooooo ANNOYING!!!! and that STOP BREXIT idiot, hasn't he got a job to go to? As if he's making any difference. I know he has a right to have an opinion but he doesn't have a right to affect my health, which it does when I can't hear the reporting I have turned on to hear. I just get so WOUND UP!!! Aaaaah, got that off my chest.

Apologies for being superficial,but why,oh why on the regional news sets,do the female presenters so often wear red,pink or orange clothes that totally clash with the red background.....I only moan because it distracts the viewer(ok,me!) from paying attention to what they are saying.

I agree with you all. I don't see why Charlie and Naga have to sit outside Westminster rattling on about Brexit. They may as well sit in the studio. It would avoid that stupid man boooming 'Stoooop brexit'

Mischief.. I don't think that man has got a job. He's always there bawling and shouting

I agree with the majority of posters. With today's technology there is absolutely no need for reporters to go hither and yon. In some cases there are teams of people sent out at great cost. There may be some instances when it is appropriate for a reporter to be on the spot but certainly not to the extent it is now.

I agree with all the pet peeves and would like to add my own.

1. Nearly our local news presenters tell us their name and co-presenter's name every time they come on air. I don't need to know especially with the repeated showings during breakfast TV.

2. Naga Munchetty

I get all my news from the radio now thus not having to watch all the shenanikins!! I only get cross at all the idiots outside Parliament etc. shouting their heads off all day & every day- get a life- get a job!!

I’m with you all the way Gemini. Costs could be really reduced if we just had a newsreader instead of these ‘hangers on’. Even weather presenters are sent outside to tell us what the weather is like now!

I couldn't agree more. I don't watch TV news as a rule but sometimes see a glimpse of, say, some poor oik in inadequate clothes being blown to kingdom come in a hurricane or standing next to the coast with twelve foot waves about to engulf them. Surely it isn't necessary to endanger some poor reporter to convey the discomfort andf danger.

There's a great spoof sketch by Charlie Brooker on this topic:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHun58mz3vI

France24 news channel in English has lots of news from all over the world.

Do as I do, listen to the news on the radio.

Maybe it's because the newsreaders of today need props because they don't have the personalities of newsreaders of the past. I'm thinking Peter Sissons, Reggie Bosenquet, Ludovic Kennedy to name a few.

Well other than ever hopeful of a scaffold with nooses for Johnson and Corbyn I can't say that I pay much attention to the screen when news is on, I listen and get on a with other things most of the time.

Switch it off and read the news ?‍♀️

gillyknits the stupid pseudo-amusing images are my “pet hate” too. I loathe them with the same passion otherwise reserved for re-enactments in documentaries!

This has always been a source of annoyance to me; outside broadcasts are competely pointless unless there is something going on that can be filmed and relayed to viewers. The silliest one I ever saw was a reporter standing outside a prison, in some remote part of the country, in almost pitch darkness, informing us that so and so would be delivered there the next day to start their sentence. A screen behind the newreader in the studio would have cost so little - I wonder how much that useless exercise cost?

Arms up and down like yo yo's you can spot them walking through the crowds towards the camera.

Doesn’t bother me in the least.

What annoys my DH and me is when 'Rip Off Britain' do a so-called 'live' programme about holiday problems and they pay for the three presenters to go to somewhere like the Canary Islands to introduce a series of pre-recorded items. The only 'live' bit is them sitting in the sunshine, with a beautiful beach in the background, having a lovely time. What a waste of money!

Oh I agree wholeheartedly. It is the use of the word ‘special’ in front of ‘correspondent’ that really gets my goat!

As I only watch BBC news I don’t know about other channels , but perhaps we should be writing to them directly, as well as legitimately grumbling on here.

Did anyone see the cameraman doing the okey koky outside parliament.
Someone (I think it was Huw) was interviewing 2 opinionated no nothing MPs.
Behind them were 2 people with Brexit placards.
It was obvious that the BBC didn't want the placards in view so he spent all his time trying to keep said MPS in view without the placard wavers.
Hilarious ?