MA
Isn't that just for the sake of it?
It must be - if they still needed someone on location, surely they would have got Louise Minchin to keep presenting throughout the evening. It seems odd that after 2 hours of no key presenter in West London, Tim suddenly pops up.
Luke posted:
scottish posted:
Tim Willcox now presenting BBC News 24 on location from outside one of the raided flats in Notting Hill
Isn't that just for the sake of it?
It must be - if they still needed someone on location, surely they would have got Louise Minchin to keep presenting throughout the evening. It seems odd that after 2 hours of no key presenter in West London, Tim suddenly pops up.
GE
thegeek
Founding member
We had the coverage on at work, but I hadn't actually realised where it all was until I encountered this on my walk home:
http://moblog.co.uk/blogs/52/moblog_41773351cd213.jpg
Most of the UK OBs were coming from the other roadblock further down the road, but APTN, ZDF, and CBS were all there, and I think the BBC and Sky also had some cameras around, as well as several radio journos.
http://moblog.co.uk/blogs/52/moblog_41773351cd213.jpg
Most of the UK OBs were coming from the other roadblock further down the road, but APTN, ZDF, and CBS were all there, and I think the BBC and Sky also had some cameras around, as well as several radio journos.
SJ
They're offering something different. That's a good thing. If their audience wants them to stop and analyse the news as well as reporting it, then they don't look out of touch - even if their analysis and fact-checking makes their reportage a little slower. And given that their ratings are on the up, it would seem that this is what the audience do want. And it happens to be what I prefer.
Equally, Sky like to roll with a story, and report news before it is confirmed (and they're good at flagging this as such), refining and correcting as they go. This is clealy what their audience want, and so they are equally 'in touch'.
A 24hr news channel does not have to conform to one set idea of how things should be done. Variety and choice is a good thing. All the news networks being Sky clones would be a distinctly bad thing, and not serve the public well, which is why it bothers me that the Beeb are beginning to morph into Sky a little too much, with steps like putting anchors on location when reporters have been there all day watching the situation develop.
The slowness of BBC decision making does sometimes hinder the channel, but no more so than Sky's desire to get a story to air as quickly as possible hinders it through reporting false stories.
As for why News 24 launched; it would seem to me to be a logical extention of their rolling news output on BBC World, and their rolling news output on Five Live, which had been running for years prior to the launch of their British rolling news TV channel. The BBC had been in the 24 hour news business long before News 24 launched, so I don't really think it's fair to say that it was launched to make them look like a moden and dynamic organisation.
Edit: Corrected a typo pointed out by cat
cat posted:
So why are they running a 24 hour news channel?
There's no point them running a rolling news service if they are going to sit back and take stock of the situation for a couple of hours, whilst the other networks are running away with the story and making you look out of touch.
There's no point them running a rolling news service if they are going to sit back and take stock of the situation for a couple of hours, whilst the other networks are running away with the story and making you look out of touch.
They're offering something different. That's a good thing. If their audience wants them to stop and analyse the news as well as reporting it, then they don't look out of touch - even if their analysis and fact-checking makes their reportage a little slower. And given that their ratings are on the up, it would seem that this is what the audience do want. And it happens to be what I prefer.
Equally, Sky like to roll with a story, and report news before it is confirmed (and they're good at flagging this as such), refining and correcting as they go. This is clealy what their audience want, and so they are equally 'in touch'.
A 24hr news channel does not have to conform to one set idea of how things should be done. Variety and choice is a good thing. All the news networks being Sky clones would be a distinctly bad thing, and not serve the public well, which is why it bothers me that the Beeb are beginning to morph into Sky a little too much, with steps like putting anchors on location when reporters have been there all day watching the situation develop.
The slowness of BBC decision making does sometimes hinder the channel, but no more so than Sky's desire to get a story to air as quickly as possible hinders it through reporting false stories.
As for why News 24 launched; it would seem to me to be a logical extention of their rolling news output on BBC World, and their rolling news output on Five Live, which had been running for years prior to the launch of their British rolling news TV channel. The BBC had been in the 24 hour news business long before News 24 launched, so I don't really think it's fair to say that it was launched to make them look like a moden and dynamic organisation.
Edit: Corrected a typo pointed out by cat
CA
They're offering something different. That's a good thing. If their audience wants them to stop and analyse the news as well as reporting it, then they don't look out of touch - even if their analysis and fact-checking makes their reportage a little slower. And given that their ratings are on the up, it would seem that this is what the audience do want. And it happens to be what I prefer.
