The Newsroom

International News Presentation: Past and Present

(February 2007)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
MQ
Mr Q
Inspector Sands posted:
fox1 posted:

The ABC - tax-payer funded by the way - in unashamedly left-wing so it's just balancing it up

Is it actually 'left wing' or is it left wing in the sense that the BBC is accused of being left wing... as in its neutral but it doesn't confirm to your views so it must be the opposite of them?

Fox is absolutely correct. The ABC is unashamedly left wing. If you define "left wing" journalism as being calm, sober reporting based on facts and evidence. Perhaps a bit of investigative journalism every now and then. Good, solid interviews that hold people (regardless of any party affiliation) to account. It's really quite dull and dreary stuff.

By contrast, Sky News Australia specialises in shouty, talking-heads commentary, packaged up in a eye-wateringly awful format. A combination of shock jocks who are past their prime, or other newcomers trying to make a name for themselves. Oh, and lots of ex-politicians too - just to give them something to do. SNA does have some very good journalists in its ranks, but they're drowned out by the inane remarks of pundits who feel the 17 people watching should be blessed by their "insight" - that is, hot takes based on nothing more than gut feel.
LL
London Lite Founding member
Mr Q posted:

By contrast, Sky News Australia specialises in shouty, talking-heads commentary, packaged up in a eye-wateringly awful format. A combination of shock jocks who are past their prime, or other newcomers trying to make a name for themselves. Oh, and lots of ex-politicians too - just to give them something to do. SNA does have some very good journalists in its ranks, but they're drowned out by the inane remarks of pundits who feel the 17 people watching should be blessed by their "insight" - that is, hot takes based on nothing more than gut feel.


Very similar to Fox News where decent journalists such as Shep Smith and Jon Scott are drowned by by a prodomentely opinion led newstalk format which pander to older conservative leaning men, which include hiring presenters and analysts with more than a tenuous connection to the Republican Party.

It's no wonder FNC is the President's favourite source for news.
WO
Woodpecker
London Lite posted:
Mr Q posted:

By contrast, Sky News Australia specialises in shouty, talking-heads commentary, packaged up in a eye-wateringly awful format. A combination of shock jocks who are past their prime, or other newcomers trying to make a name for themselves. Oh, and lots of ex-politicians too - just to give them something to do. SNA does have some very good journalists in its ranks, but they're drowned out by the inane remarks of pundits who feel the 17 people watching should be blessed by their "insight" - that is, hot takes based on nothing more than gut feel.


Very similar to Fox News where decent journalists such as Shep Smith and Jon Scott are drowned by by a prodomentely opinion led newstalk format which pander to older conservative leaning men, which include hiring presenters and analysts with more than a tenuous connection to the Republican Party.

It's no wonder FNC is the President's favourite source for news.


It's worth noting, of course, that Sky News Australia wasn't always like that; for the first fifteen or so years on air, it was a decent (albeit very basic) news channel, with bulletins every half hour and the headlines recapped every fifteen minutes, along with regular simulcasts of Sky News UK, and various newscasts from the US; they also used to produce a New Zealand bulletin for one of the smaller terrestrial channels there.
WW
WW Update
Woodpecker posted:
London Lite posted:
Mr Q posted:

By contrast, Sky News Australia specialises in shouty, talking-heads commentary, packaged up in a eye-wateringly awful format. A combination of shock jocks who are past their prime, or other newcomers trying to make a name for themselves. Oh, and lots of ex-politicians too - just to give them something to do. SNA does have some very good journalists in its ranks, but they're drowned out by the inane remarks of pundits who feel the 17 people watching should be blessed by their "insight" - that is, hot takes based on nothing more than gut feel.


Very similar to Fox News where decent journalists such as Shep Smith and Jon Scott are drowned by by a prodomentely opinion led newstalk format which pander to older conservative leaning men, which include hiring presenters and analysts with more than a tenuous connection to the Republican Party.

It's no wonder FNC is the President's favourite source for news.


It's worth noting, of course, that Sky News Australia wasn't always like that; for the first fifteen or so years on air, it was a decent (albeit very basic) news channel, with bulletins every half hour and the headlines recapped every fifteen minutes, along with regular simulcasts of Sky News UK, and various newscasts from the US; they also used to produce a New Zealand bulletin for one of the smaller terrestrial channels there.



Indeed. Here's the 1996 premiere of Sky News Australia; the launch video gives some idea of their style at the time:

WW
WW Update
Woodpecker posted:
they also used to produce a New Zealand bulletin for one of the smaller terrestrial channels there.


