BBC North West Tonight

I do admit that it is conjecture on my part for saying that Annabel will become the main presenter, but it would seem more likely than not that she will be, and personally I really would like her to be promoted to such a position, having worked as Ranvir's stand-in for several years and doing a very good job, additionally on Sunday Politics North West. She would certainly be favourite - and a familiar face, which Daybreak does not seem to understand. But yes, I do concede that I perhaps jumped to conclusion by effectively giving her the job.

By means of using hasty, I think this should be expanded further to risky. My question is whether such a career move will help how you call it 'then move on to something else'. Where will that be, if her career takes a step backwards by moving onto 'a second-rate breakfast show that hardly anyone watches'? Going by the track record of Daybreak presenters, it tarnishes reputations and careers mercilessly - something you surely can't deny. That show has chopped and changed its presenter line-up, and what's to say that Ranvir will find certain success on the programme - she could find herself out of the job if the programme's revamp does not work. Since she has just come from a regional programme, she will be obviously vulnerable and perhaps viewed as an easy target to blame if the 6-7am hour were to wrong. She is putting her head on the chopping block for having such a quick ascent on a programme that will continue to be scrutinised by its dwindling viewership and, more significantly, by the newspapers. It's not a very safe option, nor is it the most challenging or appealing career moves, in my opinion. Daybreak is just bad news. Your example is over the top - I didn't suggest that at all. At least be accurate.

By my means of comparison, I am comparing what viewers will see in terms of presenters on either programme starting in September from 6-7am, when it is believed that Ranvir will start and Daybreak will be revamped. To compare to Moira Stuart, as you so do, is wrong, because she is no longer on the programme, and hasn't been for many years. You can't compare Breakfast from years ago to what Daybreak may or may not be like in a few months time. And yes, I concede that Ranvir will obviously not be the main person on Daybreak, and Lorraine will be, but I was right in comparing presenting jobs on ITV and BBC that will actually exist and already do exist in September respectively, rather than your jumbled comparison of past and future, which is unfair on both parts.

This is the spirit of the forum, and I'm glad to see more of a debate and discussion for something that, while using conjecture and guess-work, does also address some good points to consider.

Firstly, I don't think my examples are jumbled and/or inaccurate at all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with comparing Daybreak in 2012 to Breakfast in 2004. Where is the rule that states comparisons can only be current? Did I miss that somewhere? I'm comparing FORMATS. The new Daybreak format sounds very similar to the format used by Breakfast during the 2003-2004-ish period. That being a more news-focused segment first, followed by lighter content in the second two thirds of the programme. It's not unfair at all to compare Ranvir's new role to Moira's old one, because essentially they're one and the same. The MAIN presenters of Daybreak will be Aled Jones and Lorraine Kelly, just as the MAIN presenters of Breakfast are Bill Turnbull and Susanna Reid. Ranvir will be the Newshour host, which is exactly the same as Moira Stuart back then. So I really don't think that comparison is wrong at all.

Secondly, I don't think Ranvir's move to Daybreak is necessarily the 'risky' career-harming decision you're making it out to be. Yes, it could be argued that Daybreak has impacted negatively on some careers (although has it? Adrian Chiles is doing well for himself on ITV Sport and Christine Bleakley is now on prime-time ITV1). However, if we take your point as being correct, then I would say that those careers which have been affected by Daybreak were those of already well-established people. The newspapers were obviously going to rip Adrian and Christine to shreds because they were already very well known personalities who were lured away from the BBC by massive salaries. That's why the media mocked them so much after they were a flop on Daybreak. Ranvir, on the other hand, could easily benefit from being on Daybreak. As it stands, she's relatively unknown compared to Lorraine and Aled. If Daybreak flops again, they will most likely be the ones to get the criticism. Ranvir could quite easily get some national exposure in a lesser role on Daybreak and would in all likelihood bounce right back from a setback such as Daybreak being axed because people had lower expectations for her in the first place. And then she could move on. Where? Well anywhere! She'd have cut her teeth on a national programme and could probably go in any direction she wanted. Even back to the BBC in a national capacity. Who knows?

By the way, my mention of News at Ten was to illustrate a point. I know you didn't actually say that. What I was suggesting was that your reaction was over the top - as if she was jumping from NWT to News at Ten in one move. I really don't think it's the hasty and/or risky decision you're making it out to be. It could actually be quite good for her.

Kate Simms surely is another contender for the job?

Fully appreciate that you're comparing formats, which is useful for those on this forum who are able to successfully compare and contrast two different formats. Meanwhile, I'm just comparing the practicalities of what will actually be seen in future for the average viewer who would compare either side at the time in a few months. No rule - not being flippant either. They're not one and the same thing, I'm aware of that entirely, but viewers will only be able to choose from and watch Breakfast in September 2012 or Daybreak in September 2012, not a version of either programme from years earlier. I'm simply coming from the viewer's perspective come that time, but your relative assessment of both formats is largely correct, but we'll see, since we're both victim of predicting what Daybreak will be like when neither of us knows which very specific direction it will take.

Yes, it was always a risk for Adrian and Christine, but I think that you're overstating their popularity and overall success at ITV, which the majority would agree could be much better, and very badly handled by Daybreak itself. Yes, they may occupy senior positions at ITV, but are they good at them, and are they liked by their audiences in those shows? Definitely 'no' for the latter. It tainted both their careers and as a result, the programme. And not all of them were well established - Tasmin, Steve, Dan, Grainne, have all since disappeared as well to relative obscurity again. Tasmin assumed a smaller, yet vaguely similar role to the one that Ranvir will take, and what has become of Tasmin? I know she never presented an hour of the programme daily, but VERY loosely Ranvir could be setting herself up for a fall like this one. But yes, at the same time, she could do very well from it. But the promotions within ITV and specifically within ITV News are no way near as extensive as they are within BBC News. She could have bagged the role on 5 Live Breakfast eventually, which she presented several times very well actually - a comparable role in ITV is non-existent. She has closed more doors than she has opened, I feel, with accepting this job offer.