Equally, Sky like to roll with a story, and report news before it is confirmed (and they're good at flagging this as such), refining and correcting as they go. This is clealy what their audience want, and so they are equally 'in touch'.
A 24hr news channel does not have to conform to one set idea of how things should be done. Variety and choice is a good thing. All the news networks being Sky clones would be a distinctly bad thing, and not serve the public well, which is why it bothers me that the Beeb are beginning to morph into Sky a little too much, with steps like putting anchors on location when reporters have been there all day watching the situation develop.
The slowness of BBC decision making does sometimes hinder the channel, but no more so than Sky's desire to get a story to air as quickly as possible hinders it through reporting false stories.
As for why News 24 launched; it would seem to me to be a logical extention of their rolling news output on BBC World, and their rolling news output on Five Live, which had been running for years prior to the launch of a British rolling news TV channel. The BBC had been in the 24 hour news business long before News 24 launched, so I don't really think it's fair to say that it was launched to make them look like a moden and dynamic organisation.
Sky News was around a long time before Five Live, which only emerged in the mid-90s.
I dispute the argument about ''their analysis and fact checking''. I saw more of this on Sky today than I saw on News 24 - Sky had better correspondents with better sources, better interviewees with more astute opinions, and better pictures.
I disagree regarding Sky being hindered as much by their speed of reporting as News 24 are by their slowness. It is not a massive problem to make a few mistakes, and I think viewers generally forgive you for that if it is explained in the context of what is happening. It's quite another to sit in the shadow of other news organisations whilst you sit around not reporting something that may not be confirmed for hours.
I understand the BBC wanting to be cautious and suspect when it comes to reporting information, but time after time they have shown that they cannot do this in the context of a 24 hour news channel. Newsnight can offer considered analysis, because that's what it's there for. The BBC's attitude to 24 hour news seems to be ''well, let's treat it no differently than we would any other broadcast''. But you simply cannot do that with rolling news; you end up with a hybrid mess.
I'd actually argue that News 24 trying to offer analysis and comment on situations that are unfolding in front of their eyes is potentially more dangerous than Sky getting a few facts wrong by just reporting what they are told. They cannot offer detailed analysis and information on a story that's happening there and then, despite claiming that analysis is at the centre of their remit.
If News 24 are offering something ''different'', fine. But it should be positively different. I think confusing ''worse'' and ''different'' is where you're going wrong.
tillyoshea posted:
cat posted:
So why are they running a 24 hour news channel?
There's no point them running a rolling news service if they are going to sit back and take stock of the situation for a couple of hours, whilst the other networks are running away with the story and making you look out of touch.
There's no point them running a rolling news service if they are going to sit back and take stock of the situation for a couple of hours, whilst the other networks are running away with the story and making you look out of touch.
They're offering something different. That's a good thing. If their audience wants them to stop and analyse the news as well as reporting it, then they don't look out of touch - even if their analysis and fact-checking makes their reportage a little slower. And given that their ratings are on the up, it would seem that this is what the audience do want. And it happens to be what I prefer.
Equally, Sky like to roll with a story, and report news before it is confirmed (and they're good at flagging this as such), refining and correcting as they go. This is clealy what their audience want, and so they are equally 'in touch'.
A 24hr news channel does not have to conform to one set idea of how things should be done. Variety and choice is a good thing. All the news networks being Sky clones would be a distinctly bad thing, and not serve the public well, which is why it bothers me that the Beeb are beginning to morph into Sky a little too much, with steps like putting anchors on location when reporters have been there all day watching the situation develop.
The slowness of BBC decision making does sometimes hinder the channel, but no more so than Sky's desire to get a story to air as quickly as possible hinders it through reporting false stories.
As for why News 24 launched; it would seem to me to be a logical extention of their rolling news output on BBC World, and their rolling news output on Five Live, which had been running for years prior to the launch of a British rolling news TV channel. The BBC had been in the 24 hour news business long before News 24 launched, so I don't really think it's fair to say that it was launched to make them look like a moden and dynamic organisation.
Sky News was around a long time before Five Live, which only emerged in the mid-90s.
I dispute the argument about ''their analysis and fact checking''. I saw more of this on Sky today than I saw on News 24 - Sky had better correspondents with better sources, better interviewees with more astute opinions, and better pictures.
