Have to agree with everything CC says.
To come on a forum and state that Daybreak has no news content shows the utter contemptuous lying muppets you are. Don't lie and show off people, watch the programme and give it credit where it's due and criticism that it rightly deserves when it messes up.
It's a two-and-half hour live broadcast, with audience profiles that change every 15 minutes. The people watching at 6am are not the same as those watching at 6.50am, or 7am, or 7.20am or 8.am. This is the reality of breakfast television and why the programme repeats things like news bulletins.
When you sit there and lament the number of ad breaks, you are ignoring the fact that in the real world people may not sit there for an hour and see all of them.
When you slag off the set, and endorse the BBC's - you ignore the fact that the BBC use a local opt studio to do their 'flagship' programme, with three presentation areas, whereas DB has up to 7 presentation areas for a VARIED programme that incorporates LIVE guests, LIVE bands, LIVE demonstations.
DB is not news programme, the remit is news, current affairs, entertainment and human interest. When you state that it's not as newsy as the BBC or Sky News, you're showing your naivety.
The father of the Delhi rape and murder victim chose Daybreak to do his first interview.
The Prime Minister appears on the Daybreak sofa, not a a chomakey backdrop like BBC Breakfast.
Hollywood stars appear on the Daybreak sofa, not in a VT
as in BBC Breakfast.
If you're too old and infirm to change your default channel off '1' when you wake-up, bully for you. But a peak million people a day do watch DB. An audience that has been GROWING week-on-week since September.
If you don't like it, don't watch it. But to sit there and state that BBC Breakfast, a tired dog-and-pony show with presenters without chemistry, and language catering for old people and jolly-hockey-stick Camillas is better than Daybreak... That's just silly.
I think the most fundamental problem for Daybreak is the perception of the show as a whole. I think we can all agree that the show was never intended to be a newsy breakfast programme. It is about news, weather, human interest and entertainment (despite the show's tendency to focus more on showbiz). It is virtually impossible to cater for everyone's needs and tastes. I personally do not think Daybreak isn't a quality programme and that since the relaunch the re-introduction of the newshour and a stronger focus on agenda setting news items has greatly improved the show.
The recent move back towards showbiz has received criticism from fellow forum members including myself because its our opinion that its the wrong direction for the show. In reference, back to Anoilyrag's point the breakfast tv market has changed considerably the over 65s have an increasing share of the breakfast audience as a whole which gives BBC Breakfast a distinct advantage over Daybreak. The 16-34 demos has seen a marked shift from ITV to BBC in the mornings over the last 5 years. It it is going to very difficult for Daybreak to consolidate its audience and stop ratings declining. This might be a reality that ITV will have to accept, however if they can still make a profit from the franchise then that is the priority.
It was also great seeing Helen Fospero present the main show alongside Aled. It is ironic that the only time Daybreak has surpassed the 800,000 threshold in January 2012 and 2013 is when she has co-presented the programme. Maybe executives should take note (it's not all about the presenters