Perhaps she made such an impact at the interview that the relative national inexperience that Ranvir has counted for little in face of her very impressive track record up to now. I think that is a fairer assessment. Don't get me wrong, I'm wishing her all the best. On reflection, she's done excellent things on NWT, and she deserves national TV jobs, but this isn't the best of starts. It sort of reminds me slightly of Laura Kuenssberg, who could well come back to the BBC one day, but effectively demoted herself comparatively, and limited her chances somewhat. ITV News is an awful brand, and you can only do so much there.

I think you are looking at Daybreak and this whole situation in rose-tinted glasses though, but I admit I am overly pessimistic for the programme, but I've never liked it anyway!

Kate is thoroughly plausible, but the audience is more familiar with Annabel since she occupies the Friday post, the late post and the former stand-in to Ranvir. Annabel has simply done it more and shows the most promise in my eyes.

If this were to happen, Kate would be a possibility for the late shift, and would be Annabel's cover.

But who's to know yet??!! Can't guess these things!

Tasmin was hired for looks and to give the news a sexy image (hence the conveniently leaked photos a week before she started). She was a terrible presenter and that's why nothing has come of her since. Ranvir is a perfectly competent presenter and should Daybreak go belly up, again, she'll certainly find work elsewhere.

I also disagree about Laura Kuenssberg moving to ITV. At ITV News it's a lot easier to become noticed and a lot easier to fight your way to the top if thats what you're driven by. Once you're at the top you have the chance to jump to BBC, Sky etc in a prominent position or jump ship to other types of shows. There are various layers to BBC News hierarchy because of the enormity of the operation, whereas on ITV its just reporters > editors > relief newscasters > main newscasters.

Andrew, I think it's futile continuing this debate any further as we don't exactly what format the new Daybreak will take. I still think my views and comparisons are justified, but heyho. One thing I do wish to add is that I think you're viewing promotions and side-ways steps within the media industry in far too linear a fashion. You're making some rather large assumptions.

Firstly, your bias for the BBC (which is evident from the rest of your activity on the forum) is clouding your judgement. The BBC is not the be all and end all of broadcasting. How do you know Laura Kuennsberg wasn't sick and tired of working in such a large organisation? She'd have probably had to wait years for Nick Robinson to move in order to get on to BBC1. Maybe she thought she'd be better off being a bigger fish in a much smaller pond? Sometimes that's a lot better than being a tiny fish in a massive ocean.

Secondly, I really don't think moving to ITV is career suicide. Your remarks about ITV News are - once again - rather biased and unfounded. Granted, the ITV News brand is now no longer as well-respected as BBC News (although that never used to be the case - ITV bulletins used to trounce BBC News in the 80s/90s, and ITV News still wins awards occasionally, so it must be doing something right). However, I can tell you that there is a team of very creative and hard-working people behind the scenes at ITN. Just because a person is associated with ITV News does not mean they're tarnished forever. You might recall that Nick Robinson actually jumped across from the BBC (where he was News 24's Chief Political Corr) to ITV News. Next thing you know he's back at the BBC as Political Editor. Presenters and journalists move about. Just because Ranvir's left the BBC does not mean she can never return. Just look at Julie Etchingham - started as a relative unknown at the BBC, moved to Sky News where she became more well-known. Next she moved to ITV News. According to your assessment of ITV News's 'awful' brand, that should have been career suicide for her. Actually, I think it's fair to say she's doing extremely well there and is probably now the most recognisible female face in TV news.

Thirdly, you're also making assumptions that if Ranvir had stayed at the BBC that she would have eventually found success on 5 Live and the BBC News Channel. How do you know that? The reality is life is never a clear path. Yes, this move to Daybreak could go either way - but equally her career could equally have been hit and miss at the BBC. There are many, many people working at the BBC and she could have had to wait much longer to get as good an opportunity as she's getting on Daybreak. Some publicity - even negative - is better than no publicity at all.

Read these comments throughout the evening and whilst I was firstly on aconnell's side, I'm now convinced by itsrobert's point of view. Sorry acconnell! He makes a good point!

I do concede defeat completely. He shows his experience on this forum. I have much to learn!

I shall just stick to my normal role of posting caps and relaying information from Twitter and other FACTS, not OPINION.

As I've just said in a PM to Andrew, I really didn't want to defeat you!! Just to help us both think through the bigger issues. I don't know about everyone else, but I've certainly enjoyed our spirited and passionate debate tonight. I can't tell you how refreshing it's been to actually have a proper, constructive discussion with someone. That's what TV Forum used to be like years ago and it's great to see we can still do it

Please don't let me put you off having a debate in the future, Andrew. Don't forget, I've been watching all the different news outlets for a long time now - I've no doubt you'll have lots of experience to draw upon in several years' time too. I've seen lots of faces come and go, but that's not to say I'm always right. It may very well be the case that the new Daybreak is a flop and that Ranvir would have been better off staying at the BBC. Neither of us really know. I just think it's fun to interrogate it from all angles, which we've certainly done this evening. No hard feelings?

I definitely agree on that point. Excellently worded as well.

Indeed - it's made this thread much more interesting than the general 'OMG BARCO'S HAV JUST GONE WEIRD NEAR TIM WILLCOX'.

I wish Ranvir well and time will tell who was right about this career move of hers.