NS
NickyS
Founding member
[quote="scoobiesnack"]
Were you really watching the BBC? The BBC had more journalists in the area than anyone else already - there was no need to send people from London like Sky and ITV did. Kylie Morris, Chris Hogg, Jonathan Head, Andrew Harding, Navdip Dhariwal, Dumeethra Luthra, Geeta Pandy, Sanjev Savastriva, Roland Buerk, Rachel Harvey, Nick Bryant (and those are off the top of my head) were all on air really quickly as they are based in the countries involved. You can argue how those journalists have been used but to say the BBC was slow to mobilise is rubbish.
GavBelfast posted:
The BBC was slow to mobilise journalists to the zones, .
Were you really watching the BBC? The BBC had more journalists in the area than anyone else already - there was no need to send people from London like Sky and ITV did. Kylie Morris, Chris Hogg, Jonathan Head, Andrew Harding, Navdip Dhariwal, Dumeethra Luthra, Geeta Pandy, Sanjev Savastriva, Roland Buerk, Rachel Harvey, Nick Bryant (and those are off the top of my head) were all on air really quickly as they are based in the countries involved. You can argue how those journalists have been used but to say the BBC was slow to mobilise is rubbish.
TI
I completely agree with NickyS.
The BBC has squadrons of journalists around the region who are more than capable of covering the disaster.
It's a case of the tale wagging the dog when Sky send presenters on location to cover such events.
Give me three reasons why Sky's coverage is better because Jeremy Thompson is standing outside some town hall at a place whose name even the presenters in Isleworth have trouble pronouncing.
And Sky's ticker, that some of you glowingly praise, is quite preposterous.
Such a huge disaster where, up to 70,000 are dead and millions left homeless, and Sky "first with international breaking news!" is running a ticker on screen that says "Tom & Jane from Harrow are safe - John from Birmingham is okay" et al.
Messages are also left on Sky's website and the BBC's website too, and there is a number at the Foreign Office where concerned families can phone so tell me how, at all, this ridiculous idea helps.
It's all Sky spin, that is; "fill the screen with as much lego-like graphics as possible, send presenters to locations which no-one on the channel can pronounce and - as in the tradition of Murdoch-style tabloid - always make the global disaster a local one, and voila! everyone thinks we're the best."
The BBC has squadrons of journalists around the region who are more than capable of covering the disaster.
It's a case of the tale wagging the dog when Sky send presenters on location to cover such events.
Give me three reasons why Sky's coverage is better because Jeremy Thompson is standing outside some town hall at a place whose name even the presenters in Isleworth have trouble pronouncing.
And Sky's ticker, that some of you glowingly praise, is quite preposterous.
Such a huge disaster where, up to 70,000 are dead and millions left homeless, and Sky "first with international breaking news!" is running a ticker on screen that says "Tom & Jane from Harrow are safe - John from Birmingham is okay" et al.
Messages are also left on Sky's website and the BBC's website too, and there is a number at the Foreign Office where concerned families can phone so tell me how, at all, this ridiculous idea helps.
It's all Sky spin, that is; "fill the screen with as much lego-like graphics as possible, send presenters to locations which no-one on the channel can pronounce and - as in the tradition of Murdoch-style tabloid - always make the global disaster a local one, and voila! everyone thinks we're the best."
GI
If you don't like Sky (and their preposterous ideas?) so much then why do you watch them?
timmy posted:
I completely agree with NickyS.
The BBC has squadrons of journalists around the region who are more than capable of covering the disaster.
It's a case of the tale wagging the dog when Sky send presenters on location to cover such events.
Give me three reasons why Sky's coverage is better because Jeremy Thompson is standing outside some town hall at a place whose name even the presenters in Isleworth have trouble pronouncing.
And Sky's ticker, that some of you glowingly praise, is quite preposterous.
Such a huge disaster where, up to 70,000 are dead and millions left homeless, and Sky "first with international breaking news!" is running a ticker on screen that says "Tom & Jane from Harrow are safe - John from Birmingham is okay" et al.
Messages are also left on Sky's website and the BBC's website too, and there is a number at the Foreign Office where concerned families can phone so tell me how, at all, this ridiculous idea helps.
It's all Sky spin, that is; "fill the screen with as much lego-like graphics as possible, send presenters to locations which no-one on the channel can pronounce and - as in the tradition of Murdoch-style tabloid - always make the global disaster a local one, and voila! everyone thinks we're the best."
The BBC has squadrons of journalists around the region who are more than capable of covering the disaster.
It's a case of the tale wagging the dog when Sky send presenters on location to cover such events.
