MD
re-edit and re-voice sky news reports naturally.
I do tire of this Sky = Murdoch rubbish. ITN seem to focus all their resources and money on ITV News, and even more so if ITV own ITN, so why shouldnt Channel 4 want to move to an organisation who would devote the resources and money into the programme.
And I dont think we can rule out rival companies... Reuters or CNN could theoretically offer Channel 4 a deal.
I do tire of this Sky = Murdoch rubbish. ITN seem to focus all their resources and money on ITV News, and even more so if ITV own ITN, so why shouldnt Channel 4 want to move to an organisation who would devote the resources and money into the programme.
And I dont think we can rule out rival companies... Reuters or CNN could theoretically offer Channel 4 a deal.
LO
Of course, how much ITN put into the programme will depend on how much C4 is willing to pay...
On the other hand, I know that there were some suggestions (how credible I don't know) that Sky was willing to run the Five contract at a loss just for the sake of getting a foothold in analogue/terrestrial news. [Would that even be legal?]
martinDTanderson posted:
why shouldnt Channel 4 want to move to an organisation who would devote the resources and money into the programme.
Of course, how much ITN put into the programme will depend on how much C4 is willing to pay...
On the other hand, I know that there were some suggestions (how credible I don't know) that Sky was willing to run the Five contract at a loss just for the sake of getting a foothold in analogue/terrestrial news. [Would that even be legal?]
CA
I think if it were illegal for companies to run at losses, Sky News would have been shut down a very long time ago.
If Sky want to produce the service at a loss (which I'd guess, with the studio facilities they've built, they probably are) then it's their problem.
I expect CNN would love to get on the tits of one of the UK news organisations. They'd have launched a UK channel by now if Sky hadn't been around so early.
If Sky want to produce the service at a loss (which I'd guess, with the studio facilities they've built, they probably are) then it's their problem.
I expect CNN would love to get on the tits of one of the UK news organisations. They'd have launched a UK channel by now if Sky hadn't been around so early.
AN
Without wanting to stray off topic, why does UTV not do the local bulletins in GMTV?
boring_user_name posted:
Doesn't Reuters still produce the Northern Ireland GMTV news?
Without wanting to stray off topic, why does UTV not do the local bulletins in GMTV?
LO
Obviously. But I was thinking of competition law, in terms of knowingly bidding below cost for a contract, that sort of thing. Though I think they may be tougher on that in the US than we are here.
cat posted:
I think if it were illegal for companies to run at losses, Sky News would have been shut down a very long time ago.
Obviously. But I was thinking of competition law, in terms of knowingly bidding below cost for a contract, that sort of thing. Though I think they may be tougher on that in the US than we are here.
LO
Without wanting to stray off topic, why does UTV not do the local bulletins in GMTV?
I forget the exact circumstances, but UTV and GMTV had a falling-out when UTV once broke into GMTV's airtime by opting out of network.
All New Johnnyboy posted:
boring_user_name posted:
Doesn't Reuters still produce the Northern Ireland GMTV news?
Without wanting to stray off topic, why does UTV not do the local bulletins in GMTV?
I forget the exact circumstances, but UTV and GMTV had a falling-out when UTV once broke into GMTV's airtime by opting out of network.
IN
They might well get it if ITV is taken over by Time Warner. ITV will probably take full control of ITN in the not too distant future, integrating it into the ITV News Group. If Time Warner gets ITV, then it would almost certainly merge ITV News' operations into CNN.
cat posted:
I think if it were illegal for companies to run at losses, Sky News would have been shut down a very long time ago.
If Sky want to produce the service at a loss (which I'd guess, with the studio facilities they've built, they probably are) then it's their problem.
I expect CNN would love to get on the tits of one of the UK news organisations. They'd have launched a UK channel by now if Sky hadn't been around so early.
If Sky want to produce the service at a loss (which I'd guess, with the studio facilities they've built, they probably are) then it's their problem.
I expect CNN would love to get on the tits of one of the UK news organisations. They'd have launched a UK channel by now if Sky hadn't been around so early.