I disagree regarding Sky being hindered as much by their speed of reporting as News 24 are by their slowness. It is not a massive problem to make a few mistakes, and I think viewers generally forgive you for that if it is explained in the context of what is happening. It's quite another to sit in the shadow of other news organisations whilst you sit around not reporting something that may not be confirmed for hours.
I understand the BBC wanting to be cautious and suspect when it comes to reporting information, but time after time they have shown that they cannot do this in the context of a 24 hour news channel. Newsnight can offer considered analysis, because that's what it's there for. The BBC's attitude to 24 hour news seems to be ''well, let's treat it no differently than we would any other broadcast''. But you simply cannot do that with rolling news; you end up with a hybrid mess.
I'd actually argue that News 24 trying to offer analysis and comment on situations that are unfolding in front of their eyes is potentially more dangerous than Sky getting a few facts wrong by just reporting what they are told. They cannot offer detailed analysis and information on a story that's happening there and then, despite claiming that analysis is at the centre of their remit.
If News 24 are offering something ''different'', fine. But it should be positively different. I think confusing ''worse'' and ''different'' is where you're going wrong.
GE
The BBC had no excuses for not getting someone there quickly:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?saddr=w12+7rj&daddr=dalgarno+way&hl=en
thegeek
Founding member
scottish posted:
It must be - if they still needed someone on location, surely they would have got Louise Minchin to keep presenting throughout the evening. It seems odd that after 2 hours of no key presenter in West London, Tim suddenly pops up.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?saddr=w12+7rj&daddr=dalgarno+way&hl=en
SJ
Indeed, but I don't see why that's relevant to my argument, which was that News 24, as a provider of rolling TV news, was simply a logical progression of providing rolling radio news, rather than some desperate attempt for the Beeb to appear funky and modern.
Today maybe, but you surely can't seriously deny that Sky generally broadcast more inaccurate stories than the BBC? As you say and as I acknowledged, this is not necessarily a flaw, as some people want to hear the very latest and watch this being refined. For example, Sky ran with seven tube explosions and three bombs on buses on 7 July. That's fine, as that's what reports were stating at the time, and they reigned back once it became clear that there were fewer than that. They generally report the news as it comes in, instead of being 100% sure of the details first, so that the viewer gets the news first.
Again, that's a very subjective judgement. I personally don't mind if I hear news even ten minutes after its been broadcast elsewhere, if that helps to weed out a large proportion of the inaccuracies. Others prefer to be the very first to hear the news.
I disagree with that. They seem to handle it reasonably well. For example, again in the case of the 7 July attacks, the Beeb were roundly criticised for not speculating on casualty figures, and instead reporting official figures. But they clearly signalled that it was 'almost certain' that the figure would rise 'significantly' - they just chose not to try and play the numbers game, when clearly estimates were very difficult and - in the main - proved quite wrong.
I agree that they often get this wrong. For example, trying to cast an analytical eye over today's events, when it wasn't even clear who had been arrested, did seem to be quite foolish, and laden with 'well if it's this, then...' Later in the day, of course, when facts were beginning to be known, the analysis was both appropriate and excellent. However, they often get it right, too. Take for example the reports of the shuttle programme being suspended - that's breaking news which lends itself to this kind of analysis, and they handled that excellently. They just need to learn when it's appropriate to ask which questions - and the better anchors tend to be better at this.
Worse by whose criteria? Yes, it's 'worse' at breaking news quickly. But it's better at getting things right first time - in that sphere, it's 'better'. Yes, it's 'worse' when it gets all fluffy at Breakfast, but it's 'better' in that it doesn't dedicated quite so much time to vacuous celebrity's latest PR-campaigns/love interests.
I, and many others, prefer News 24 precisely because it is different to Sky. I don't, however, say it is 'better', because I recognise that many others prefer Sky. For me, News 24 is 'positively different' to Sky - for you, clearly, Sky is 'positively different' to News 24. Similarly, there are some (though many fewer) people who prefer ITV News - again, it's not what I'd choose, but it caters for its audience and does its thing. So it's faintly ludicrous to suggest that it is 'worse'.
The whole thing is entirely subjective, and hence it's a complete nonsense to try and objectively say that one channel is 'better' than another.
Eek, sorry for getting this far off-topic... It wasn't intentional, honest!
cat posted:
Sky News was around a long time before Five Live, which only emerged in the mid-90s.