Give me three reasons why Sky's coverage is better because Jeremy Thompson is standing outside some town hall at a place whose name even the presenters in Isleworth have trouble pronouncing.
And Sky's ticker, that some of you glowingly praise, is quite preposterous.
Such a huge disaster where, up to 70,000 are dead and millions left homeless, and Sky "first with international breaking news!" is running a ticker on screen that says "Tom & Jane from Harrow are safe - John from Birmingham is okay" et al.
Messages are also left on Sky's website and the BBC's website too, and there is a number at the Foreign Office where concerned families can phone so tell me how, at all, this ridiculous idea helps.
It's all Sky spin, that is; "fill the screen with as much lego-like graphics as possible, send presenters to locations which no-one on the channel can pronounce and - as in the tradition of Murdoch-style tabloid - always make the global disaster a local one, and voila! everyone thinks we're the best."
If you don't like Sky (and their preposterous ideas?) so much then why do you watch them?
BB
I think some people are a bit snappy because they know that the BBC has fallen behind on this one. Sky's coverage has been fantastic, miles ahead of the competition.
On the subject of Timmy saying how ridiculous the ticker is, I have some friends of mine who's relatives are in the affected region. They have not been able to get in touch with them, and the Foreign Office was clueless. They were watching Sky News and they saw a message from them on the ticker saying their relatives were safe. Try telling them that the idea of a message ticker is pathetic!
BBC have huge resources, so should be able to be miles ahead quicker. Sky have to mobilise nearly everything from London. It is pathetic to think that Sky have been miles ahead when their resources are so much less than the BBC's.
The BBC has got all of these correspondents, but where are they? I was watching the Ten O'Clock last night and hardly anything. BBC One coverage has been terrible.
On the subject of Timmy saying how ridiculous the ticker is, I have some friends of mine who's relatives are in the affected region. They have not been able to get in touch with them, and the Foreign Office was clueless. They were watching Sky News and they saw a message from them on the ticker saying their relatives were safe. Try telling them that the idea of a message ticker is pathetic!
BBC have huge resources, so should be able to be miles ahead quicker. Sky have to mobilise nearly everything from London. It is pathetic to think that Sky have been miles ahead when their resources are so much less than the BBC's.
The BBC has got all of these correspondents, but where are they? I was watching the Ten O'Clock last night and hardly anything. BBC One coverage has been terrible.
TI
Er, I don't...?!
It was on in the office when I came in but we've switched the telly's back to News 24. And can I also say how proud I am that I am responsible for getting the TVs in the gym tuned to News 24, rather than Sky, and the trendy club down the end of Old Compton St also has News 24 on, on a huge projection screen.
However, at least Jane and Tom and Harrow watch Sky. Presumably. I mean, they did get mention on the ticker! Woo-hoo.
And massive respek to the BBC for reporting Susan Sontag's death. Find that on the Sky...
Quote:
If you don't like Sky (and their preposterous ideas?) so much then why do you watch them?
Er, I don't...?!
It was on in the office when I came in but we've switched the telly's back to News 24. And can I also say how proud I am that I am responsible for getting the TVs in the gym tuned to News 24, rather than Sky, and the trendy club down the end of Old Compton St also has News 24 on, on a huge projection screen.
However, at least Jane and Tom and Harrow watch Sky. Presumably. I mean, they did get mention on the ticker! Woo-hoo.
And massive respek to the BBC for reporting Susan Sontag's death. Find that on the Sky...
GI
Er, I don't...?!
It was on in the office when I came in but we've switched the telly's back to News 24. And can I also say how proud I am that I am responsible for getting the TVs in the gym tuned to News 24....
Congratulations, what an achievement....
timmy posted:
Quote:
If you don't like Sky (and their preposterous ideas?) so much then why do you watch them?
Er, I don't...?!
It was on in the office when I came in but we've switched the telly's back to News 24. And can I also say how proud I am that I am responsible for getting the TVs in the gym tuned to News 24....
Congratulations, what an achievement....
BB
Tell you what Timmy, go into any newsroom in the country and you are almost 99% guaranteed that they will have Sky News on the majority of their TVs. Maybe not the BBC, but certainly newspaper newsrooms, ITN, ITV, GMTV etc.
Please don't ridicule the message ticker, it really is helping many families with information on their friends and relatives. As I said before, try telling them that it is pathetic.
Ben
Please don't ridicule the message ticker, it really is helping many families with information on their friends and relatives. As I said before, try telling them that it is pathetic.
Ben
MO
Well as this is a forum where people comment on TV presentation I think we watch other channels as we're interested in how they are covering things.
One thing which I think is ridiculous on Sky News - as usual - is their breaking news astons. They're just not flexible enough.