They might well get it if ITV is taken over by Time Warner. ITV will probably take full control of ITN in the not too distant future, integrating it into the ITV News Group. If Time Warner gets ITV, then it would almost certainly merge ITV News' operations into CNN.
CA
Obviously. But I was thinking of competition law, in terms of knowingly bidding below cost for a contract, that sort of thing.
I really don't think so.
I'm not sure how strictly regulated the C5 News contract decision was, but anyone with the capacity is free to bid for it. I imagine the DCMS looked at the bids in some capacity.
If you remember the 1993 franchise rounds, the ITC ruled out a number of broadcasters on the basis of them either not offering enough (TSW, Thames, TV-AM) or offering too much money for the contract and not being able to maintain a high quality (TVS).
I'd be very surprised if a bid were blocked on the grounds that the bidding company tried to undercut its main rival, but in the process had to write off some of the costs itself. As long as they are providing enough money in the bid to maintain a service, any extra that they choose to spend themselves (new studios, etc) presumably isn't considered.
Either way, they got it.
Londoner posted:
cat posted:
I think if it were illegal for companies to run at losses, Sky News would have been shut down a very long time ago.
Obviously. But I was thinking of competition law, in terms of knowingly bidding below cost for a contract, that sort of thing.
I really don't think so.
I'm not sure how strictly regulated the C5 News contract decision was, but anyone with the capacity is free to bid for it. I imagine the DCMS looked at the bids in some capacity.
If you remember the 1993 franchise rounds, the ITC ruled out a number of broadcasters on the basis of them either not offering enough (TSW, Thames, TV-AM) or offering too much money for the contract and not being able to maintain a high quality (TVS).
I'd be very surprised if a bid were blocked on the grounds that the bidding company tried to undercut its main rival, but in the process had to write off some of the costs itself. As long as they are providing enough money in the bid to maintain a service, any extra that they choose to spend themselves (new studios, etc) presumably isn't considered.
Either way, they got it.
CA
They might well get it if ITV is taken over by Time Warner. ITV will probably take full control of ITN in the not too distant future, integrating it into the ITV News Group. If Time Warner gets ITV, then it would almost certainly merge ITV News' operations into CNN.
Are Time Warner actually interested, or are you just speculating?
intheknow posted:
cat posted:
I think if it were illegal for companies to run at losses, Sky News would have been shut down a very long time ago.
If Sky want to produce the service at a loss (which I'd guess, with the studio facilities they've built, they probably are) then it's their problem.
I expect CNN would love to get on the tits of one of the UK news organisations. They'd have launched a UK channel by now if Sky hadn't been around so early.
If Sky want to produce the service at a loss (which I'd guess, with the studio facilities they've built, they probably are) then it's their problem.
I expect CNN would love to get on the tits of one of the UK news organisations. They'd have launched a UK channel by now if Sky hadn't been around so early.
They might well get it if ITV is taken over by Time Warner. ITV will probably take full control of ITN in the not too distant future, integrating it into the ITV News Group. If Time Warner gets ITV, then it would almost certainly merge ITV News' operations into CNN.
Are Time Warner actually interested, or are you just speculating?
NE
There was talk at the time of ITN considering taking legal advice but nothing came of it.
Regarding ITV having priority at ITN, one of the problems sited by Channel 5 was that they couldn't access certain footage until after it had gone out on the ITV Evening News, obviously this isn't a problem for Channel 4.
Another difference between Five and Channel 4 is that Kirsty Young worked for Five where as I think John Snow actually works for ITN.
Londoner posted:
Obviously. But I was thinking of competition law, in terms of knowingly bidding below cost for a contract, that sort of thing.
There was talk at the time of ITN considering taking legal advice but nothing came of it.
Regarding ITV having priority at ITN, one of the problems sited by Channel 5 was that they couldn't access certain footage until after it had gone out on the ITV Evening News, obviously this isn't a problem for Channel 4.
Another difference between Five and Channel 4 is that Kirsty Young worked for Five where as I think John Snow actually works for ITN.