SR
Still they are not as dynamic as the Paper Review on SkyNews, which comes as sort of a disappointment.
If dynamic means "with two reviewers and an iPad", I'll pass.
Haha, yes well... I'm not sure I mean dynamic if that's your definition... Sky News's paper reviews always seem a lot more lively and they do have a proper discussion about the stories on every edition, wheras the BBC's paper reviews seem half baked and are inconsistent depending on who is the presenter and whether they have a good rapport with their guest.
I do agree that an iPad or for that matter two reviewers are not necessary, but the way Sky do it just seems more "fun" and "inciteful" than the way the stuffy BBC Nyooz Chanul do it.
I'm not biased towards Sky, I think a lot of what they do is over the top and shouty, but their paper review is just right.
I do hope you mean "insightful" and are not insinuating Sky News incite anything.
If I'm flicking past and I see the paper review is on, I sometimes give it a watch. It does go on for longer (I think) so it can be more in-depth. I generally prefer the more experienced (i.e. older) guests that the News Channel tend to have. Chris Eakin does seem to be better, but he always seems to know every guest that's on - probably because he's been doing it for quite a while now.
I can always rely on you to spot my spelling mistakes
I think perhaps with regard to the BBC they would do better to make their paper reviews longer when Chris Eakin is doing them, and don't bother doing a paper review at all the rest of the time.
Still they are not as dynamic as the Paper Review on SkyNews, which comes as sort of a disappointment.
If dynamic means "with two reviewers and an iPad", I'll pass.
Haha, yes well... I'm not sure I mean dynamic if that's your definition... Sky News's paper reviews always seem a lot more lively and they do have a proper discussion about the stories on every edition, wheras the BBC's paper reviews seem half baked and are inconsistent depending on who is the presenter and whether they have a good rapport with their guest.
I do agree that an iPad or for that matter two reviewers are not necessary, but the way Sky do it just seems more "fun" and "inciteful" than the way the stuffy BBC Nyooz Chanul do it.
I'm not biased towards Sky, I think a lot of what they do is over the top and shouty, but their paper review is just right.
I do hope you mean "insightful" and are not insinuating Sky News incite anything.
If I'm flicking past and I see the paper review is on, I sometimes give it a watch. It does go on for longer (I think) so it can be more in-depth. I generally prefer the more experienced (i.e. older) guests that the News Channel tend to have. Chris Eakin does seem to be better, but he always seems to know every guest that's on - probably because he's been doing it for quite a while now.
I can always rely on you to spot my spelling mistakes
I think perhaps with regard to the BBC they would do better to make their paper reviews longer when Chris Eakin is doing them, and don't bother doing a paper review at all the rest of the time.
