AQ
Your comments are somewhat unnecessarily harsh and demeaning.
Speaking of harsh.....
First of all, as a casual viewer of SN, I have watched SNT on occasions. And Gillian and Chris seem to work quite well together. Your comment about him seeming "edgy" and "carrying her" while they're on air together is unfounded - unless you know the man himself then you can't try and say what he's thinking.
Opinions are a wonderful thing. I felt he came over totally differently when he presented with Paula. There was some chemistry there, and she actually said something during the paper review, other than introducing the headline.
For the record, Ginny was a terrible journalist. Her abortion interview last week showed her up fantastically and may have been one of the push factors for bosses - as well as her rigid presentation style and lack of chemistry.
Can't comment too much, as I am at work most of the time when she was on. However, she did a decent enough job on the occasions I saw her, and her presence on screen never made me look who was on News 24. I also never saw the abortion interview, so I can't comment.
Again opinions, but I really can't see how a camera zooming round a studio looks more professional than any of the previous incarnations of the globes they used to have. As I see the logo, it really adds nothing to the prominence of the channel, and looks cheap and somewhat tacky. I feel it makes Sky News look like a tabloid, not a serious news organisation.
If you think that is unprofessional, you should see what some people send...
Seriously, it was neither a snap email, nor rude. You didn't like the Gillian criticism - OK by me, but it was not unprofessional, and was not meant to be an essay, it was a few selected opinions which they will probably ignore, but may take notice of.
Sky News
James Hall posted:
Your comments are somewhat unnecessarily harsh and demeaning.
Speaking of harsh.....
James Hall posted:
First of all, as a casual viewer of SN, I have watched SNT on occasions. And Gillian and Chris seem to work quite well together. Your comment about him seeming "edgy" and "carrying her" while they're on air together is unfounded - unless you know the man himself then you can't try and say what he's thinking.
Opinions are a wonderful thing. I felt he came over totally differently when he presented with Paula. There was some chemistry there, and she actually said something during the paper review, other than introducing the headline.
James Hall posted:
For the record, Ginny was a terrible journalist. Her abortion interview last week showed her up fantastically and may have been one of the push factors for bosses - as well as her rigid presentation style and lack of chemistry.
Can't comment too much, as I am at work most of the time when she was on. However, she did a decent enough job on the occasions I saw her, and her presence on screen never made me look who was on News 24. I also never saw the abortion interview, so I can't comment.
James Hall posted:
The comments about the titles are also somewhat odd - if anything the channel looks more professional now, and the logo is simplistic, but adds to the prominence of the channel and makes it stand out more.
Again opinions, but I really can't see how a camera zooming round a studio looks more professional than any of the previous incarnations of the globes they used to have. As I see the logo, it really adds nothing to the prominence of the channel, and looks cheap and somewhat tacky. I feel it makes Sky News look like a tabloid, not a serious news organisation.
James Hall posted:
Your comments won't go unnoticed but I should think that Sky News may take more notice of a more professional and reasoned opinion than that.
If you think that is unprofessional, you should see what some people send...
Seriously, it was neither a snap email, nor rude. You didn't like the Gillian criticism - OK by me, but it was not unprofessional, and was not meant to be an essay, it was a few selected opinions which they will probably ignore, but may take notice of.
AQ
I was very pleased to see the upcoming changes to Sky News.
It is great to see Jeremy Thompson and Anna Botting will be back together, and that Martin Stanford will get a new show. I rather like Saturday Live and I hope the new show will pick some good bits of that (like Technofile!)
However, I do wonder why Gillian Joseph still has a job. She is much worse than Ginny and pairing her up with Martin will only go to show her up further. Chris Roberts has had to carry her from the word go, and he looks totally different and well at ease when he is presenting with Paula Middlehurst.
Also, why is Anna not on Live at Five? She is doing the last two hours, but Live at Five has shown that JT needs someone to bounce off, and Anna was superb with him. Sky News obviously recognise that, so why did they not go the whole way, and give her all 3 hours too?
Finally, I hope this also means a revamp of the logo and titles. The new music is great, but the "look at our big new studio" titles weren't very good to start with, and are wearing a lot thin now. The logo looks like it was created by a six year old in Paint Shop Pro - the old one was much more classy. I also hope you will kill the "Active on Sky Satellite" strap that obscures most of the screen at the weekend. That is really annoying.
I hope these comments are useful. The evening line-up will certainly get me back watching (until 10pm). Replace Gillian with Paula, Emma Crosby or Faye Barker and I would probably watch later too.
