Issues, Ideas, Suggestions

Floor manager it seems


There has been some discussion this afternoon regarding the usefulness of posting who is presenting what on various programs across the forum. I’m of the opinion that if it doesn’t generate discussion then there’s little point in mentioning it while others seem to see some value in noting daily presenter changes. The issue has been raised before and there was some discussion amongst site staff about including a seperate “Presenter Update” thread for those that find the information useful.

Interested in opinions of members:

  • Separate presenter topic.
  • Leave as is. It ain’t broke.

0 voters

Open to other suggestions or ideas.


There’s been a few posts (including from a moderator) about the importance or lack there of, of posting who’s presenting what show/ bulletin and who’s filling in for who etc and literally the next post does exactly that. Just thought it was funny is all.

1 Like

I’d have thought the number of posts criticising the initial “x is presenting tonight” etc posts would be more annoying and thread-cluttering but maybe that’s just me.

Just scroll on if you’re not interested. Others probably are.


Na no way. This forum is full of threads being updated multiple times on a daily basis of who’s presenting what and it doesn’t generate any conversation 99% of the time. There is just no purpose at all of keeping such record. The moderators clearly agree as NewsWeary commented and a few have “liked” the posts questioning the need to do it.

1 Like

No mate here’s what was meant:

If they are the normal presenter then it is not needed to post about it, but someone filling in is a valid post.

I disagree on both though.

What is the point? It doesn’t generate conversation. Why bother? For what purpose are we keeping record?

1 Like

For what purpose does this forum exist? Why bother talking about media issues at all?

1 Like

That is absolutely not the same thing.

The point of a forum is for conversation. Noting that Hugh Riminton presented tonight doesn’t generate a conversation.

Why does that information need to be recorded?

Anyway I’ve said it a few times. No point repeating myself. My opinion on the subject is quite clear and as I said it’s quite clear how the mods feel about it too.

That could be a compromise for those who like to do it. Keep it to one singular thread where it’s not going to flood the rest of the forum. I really like that idea.


I don’t mind it, it’s useful to see especially for up and coming reporters to be given a go behind the desk or presenting weather. The ABC News and News Breakfast threads seem to generate much discussiin and mirth with the revolving door at Southbank. But as you say, Someone like Hugh filling in for Sandra or Quarters for Jen doesn’t generate much.

Separate thread. There’s nothing more disappointing than going to a thread that has new posts, but is just a “Hugh is presenting tonight” post.

Personally, I think that kind of discussion shouldn’t exist at all and if anything should be limited to major developments, like a presenter leaving a show, or jumping ship to another network.


I voted to keep it but I’m impartial to whatever decision is made.

We are a media discussion forum. That is one aspect of the media. If it was people saying “Peter Overton reading Sydney news tonight” When that’s his regular gig, then sure thars a bit much. But if its someone filling in for a shift that they wouldn’t normally do, then it could be mentioned. It ain’t broke, so it doesn’t need fixing IMO.


I don’t really have a view on this because it is freedom of speech as long as it is harmless. Some people come to this forum as a ‘respite’ or ‘distraction’ from the real world. That’s why sometimes I find that some people on here are really harsh.

I refused to place a vote on this topic but I do find it interesting that most people voted YES to allow people to post ‘who’s presenting’ and yet a while ago, some people complained about the daily COVID cases post as too much. God forbid if someone dared to post a daily case and they will be reprimanded.

1 Like

I’d say Hugh filling in for Quarters arguably would warrant discussion…

I think you’ve misread that lol.

1 Like

Hugh filling in for Sandra tonight

Is different to

Hugh filling in for Sandra tonight. I wonder if that’s because x and y and I think z.

I think there’s a fine line between this place being a discussion forum and a records database.

But I’m not convinced we need to eradicate such discussion. I’m of the mind that this level of let’s say awareness of presenter movements echoes issues with presenter obsessions of the past. But I don’t think just knowing when and where someone is on screen is as big of a deal.

Some member the other day commented that Gavin Morris is on holiday skiing with his family. I don’t care if they tweeted it or said it on air during their signoff, it just doesn’t seem healthy to me to know this and to share this with the forum.

I don’t know. It’s a broad topic that has many facets.


I agree. It makes me uncomfortable to read that Nat has gone to the UK for her daughters cheerleading etc. It’s a little intense.

Maybe we should put a line through any presenter movements in general?

Unless it’s an announcement of a new role etc?

We can leave it as it is, but with some minor tweaks. For example, if a main newsreader is away, the comments should be simple like this:

Anna is replacing Bobby tonight at Channel 8 News

If the stand-in newsreader says “they’re on holidays for x amount of time”, then mention that. But if they say nothing, then we do not need to speculate.