BBC News 24

I'm sure some people actually tune into the channel BECAUSE of the weather forecast - News 24 is certainly the only channel where you can get a full, detailed, well-presented and up-to-date weather forecast every half hour.

It's generally the case that when you've broken news, the story develops pretty slowly. There is nothing worse than presenters repeating the same bit of copy from the wires over and over again, refusing to stop for anything (be it weather, other news stories or whatever) simply because the news is "big".

That approach also encourages mindless speculation from the presenters and correspondents - when facts are sacrificed for speculation simply to run with a story then it detracts from the message of what's actually going on.

And you keep comparing News 24 to Sky - why should News24 ditch weather just because Sky News do? They're different channels with different viewers and different agendas. And that can only be a good thing for the news watching public. If weather upsets you that much, watch Sky. I know what I'll be watching.

You have to remember. Certain news channels are like certain newspapers. They aint interested if its the truth or not, as long as its a good story. Heck, thats even like some of the members on here.

Sky = Rupert Murdock Empire. The Sun
BBC = The independent
ITV = Daily Star.
Channel 4 = Nobodies quite sure now....
Five = Oh another murdock channel
CNN = London Gazette
Fox = Party Political Broadcast 24/7

What a profound, insightful analysis

Welcome to Fox News Channel. Im Number 3020h

Sorry im been a bit simple tonight.

A bit?

i would have said c4n was the independent as it's pretty left leaning.

You're obviously less fussy with what you regard as 'loads of information coming in'. Lots of speculation was coming in and lots of countries were issuing tsunami warnings. xx.23 "Breaking News just coming in, India has issued a tsunami warning", xx.29 "More breaking news, now Thailand have issued a warning", xx.35 "Breaking News, India have stood down their warning"....etc. You may wish to sit through this, I don't. It was bloody obvious that tsunami warnings would be issued. Who cared? Also there may be lots of correspondants to talk to, but when you've heard the fifth correspondant saying that they slept through the quake, it gets slightly dull.

Yesterday's story was NOT huge. Had the Boxing Day disaster not happened I doubt it would have made it higher than the 'other world news', and Sky News certainly wouldn't have been interested. Do you really think that 1,000 deaths is a lot to news channels. That many people die in wars around the world every day. It was just the typical news agenda like the road rage thing a few years ago. It seemed like there was an epidemic but it was just that the papers got hold of it and highlighted every story.

Remember if you are not a news junkie, like many of the people who lurk in this part of the forum, you would typically watch a rolling news channel for around 15-20 minutes maximum. This is normally the amount of time you would require to get a quick digest of what is going on in the world. Continous news coverage of one event would not satisfy a typical viewer who just likes to dip in and out (often waiting for another programme to start on another channel).

I side with Moz here. You've got breaking news. It's usually patchy to say the least. That godawful train crash some time ago for example. They had one static picture of a light with a silhouette [spelling?] in the distance and the presenter umming and ad-libbing while the gallery frantically typed an autocue. The sheer nature of breaking news means it usually comes in in dribs and drabs.
If it's a live event that you have a stream of, fair enough, if it's gripping and needs to be shown, but a static picture or a loop of pictures, there's a limit to what you can say on the matter. And it's usually less than 45 minutes! The weather's a needed thing, so people can find out what it's gonna be like out there (I still say it should be live, but WC people are busy people) I think so many trailers of breaking news 3 months ago aren't necessary, and if you did away with the TOTH separators, why bother having TOTH countdown at all? Why not just go straight into the headlines?

The weather - a refreshing break. Sure, it gets dropped occasionally, but so does sport and business. I say keep it, it breaks the news up a bit, allows the readers to change at their own pace, and allows the audience time for a cuppa and to watch the weather (and after all, the weather is the most popular topic of conversation between Britons)

Oh, that's another thing that bugs me, too... Breaking News from Zimbabwe [insert blurb of what's happening] Let's now go live on the telephone to our correspondant in Jo'burg... What's happening there? 'Well pretty much as you just said, we don't know that much more [emphasizes] at this stage [/emphasizes]' Zzzzzzzzz Bye Bye Viewers

Rant over, back to crawling under my rock!

Just me that prefers the Sky forecast then? I always find it far more accurate than the BBC forecast, which relies on a weather cloud to forecast the weather for virtually half of Scotland.

And Sky News relies on a lump of grey mush?