They have had "SKY NEWS FLASH - BREAKING NEWS" on more or less continuously now for three days. Now I agree that the news is still breaking, but to have a "News Flash" which goes on for more than a few minutes just doesn't make sense!
How am I supposed to tell, when flicking on to Sky, whether the information on the banner is new or old?
Also, while I agree that to those families who have relatives missing the ticker is great, I really do wonder whether they are using it to give information or to keep people watching. Surely if they wanted to use it to give information they could spend a few minutes to show all the names full screen rather than 'drip-feeding' the info. One of the reasons I don't trust commercial broadcasters, you never know the real reason they're doing things!
And that is because Sky broadcasts news first - accurately or not - we all know that. The BBC make sure things are accurate before broadcasting. Being a good news channel for newsrooms isn't the same as being a good news channel for the general public!
gillw posted:
If you don't like Sky (and their preposterous ideas?) so much then why do you watch them?
Well as this is a forum where people comment on TV presentation I think we watch other channels as we're interested in how they are covering things.
One thing which I think is ridiculous on Sky News - as usual - is their breaking news astons. They're just not flexible enough.
They have had "SKY NEWS FLASH - BREAKING NEWS" on more or less continuously now for three days. Now I agree that the news is still breaking, but to have a "News Flash" which goes on for more than a few minutes just doesn't make sense!
How am I supposed to tell, when flicking on to Sky, whether the information on the banner is new or old?
Also, while I agree that to those families who have relatives missing the ticker is great, I really do wonder whether they are using it to give information or to keep people watching. Surely if they wanted to use it to give information they could spend a few minutes to show all the names full screen rather than 'drip-feeding' the info. One of the reasons I don't trust commercial broadcasters, you never know the real reason they're doing things!
BBriscoe posted:
Tell you what Timmy, go into any newsroom in the country and you are almost 99% guaranteed that they will have Sky News on the majority of their TVs. Maybe not the BBC, but certainly newspaper newsrooms, ITN, ITV, GMTV etc.
And that is because Sky broadcasts news first - accurately or not - we all know that. The BBC make sure things are accurate before broadcasting. Being a good news channel for newsrooms isn't the same as being a good news channel for the general public!
DV
Every time I've tried to catch one on Sky News they have been scrapped so they can continue with news coverage. I imagine a few of them might be shown in the last couple of days of the year.
william posted:
I'm curious to know whether any 'review of the year' programmes on any outlets have/are being re-edited or even transmitted again in light of recent events.
Every time I've tried to catch one on Sky News they have been scrapped so they can continue with news coverage. I imagine a few of them might be shown in the last couple of days of the year.
TI
Moz, you couldn't have put it better with regards the ticker.
I think, if Sky really were sincere about using the ticker to help, why do they only have a selection of messages and then point users to Sky's website "with a complete list".
No co-incidence that the website advertises PCs and Vegas betting.
And who decides what messages go on the ticker?
What about non-Britons living in the UK whose families live in affected areas - do they get a mention?
And what of viewers to Sky News in, say, South Africa who have relatives in Phuket - do they get a mention?
I think it's a preposterous idea that a so-called "international news channel" seems only concerned with helping British tourists.
I think it's 'little-island' mentality. If Sky were sincere in wanted to help, ALL viewers to the channel would be able to send messages via the ticker, not just a relative handful of British tourists abroad.
So question is, why have Sky done it?
I reckon because it's an emotive and cynical way to keep people watching and a great tool get viewers to surf the website.
One wonders if all of the money Sky has made from worried families texting the station will go into the tills at Sky or to one of the charities helping with relief operations?
Quote:
One of the reasons I don't trust commercial broadcasters, you never know the real reason they're doing things!
Moz, you couldn't have put it better with regards the ticker.
I think, if Sky really were sincere about using the ticker to help, why do they only have a selection of messages and then point users to Sky's website "with a complete list".
No co-incidence that the website advertises PCs and Vegas betting.
And who decides what messages go on the ticker?
What about non-Britons living in the UK whose families live in affected areas - do they get a mention?
And what of viewers to Sky News in, say, South Africa who have relatives in Phuket - do they get a mention?
I think it's a preposterous idea that a so-called "international news channel" seems only concerned with helping British tourists.
I think it's 'little-island' mentality. If Sky were sincere in wanted to help, ALL viewers to the channel would be able to send messages via the ticker, not just a relative handful of British tourists abroad.
So question is, why have Sky done it?
I reckon because it's an emotive and cynical way to keep people watching and a great tool get viewers to surf the website.
One wonders if all of the money Sky has made from worried families texting the station will go into the tills at Sky or to one of the charities helping with relief operations?