Here's to hoping Sky News is on its way back to where it was 2 years ago.
Sky News
I have put further thoughts in an email to Sky about the revamp. They seem appropriate to post here too:I was very pleased to see the upcoming changes to Sky News.
It is great to see Jeremy Thompson and Anna Botting will be back together, and that Martin Stanford will get a new show. I rather like Saturday Live and I hope the new show will pick some good bits of that (like Technofile!)
However, I do wonder why Gillian Joseph still has a job. She is much worse than Ginny and pairing her up with Martin will only go to show her up further. Chris Roberts has had to carry her from the word go, and he looks totally different and well at ease when he is presenting with Paula Middlehurst.
Also, why is Anna not on Live at Five? She is doing the last two hours, but Live at Five has shown that JT needs someone to bounce off, and Anna was superb with him. Sky News obviously recognise that, so why did they not go the whole way, and give her all 3 hours too?
Finally, I hope this also means a revamp of the logo and titles. The new music is great, but the "look at our big new studio" titles weren't very good to start with, and are wearing a lot thin now. The logo looks like it was created by a six year old in Paint Shop Pro - the old one was much more classy. I also hope you will kill the "Active on Sky Satellite" strap that obscures most of the screen at the weekend. That is really annoying.
I hope these comments are useful. The evening line-up will certainly get me back watching (until 10pm). Replace Gillian with Paula, Emma Crosby or Faye Barker and I would probably watch later too.
Here's to hoping Sky News is on its way back to where it was 2 years ago.
AQ
Programmes with the same theme tune
Superstars (BBC) and Monday Night Football (ABC US)
AQ
Best Business Presenter: Jeff Randall [BBC] (Honourable mention to Julie Hyman from Sky/Bloomberg US, who is gorgeous)
Best Studio: Sky News - The old one (the new newswall is too big)
Best regional presenter: Stewart White [BBC Look East]
Best theme / music: Sky News (New)
Best On The Spot Anchor: Shepard Smith [Fox News] (Hurricane coverage over 2 years, especially Katrina)
Best Sports Presenter: Jon Desborough [Sky]
Best Graphics: Sky News (New) (Best of a bad lot. Selected because of its likeness to "The Day Today")
Legend of the Year: Alastair Stewart [ITN] (for remaining loyal to ITN and seemingly despising "ITV News")
Wooden Spoon: Ginny Buckley / Gillian Joseph [Sky] (Why drive out the old Sky News regulars for these two?)
TV Forum Newsroom Thread of the Year: Sky News Relaunch
News Presentation Moment of the Year: Shepard Smith in New Orleans, standing on the I10 overpass, pleading with US officials to send relief to the thousands of people from the projects stuck on the overpass. It took 3 more days to get there.
A few of my additions:
Best Newscaster Pairing: Jeremy Thompson and Anna Botting [Sky] (easily)
Person who should be exiled from television news: Nick Pollard [Sky News boss] (Guess why?)
Second Person who should be exiled from television news: James Rubin's autocue reading trainer [Sky News]
Giggler of the year: Anna Botting [Sky] (for her valiant attempt to read Two Ronnies style closing headlines [just before 6pm on the night Ronnie Barker died] without cracking up. JT managed it. She didn't!)
"2005 NEWSCASTER OF THE YEAR"
Best Newscaster Overall: Aaron Brown [CNN] (tough choice. Jeremy Thompson would have been it, but he is lousy without Anna B. Paxman is a great interviewer, but not so good as a newsreader)Best Business Presenter: Jeff Randall [BBC] (Honourable mention to Julie Hyman from Sky/Bloomberg US, who is gorgeous)
Best Studio: Sky News - The old one (the new newswall is too big)
Best regional presenter: Stewart White [BBC Look East]
Best theme / music: Sky News (New)
Best On The Spot Anchor: Shepard Smith [Fox News] (Hurricane coverage over 2 years, especially Katrina)
Best Sports Presenter: Jon Desborough [Sky]
Best Graphics: Sky News (New) (Best of a bad lot. Selected because of its likeness to "The Day Today")
Legend of the Year: Alastair Stewart [ITN] (for remaining loyal to ITN and seemingly despising "ITV News")
Wooden Spoon: Ginny Buckley / Gillian Joseph [Sky] (Why drive out the old Sky News regulars for these two?)
