The Newsroom

Sky News presentation - New studio onwards

(October 2016)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
PI
picard
AJ posted:
I'm baffled how people would stop watching something on the basis of a studio. Each to their own I guess, but I would have thought that content is king and (personalities and egos aside) you can't actually fault the journalistic quality of the channel at all.


Im sure the people that put a lot of work into studios would disagree. Why do you think they spend so much money on them? You could also apply the same logic to everything to do with the channel, graphics, music etc. What's the point if you just tune in for the news.

I watched Sky for the graphics, the studio, the people. All of them have now been changed and it seems Sky News is heading down a road that is not for me.
AJ
AJ
AJ posted:
I'm baffled how people would stop watching something on the basis of a studio. Each to their own I guess, but I would have thought that content is king and (personalities and egos aside) you can't actually fault the journalistic quality of the channel at all.


Im sure the people that put a lot of work into studios would disagree. Why do you think they spend so much money on them? You could also apply the same logic to everything to do with the channel, graphics, music etc. What's the point if you just tune in for the news.

I watched Sky for the graphics, the studio, the people. All of them have now been changed and it seems Sky News is heading down a road that is not for me.


I'm sure the people that put a lot of work into studios would be disappointed that people apparently turn off because of the aesthetics. Fact is, people watch Sky News for the news and not because of a red and blue set. Sets are, of course, important in their own way; however they should be a background feature and not intrusive. All you've done with your post is take my point to an extreme that wasn't intended - and you're well aware that wasn't the point I was making.
PI
picard
AJ posted:
AJ posted:
I'm baffled how people would stop watching something on the basis of a studio. Each to their own I guess, but I would have thought that content is king and (personalities and egos aside) you can't actually fault the journalistic quality of the channel at all.


Im sure the people that put a lot of work into studios would disagree. Why do you think they spend so much money on them? You could also apply the same logic to everything to do with the channel, graphics, music etc. What's the point if you just tune in for the news.

I watched Sky for the graphics, the studio, the people. All of them have now been changed and it seems Sky News is heading down a road that is not for me.


I'm sure the people that put a lot of work into studios would be disappointed that people apparently turn off because of the aesthetics. Fact is, people watch Sky News for the news and not because of a red and blue set. Sets are, of course, important in their own way; however they should be a background feature and not intrusive. All you've done with your post is take my point to an extreme that wasn't intended - and you're well aware that wasn't the point I was making.


The four pane of glass, yes I bet they are foaming at the mouth. Rolling Eyes All the work they put in to polishing them.

There is nothing apparent about it, I have switched off. If people continue to watch that is their choice, im not telling them to turn off. What I am saying is, that I suspect they will lose a chunk of viewers, around 20%.

The point you were making was that the set does not matter, that's how it came across.
DO
dosxuk
I watched Sky for the graphics, the studio, the people.


A tiny number (statistically irrelevant in terms of ratings) of people will do that. The rest of the viewers will be watching the content.



The point you were making was that the set does not matter, that's how it came across.


Sets do matter, but they're there to support the branding of the channel, and make it memorable, more so people know who they're watching than to actually entice them into viewing. If people are actually tuning in specifically for the red / blue set, that probably indicates a much larger issue with the content Sky are producing than it does the quality of the set.
TM
tmorgan96
AJ posted:
I'm baffled how people would stop watching something on the basis of a studio. Each to their own I guess, but I would have thought that content is king and (personalities and egos aside) you can't actually fault the journalistic quality of the channel at all.


Im sure the people that put a lot of work into studios would disagree. Why do you think they spend so much money on them? You could also apply the same logic to everything to do with the channel, graphics, music etc. What's the point if you just tune in for the news.

I watched Sky for the graphics, the studio, the people. All of them have now been changed and it seems Sky News is heading down a road that is not for me.

Agreed. The fact there's a forum dedicated to news presentation doesn't preclude the idea that a set can cost a lot and still be bad...


This forum seems to love praising great work (which is great) but never be willing to call out bad set design for what it is: bad. Even if it doesn't have any discernible impact on viewing, a set can still be ugly, poorly designed, cheap-looking, have bad acoustics, and the fact the product is still popular doesn't mean it's above criticism.

Sky News' old sets were/are quite slick and made you feel like you were in the newsroom. This new glassbox is little more than a set overlooking a reception desk and some beige open-plan office levels. Lame.
LE
Lester Founding member
Have to say I agree with the comments regarding the echo coming from that glass box. They need to get those fluffy mic lapels or something similar.

The whole minimalistic nature is all well and good but as others have said they may aswell be broadcasting from any newish office in the country. There's nothing to indicate that the studio is Sky News 'The Brand' apart from when they use the screen. Big mistake really. It really does look like an outside broadcast or something temporary.
SP
Steve in Pudsey
The fluffy things are more to do with preventing wind noise, echoes are usually down to the materials used in the room. Studios tend to use accoustic panels to "soak up" the sounds that reach the walls rather than bounce them back, but you can't easily do that with a glass box.

How does the Sky box compare in size to say BBC Studio E or Granada's glass box studio, neither of which appear to have significant echo issues.
bilky asko, London Lite and Lester gave kudos
WO
Worzel
Not a great surprise...

https://mumbrella.com.au/news-corp-acquires-sky-news-412934?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mumbrella+%28mUmBRELLA%29
PI
picard
Never seen before.

http://news.sky.com/story/bowe-bergdahl-seeks-pardon-from-obama-before-trump-takes-office-10682982
Last edited by picard on 9 December 2016 4:55pm
TM
tmorgan96
Seen what? That's an old split screen graphic.
PI
picard
Seen what? That's an old split screen graphic.


Sorry, thought it was a new video.
MO
Mouseboy33
Q&A with Simon Jago from NewscastStudio. Dont expect any changes to the backdrop snoozefest that is SkyCentral.

http://www.newscaststudio.com/2016/12/06/sky-news-glass-box-studio-21-design/

Quote:
We weren’t really able to make any significant changes to the spaces beyond the glass box, we have added some simple light boxes to cover one face of the concrete columns within the building to add some additional light to the space when it’s dark outside, blinds can be used to mask sunlight from the roof and any very bright external windows.

The cameras and lighting were adjusted to ensure that the architecture of the building looked as white as possible whilst retaining warmth in the skin tones.


'White as possible"....still looks beige to me. Oh well....

Newer posts