Indeed, but I don't see why that's relevant to my argument, which was that News 24, as a provider of rolling TV news, was simply a logical progression of providing rolling radio news, rather than some desperate attempt for the Beeb to appear funky and modern.
cat posted:
I dispute the argument about ''their analysis and fact checking''. I saw more of this on Sky today than I saw on News 24
Today maybe, but you surely can't seriously deny that Sky generally broadcast more inaccurate stories than the BBC? As you say and as I acknowledged, this is not necessarily a flaw, as some people want to hear the very latest and watch this being refined. For example, Sky ran with seven tube explosions and three bombs on buses on 7 July. That's fine, as that's what reports were stating at the time, and they reigned back once it became clear that there were fewer than that. They generally report the news as it comes in, instead of being 100% sure of the details first, so that the viewer gets the news first.
cat posted:
I disagree regarding Sky being hindered as much by their speed of reporting as News 24 are by their slowness.
Again, that's a very subjective judgement. I personally don't mind if I hear news even ten minutes after its been broadcast elsewhere, if that helps to weed out a large proportion of the inaccuracies. Others prefer to be the very first to hear the news.
cat posted:
I understand the BBC wanting to be cautious and suspect when it comes to reporting information, but time after time they have shown that they cannot do this in the context of a 24 hour news channel.
I disagree with that. They seem to handle it reasonably well. For example, again in the case of the 7 July attacks, the Beeb were roundly criticised for not speculating on casualty figures, and instead reporting official figures. But they clearly signalled that it was 'almost certain' that the figure would rise 'significantly' - they just chose not to try and play the numbers game, when clearly estimates were very difficult and - in the main - proved quite wrong.
cat posted:
They cannot offer detailed analysis and information on a story that's happening there and then, despite claiming that analysis is at the centre of their remit.
I agree that they often get this wrong. For example, trying to cast an analytical eye over today's events, when it wasn't even clear who had been arrested, did seem to be quite foolish, and laden with 'well if it's this, then...' Later in the day, of course, when facts were beginning to be known, the analysis was both appropriate and excellent. However, they often get it right, too. Take for example the reports of the shuttle programme being suspended - that's breaking news which lends itself to this kind of analysis, and they handled that excellently. They just need to learn when it's appropriate to ask which questions - and the better anchors tend to be better at this.
cat posted:
If News 24 are offering something ''different'', fine. But it should be positively different. I think confusing ''worse'' and ''different'' is where you're going wrong.
Worse by whose criteria? Yes, it's 'worse' at breaking news quickly. But it's better at getting things right first time - in that sphere, it's 'better'. Yes, it's 'worse' when it gets all fluffy at Breakfast, but it's 'better' in that it doesn't dedicated quite so much time to vacuous celebrity's latest PR-campaigns/love interests.
I, and many others, prefer News 24 precisely because it is different to Sky. I don't, however, say it is 'better', because I recognise that many others prefer Sky. For me, News 24 is 'positively different' to Sky - for you, clearly, Sky is 'positively different' to News 24. Similarly, there are some (though many fewer) people who prefer ITV News - again, it's not what I'd choose, but it caters for its audience and does its thing. So it's faintly ludicrous to suggest that it is 'worse'.
The whole thing is entirely subjective, and hence it's a complete nonsense to try and objectively say that one channel is 'better' than another.
Eek, sorry for getting this far off-topic... It wasn't intentional, honest!
IS
The operation at Notting Hill began around 11am, but the Police asked for a security blackout from broadcasters, which expains why sometime after 12.30pm when the blackout was lifted all the news channels had correspondents on the ground ready to cover it (and of course the BBC helicopter).
AIUI, none of the broadcasters could enter the area either as that would have attracted the attention of those being raided. The pics from the helicopter were available a long time before a sat tuck was in the vicinity
intheknow posted:
The operation at Notting Hill began around 11am, but the Police asked for a security blackout from broadcasters, which expains why sometime after 12.30pm when the blackout was lifted all the news channels had correspondents on the ground ready to cover it (and of course the BBC helicopter).
AIUI, none of the broadcasters could enter the area either as that would have attracted the attention of those being raided. The pics from the helicopter were available a long time before a sat tuck was in the vicinity
MI
In my opinion Sky News was excellent today. Although they don't double check all facts they are always cautious to label information from where they get it....and they were incredibly lucky today to get the eye-witness on the mobile who simply superb and as good as a professional journalist. Where as N24 simply seemed slow and pedestrian. The BBC is great at considered packages after the event but Sky is the daddy of live news....