TV Forum Newsroom Thread of the Year: Sky News Relaunch
News Presentation Moment of the Year: Shepard Smith in New Orleans, standing on the I10 overpass, pleading with US officials to send relief to the thousands of people from the projects stuck on the overpass. It took 3 more days to get there.
A few of my additions:
Best Newscaster Pairing: Jeremy Thompson and Anna Botting [Sky] (easily)
Person who should be exiled from television news: Nick Pollard [Sky News boss] (Guess why?)
Second Person who should be exiled from television news: James Rubin's autocue reading trainer [Sky News]
Giggler of the year: Anna Botting [Sky] (for her valiant attempt to read Two Ronnies style closing headlines [just before 6pm on the night Ronnie Barker died] without cracking up. JT managed it. She didn't!)
AQ
They probably are. They also have ratings and direct contacts too, but what you have to remember if that TV executives are incapable of admitting they have stuffed up, incapable of reverting back to an older version, and defend the indefensable to the hilt (eg the new logo is clean and more versatile - no, it is tabloid and as versatile as any single colour logo in a rectangle can be). You see, you the viewer are wrong. They are right. The worst they can be is "ahead of their time and ahead of their audience."
It has now reached the point where they will carry on with this until someone called Murdoch fires someone high up in Sky News (*cough* Pollard).
It is obvious that they are intent on carrying on with this collision course with oblivion (although ITVNC may beat them to it), as all the new presenters fail to show they are as good as the old ones they have sidelined or replaced, that the single anchor is incapable of working in a Breaking News scenario, that Rubin still can't read an autocue, that Jeremy still needs his Costello (answers to the name of Botting) etc. etc. etc.
You have to give them 10 out of 10 for persistence....
Sky News
fusionlad posted:
Surely they must be reading places like this to see what their audience thinks of it all?
They probably are. They also have ratings and direct contacts too, but what you have to remember if that TV executives are incapable of admitting they have stuffed up, incapable of reverting back to an older version, and defend the indefensable to the hilt (eg the new logo is clean and more versatile - no, it is tabloid and as versatile as any single colour logo in a rectangle can be). You see, you the viewer are wrong. They are right. The worst they can be is "ahead of their time and ahead of their audience."
It has now reached the point where they will carry on with this until someone called Murdoch fires someone high up in Sky News (*cough* Pollard).
It is obvious that they are intent on carrying on with this collision course with oblivion (although ITVNC may beat them to it), as all the new presenters fail to show they are as good as the old ones they have sidelined or replaced, that the single anchor is incapable of working in a Breaking News scenario, that Rubin still can't read an autocue, that Jeremy still needs his Costello (answers to the name of Botting) etc. etc. etc.
You have to give them 10 out of 10 for persistence....
AQ
Really? Are you joking? I had no idea. What have they come to?
And as for Campbell, if I was him, and someone offered easy money, I'd know what I would do....
Sky News
theblokewhatwritesthenews posted:
Nope. SN are paying guests (non-politicos anyway) like money is going out of fashion to keep the ATV shows packed with names. Trying to tempt guests away from other broadcasters (who don't pay). If I was Pollard or Ryley, I'd do the same to grab headlines and PA wire inches. Campbell is happily taking the money like everyone else.
Really? Are you joking? I had no idea. What have they come to?
And as for Campbell, if I was him, and someone offered easy money, I'd know what I would do....
AQ
He is going to say that. Whilst he does, he is hoping and praying for the ratings to improve, and for him to be proved right. I have to say, if it had been a rip-roaring success, they would have been trumpetting the great ratings from the rooftops after just 1 night. (Thought: is Alistair Campbell doing more for them than appearing on air?
)
Relying on pre-revamp rating to save his job. Now there's integrity for you. Don't rely on past success - rely on what you have currently created.
Attacking the opposition to distract from your own issues. He really must be worried. There must be some truth in the ratings figures, but I for one don't know what figures to believe.
Sky News
timmy posted:
Sky News head Nick Pollard told Broadcast: "My view is that when you launch new output you are bound to have ups and downs. I'm very relaxed about the figures - two weeks in ratings terms is a very short period."
He is going to say that. Whilst he does, he is hoping and praying for the ratings to improve, and for him to be proved right. I have to say, if it had been a rip-roaring success, they would have been trumpetting the great ratings from the rooftops after just 1 night. (Thought: is Alistair Campbell doing more for them than appearing on air?
)
timmy posted:
He added Sky News was still ahead of News 24 over the year.
