AQ
Yes, we TV viewers are fickle folk. We vote with our remotes if we don't like something.
Or even 1 night a week, which is a shame because I think he has enough knowledge to make him interesting to keep around.
I was thinking about this on the train today. Take The Sky Report and put it on Sky One (or Three), give it some serious content for a change. Maybe even put WNT on there too, and put Sky News back to what it should be.
Advantages:
1) gives Sky general channels some meaty content for a change.
2) The programmes actually aren't bad, but they should not have changed a rolling news channel to incorporate them.
3) Cross promotion of Sky News personalities on another Sky channel.
Disadvantages:
1) Pollard might still have to do a snivelling climbdown. No wait - that' s an advantage too.
WAS and IS. He made the channel what it was, and he is responsible for turning it into what it now is. Whatever possessed him to take a successful channel that was in need of a coat of paint, and destroy what he built up.
For someone who "knows the 24 hour news business better" than anyone, he certainly has (at best) misjudged the mood of the audience (at worst) completely ****ed things up.
Sky News
roxuk posted:
Some interesting stuff from Rubin in the Evening Standard interview..
On ratings he says- "I always though you judged a race after its over. This is more like a marathon than a sprint, but they seem to have drawn conclusions after the first 50 yards"
On ratings he says- "I always though you judged a race after its over. This is more like a marathon than a sprint, but they seem to have drawn conclusions after the first 50 yards"
Yes, we TV viewers are fickle folk. We vote with our remotes if we don't like something.
roxuk posted:
Also the piece says "He readily admits live TV is harder than he though, and maybe his questions could be shorter, his delivery smoother. He also suggests he may not continue to present for five nights a week. "
Or even 1 night a week, which is a shame because I think he has enough knowledge to make him interesting to keep around.
I was thinking about this on the train today. Take The Sky Report and put it on Sky One (or Three), give it some serious content for a change. Maybe even put WNT on there too, and put Sky News back to what it should be.
Advantages:
1) gives Sky general channels some meaty content for a change.
2) The programmes actually aren't bad, but they should not have changed a rolling news channel to incorporate them.
3) Cross promotion of Sky News personalities on another Sky channel.
Disadvantages:
1) Pollard might still have to do a snivelling climbdown. No wait - that' s an advantage too.
cat posted:
Pollard has presided over the best years of the channel - award winning coverage of Louise Woodward, Kosovo, Iraq, Soham, Tsunami, and so on. His guidance has made the channel what it is.
WAS and IS. He made the channel what it was, and he is responsible for turning it into what it now is. Whatever possessed him to take a successful channel that was in need of a coat of paint, and destroy what he built up.
cat posted:
It's only because he's in the job that they've managed to avoid going down the Fox News route - the crap about OFCOM ''not letting them'' is, well, crap - and returning to the days of the late 80s/early 90s when they had News Corp lackeys running the show. There is, frankly, nobody who knows the 24 hour news business better in the UK than Pollard, and to ditch him would be a huge mistake.
For someone who "knows the 24 hour news business better" than anyone, he certainly has (at best) misjudged the mood of the audience (at worst) completely ****ed things up.
They have been late with 3 breaking news stories that I have seen tonight.