JO
During last night's NBC Nightly News on CNBC a full screen caption was aired while NBC NN was showing the ITV/Daily mail pictures, the caption said CNBC did not clearance to use the pictures.
On Sky News playout of CBS Evening News there was a brief clip of the pictures played out - I haven't seen Sky News show them on one of their own bulletins (although BBC1 Ten o clock news showed brief clip). I wonder if Sky have paid up and if they were entitled to show the clip via CBS Evening News.
On Sky News playout of CBS Evening News there was a brief clip of the pictures played out - I haven't seen Sky News show them on one of their own bulletins (although BBC1 Ten o clock news showed brief clip). I wonder if Sky have paid up and if they were entitled to show the clip via CBS Evening News.
CA
Indeed, but I don't see why that's relevant to my argument, which was that News 24, as a provider of rolling TV news, was simply a logical progression of providing rolling radio news, rather than some desperate attempt for the Beeb to appear funky and modern.
Today maybe, but you surely can't seriously deny that Sky generally broadcast more inaccurate stories than the BBC? As you say and as I acknowledged, this is not necessarily a flaw, as some people want to hear the very latest and watch this being refined. For example, Sky ran with seven tube explosions and three bombs on buses on 7 July. That's fine, as that's what reports were stating at the time, and they reigned back once it became clear that there were fewer than that. They generally report the news as it comes in, instead of being 100% sure of the details first, so that the viewer gets the news first.
Again, that's a very subjective judgement. I personally don't mind if I hear news even ten minutes after its been broadcast elsewhere, if that helps to weed out a large proportion of the inaccuracies. Others prefer to be the very first to hear the news.
I disagree with that. They seem to handle it reasonably well. For example, again in the case of the 7 July attacks, the Beeb were roundly criticised for not speculating on casualty figures, and instead reporting official figures. But they clearly signalled that it was 'almost certain' that the figure would rise 'significantly' - they just chose not to try and play the numbers game, when clearly estimates were very difficult and - in the main - proved quite wrong.
I agree that they often get this wrong. For example, trying to cast an analytical eye over today's events, when it wasn't even clear who had been arrested, did seem to be quite foolish, and laden with 'well if it's this, then...' Later in the day, of course, when facts were beginning to be known, the analysis was both appropriate and excellent. However, they often get it right, too. Take for example the reports of the shuttle programme being suspended - that's breaking news which lends itself to this kind of analysis, and they handled that excellently. They just need to learn when it's appropriate to ask which questions - and the better anchors tend to be better at this.
Worse by whose criteria? Yes, it's 'worse' at breaking news quickly. But it's better at getting things right first time - in that sphere, it's 'better'. Yes, it's 'worse' when it gets all fluffy at Breakfast, but it's 'better' in that it doesn't dedicated quite so much time to vacuous celebrity's latest PR-campaigns/love interests.
I, and many others, prefer News 24 precisely because it is different to Sky. I don't, however, say it is 'better', because I recognise that many others prefer Sky. For me, News 24 is 'positively different' to Sky - for you, clearly, Sky is 'positively different' to News 24. Similarly, there are some (though many fewer) people who prefer ITV News - again, it's not what I'd choose, but it caters for its audience and does its thing. So it's faintly ludicrous to suggest that it is 'worse'.
The whole thing is entirely subjective, and hence it's a complete nonsense to try and objectively say that one channel is 'better' than another.
Eek, sorry for getting this far off-topic... It wasn't intentional, honest!
re: Five Live - I was just correcting your comment that Five Live was around long before any British rolling news channel.
re: the rest of the argument - I think I've had this discussion so many times now that I'm just prepared to agree to disagree on it.
I think News 24 try too hard to *look* like Sky, whilst try to hard to be some sort of establishment channel at the same time... a news channel of record is the way they seem to want to portray themselves.
If News 24 want to be different, like I said, great. But they aren't different enough in my eyes. When Sky launches its new evening line up, they're not even going to have a claim to being ''the analysis channel'', so yet again they'll be back to wondering what they're supposed to do.