Relying on pre-revamp rating to save his job. Now there's integrity for you. Don't rely on past success - rely on what you have currently created.
timmy posted:
Pollard said: "It is a brand new show and is bound to take a little time to settle down," before lashing out at News 24, describing parts of its programming as "stodgy" and "rather tedious". Horrocks said News 24 was now comprehensively beating Sky News.
Attacking the opposition to distract from your own issues. He really must be worried. There must be some truth in the ratings figures, but I for one don't know what figures to believe.
AQ
Yep. I think I have been through 4 revamps of Sky News, and have never had anything more than mild grumples about text size, that kind of thing. I have been there for all 7 Pollard years, and have pretty generally approved of a lot of what he and his team have done. Until now. It's not two weeks output. It is changing what the channel is all about. It's like turning on Eurosport and seeing they have dumped all the winter sports and motor racing, and replaced it with wall-to-wall golf - the programming may be fine, but it is not what the channel was.
I think they have already. Longer term, there may be further movement (in one direction or another). But that is a dangerous game. A Sky News viewer who tries another news outlet, and finds it is better, may permanently turn to that other outlet, and no matter what happens on Sky News, they may not go back. It's the old "they sold out of Heinz beans, so I got Tesco's ones, and they were OK, so I'm going to carry on buying them because they're cheaper" argument.
Do you honestly think anything can complete with the resources of BBC News, if they get their act together. ITN of 10 years ago might have been able to, but Sky did an excellent job with a significantly lesser budget than BBC News has at its disposal.
Anyway, I thought it was just loosing share because BBC News has a strong brand identity with Freeview viewers, whereas Sky News does not. I did not realise it was loosing viewers too.
Yep, it probably is a knee-jerk reaction. Somebody has to pay.... 
Do you think I can sue them for emotional distress? I am also suffering from a bad case of Botting withdrawal you know.
Seriously, though, I do get annoyed at these TV executives who change things because they haven't changed them in the last 2 months. It is OK to leave things alone. It is OK to do minor tweaks. Change by itself is not good. Change for the sake of it is even worse.
Sky News
cat posted:
But given that it took him about seven years to get the channel to its current position - with and without APTV shows, it should be said - you're saying he's ruined the entire channel on the basis of two weeks output?
Yep. I think I have been through 4 revamps of Sky News, and have never had anything more than mild grumples about text size, that kind of thing. I have been there for all 7 Pollard years, and have pretty generally approved of a lot of what he and his team have done. Until now. It's not two weeks output. It is changing what the channel is all about. It's like turning on Eurosport and seeing they have dumped all the winter sports and motor racing, and replaced it with wall-to-wall golf - the programming may be fine, but it is not what the channel was.
cat posted:
Rather than claim he's totally destroyed the channel, misjudged this, that, the other, why don't you wait a little while to give the audience half a chance to react to the thing.
I think they have already. Longer term, there may be further movement (in one direction or another). But that is a dangerous game. A Sky News viewer who tries another news outlet, and finds it is better, may permanently turn to that other outlet, and no matter what happens on Sky News, they may not go back. It's the old "they sold out of Heinz beans, so I got Tesco's ones, and they were OK, so I'm going to carry on buying them because they're cheaper" argument.
cat posted:
The channel was not in need of a coat of paint. It was losing viewers to News 24 before it relaunched, and it has actually gained in some time slots since relaunch, regardless of what the Guardian put out. You seriously think that giving it just a new set and keeping everything as was would've stopped the rise of News 24? Come on, you can do better than that.
Do you honestly think anything can complete with the resources of BBC News, if they get their act together. ITN of 10 years ago might have been able to, but Sky did an excellent job with a significantly lesser budget than BBC News has at its disposal.
Anyway, I thought it was just loosing share because BBC News has a strong brand identity with Freeview viewers, whereas Sky News does not. I did not realise it was loosing viewers too.
cat posted:
There are plenty of things I dislike about the relaunch, but I do think suggesting the head of news should be sacked and has destroyed the channel just a couple of weeks into a huge relaunch is a little bit of a knee-jerk reaction.
Yep, it probably is a knee-jerk reaction. Somebody has to pay....
Do you think I can sue them for emotional distress? I am also suffering from a bad case of Botting withdrawal you know.
Seriously, though, I do get annoyed at these TV executives who change things because they haven't changed them in the last 2 months. It is OK to leave things alone. It is OK to do minor tweaks. Change by itself is not good. Change for the sake of it is even worse.