By the way, this is what the SNA-produced newscasts for Prime New Zealand looked like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwKDqb6V41Q&t=70s
Last edited by WW Update on 20 May 2019 8:45pm
FO
fox1
Woodpecker posted:
London Lite posted:
Mr Q posted:

By contrast, Sky News Australia specialises in shouty, talking-heads commentary, packaged up in a eye-wateringly awful format. A combination of shock jocks who are past their prime, or other newcomers trying to make a name for themselves. Oh, and lots of ex-politicians too - just to give them something to do. SNA does have some very good journalists in its ranks, but they're drowned out by the inane remarks of pundits who feel the 17 people watching should be blessed by their "insight" - that is, hot takes based on nothing more than gut feel.


Very similar to Fox News where decent journalists such as Shep Smith and Jon Scott are drowned by by a prodomentely opinion led newstalk format which pander to older conservative leaning men, which include hiring presenters and analysts with more than a tenuous connection to the Republican Party.

It's no wonder FNC is the President's favourite source for news.


It's worth noting, of course, that Sky News Australia wasn't always like that; for the first fifteen or so years on air, it was a decent (albeit very basic) news channel, with bulletins every half hour and the headlines recapped every fifteen minutes, along with regular simulcasts of Sky News UK, and various newscasts from the US; they also used to produce a New Zealand bulletin for one of the smaller terrestrial channels there.

For those “straight news channel” years - described above as a “decent” news channel, their ratings were minuscule. Now, their opinion shows consistently make up make up the Top 5 programs on subscription TV.
Last edited by fox1 on 20 May 2019 9:51pm
WW
WW Update
fox1 posted:
Woodpecker posted:
London Lite posted:

Very similar to Fox News where decent journalists such as Shep Smith and Jon Scott are drowned by by a prodomentely opinion led newstalk format which pander to older conservative leaning men, which include hiring presenters and analysts with more than a tenuous connection to the Republican Party.

It's no wonder FNC is the President's favourite source for news.


It's worth noting, of course, that Sky News Australia wasn't always like that; for the first fifteen or so years on air, it was a decent (albeit very basic) news channel, with bulletins every half hour and the headlines recapped every fifteen minutes, along with regular simulcasts of Sky News UK, and various newscasts from the US; they also used to produce a New Zealand bulletin for one of the smaller terrestrial channels there.

This kind of commentary is childish. For those “straight news channel” years - described above as a “decent” news channel, their ratings were minuscule. Now, their opinion shows consistently make up make up the Top 5 programs on subscription TV.


But surely there is a lot to be said for the notion that popularity ≠ quality. After all, Fox News gets consistently decent ratings (for a cable news channel), while the prestigious, award-winning PBS NewsHour seldom makes any waves in terms of ratings. In the UK, Channel 4 News trails well behind both BBC and ITV News, yet it is renowned internationally for the quality of its in-depth journalism.

The same is often true for dailies. After all, The Sun in Britain's most-read newspaper! Wink
FO
fox1
A lot of people would say Tucker is the only quality news left on television. Wink

I love Channel 4 News... (joke) especially Cathy whatshername! And Jon Snow, I mean I loved the guy as a kid but he’s as left as they cone. To be serious, as a kid in England, I loved C4 News in 1989.
Last edited by fox1 on 20 May 2019 10:19pm - 2 times in total
WW
WW Update
Live coverage of today's tornado outbreak in Oklahoma from one of the stations that isn't geoblocked:

https://okcfox.com/watch
WO
Woodpecker
fox1 posted:
This kind of commentary is childish. For those “straight news channel” years - described above as a “decent” news channel, their ratings were minuscule. Now, their opinion shows consistently make up make up the Top 5 programs on subscription TV.


Care to explain how my commentary is childish? All I said was that it used to be a decent news channel, and I stand by it. It wasn’t fantastic, by any means - indeed, it was very basic, not to mention repetitive - but I always found it perfectly watchable.

I am well aware of the channel’s sharp increase in ratings since its move towards opinion shows - but popular does not always mean good.
FO
fox1
A couple of things. Bear with me, I’m driving to work. One - I deleted the childish comment about 30 seconds after I wrote it, not because I don’t have an argument for why I think that, but to be polite. Second - the quote function on this site does this strange thing where it only seems to quote one post, despite multiple quotes showing up in your draft. It was more Mr Q I think who the word was directed to.
Last edited by fox1 on 20 May 2019 10:49pm - 2 times in total
WW
WW Update
fox1 posted:
A couple of things. Bear with me, I’m driving to work. One - I deleted the childish comment about 30 seconds after I wrote it, not because I don’t have an argument for why I think that, but to be polite. Second - the quote function on this site does this strange thing where it only seems to quote one post, despite multiple quotes showing up in your draft. It was more Mr Q I think who the word was directed to. To be continued.


Don't text and drive, Fox1! Wink

Newer posts