But I do wish Roger - snore - Mosley would give up on making his sentiments clear that every channel that isn't as austere and slow-paced as News 24 must, by default, be frightfully bad and 'pleb news' that gets it wrong all the time.
tillyoshea posted:
cat posted:
Sky News was around a long time before Five Live, which only emerged in the mid-90s.
Indeed, but I don't see why that's relevant to my argument, which was that News 24, as a provider of rolling TV news, was simply a logical progression of providing rolling radio news, rather than some desperate attempt for the Beeb to appear funky and modern.
cat posted:
I dispute the argument about ''their analysis and fact checking''. I saw more of this on Sky today than I saw on News 24
Today maybe, but you surely can't seriously deny that Sky generally broadcast more inaccurate stories than the BBC? As you say and as I acknowledged, this is not necessarily a flaw, as some people want to hear the very latest and watch this being refined. For example, Sky ran with seven tube explosions and three bombs on buses on 7 July. That's fine, as that's what reports were stating at the time, and they reigned back once it became clear that there were fewer than that. They generally report the news as it comes in, instead of being 100% sure of the details first, so that the viewer gets the news first.
cat posted:
I disagree regarding Sky being hindered as much by their speed of reporting as News 24 are by their slowness.
Again, that's a very subjective judgement. I personally don't mind if I hear news even ten minutes after its been broadcast elsewhere, if that helps to weed out a large proportion of the inaccuracies. Others prefer to be the very first to hear the news.
cat posted:
I understand the BBC wanting to be cautious and suspect when it comes to reporting information, but time after time they have shown that they cannot do this in the context of a 24 hour news channel.
I disagree with that. They seem to handle it reasonably well. For example, again in the case of the 7 July attacks, the Beeb were roundly criticised for not speculating on casualty figures, and instead reporting official figures. But they clearly signalled that it was 'almost certain' that the figure would rise 'significantly' - they just chose not to try and play the numbers game, when clearly estimates were very difficult and - in the main - proved quite wrong.
cat posted:
They cannot offer detailed analysis and information on a story that's happening there and then, despite claiming that analysis is at the centre of their remit.
I agree that they often get this wrong. For example, trying to cast an analytical eye over today's events, when it wasn't even clear who had been arrested, did seem to be quite foolish, and laden with 'well if it's this, then...' Later in the day, of course, when facts were beginning to be known, the analysis was both appropriate and excellent. However, they often get it right, too. Take for example the reports of the shuttle programme being suspended - that's breaking news which lends itself to this kind of analysis, and they handled that excellently. They just need to learn when it's appropriate to ask which questions - and the better anchors tend to be better at this.
cat posted:
If News 24 are offering something ''different'', fine. But it should be positively different. I think confusing ''worse'' and ''different'' is where you're going wrong.
Worse by whose criteria? Yes, it's 'worse' at breaking news quickly. But it's better at getting things right first time - in that sphere, it's 'better'. Yes, it's 'worse' when it gets all fluffy at Breakfast, but it's 'better' in that it doesn't dedicated quite so much time to vacuous celebrity's latest PR-campaigns/love interests.
I, and many others, prefer News 24 precisely because it is different to Sky. I don't, however, say it is 'better', because I recognise that many others prefer Sky. For me, News 24 is 'positively different' to Sky - for you, clearly, Sky is 'positively different' to News 24. Similarly, there are some (though many fewer) people who prefer ITV News - again, it's not what I'd choose, but it caters for its audience and does its thing. So it's faintly ludicrous to suggest that it is 'worse'.
The whole thing is entirely subjective, and hence it's a complete nonsense to try and objectively say that one channel is 'better' than another.
Eek, sorry for getting this far off-topic... It wasn't intentional, honest!
re: Five Live - I was just correcting your comment that Five Live was around long before any British rolling news channel.
re: the rest of the argument - I think I've had this discussion so many times now that I'm just prepared to agree to disagree on it.
I think News 24 try too hard to *look* like Sky, whilst try to hard to be some sort of establishment channel at the same time... a news channel of record is the way they seem to want to portray themselves.
If News 24 want to be different, like I said, great. But they aren't different enough in my eyes. When Sky launches its new evening line up, they're not even going to have a claim to being ''the analysis channel'', so yet again they'll be back to wondering what they're supposed to do.
But I do wish Roger - snore - Mosley would give up on making his sentiments clear that every channel that isn't as austere and slow-paced as News 24 must, by default, be frightfully bad and 'pleb news' that gets it wrong all the time.