BB
When I was watching the begining of a bulletin with her on it the voiceover guy said 'Paula Middlehurst' so unless she has changed her name then they need to update the voice over.
Londoner posted:
From Five's listings for Saturday 22 January
Is this someone new or has Paula Middlehurst changed her name?
Quote:
06.00 Sunrise (Stereo)
National and international news with Steve Dixon and Paula Fenech
National and international news with Steve Dixon and Paula Fenech
Is this someone new or has Paula Middlehurst changed her name?
When I was watching the begining of a bulletin with her on it the voiceover guy said 'Paula Middlehurst' so unless she has changed her name then they need to update the voice over.
LL
I like Francis Wilson's soothing tone when presenting the weather, Lara sounds like she should be teaching Nursery kids, not presenting the weather.
Alex Kramer and Sian Jones were much better weather presenters than the girl who's only assets are her chest.
London Lite
Founding member
martinDTanderson posted:
I like Francis Wilson's soothing tone when presenting the weather, Lara sounds like she should be teaching Nursery kids, not presenting the weather.
Alex Kramer and Sian Jones were much better weather presenters than the girl who's only assets are her chest.
BC
Blake Connolly
Founding member
Looks like Sky have no intention of taking advantage of the five contract to promote themselves, and are actively removing any mention of Sky News:
http://www.btinternet.com/~sixteen8/xsky.jpghttp://www.btinternet.com/~sixteen8/xfive.jpg
Spot the difference!
http://www.btinternet.com/~sixteen8/xsky.jpghttp://www.btinternet.com/~sixteen8/xfive.jpg
Spot the difference!
NE
[quote="Blake Connolly"]Looks like Sky have no intention of taking advantage of the five contract to promote themselves, and are actively removing any mention of Sky News:
quote]
Why would Five want to promote Sky News?
That was the main reason they went to Sky in the first place- so they could have equal access to Sky's global resources ( unlike at ITN where ITV was the priority) not so they could show reports with Sky News plastered all over.
Its not Sky News on Five. Its Five News produced by Sky News.
quote]
Why would Five want to promote Sky News?
That was the main reason they went to Sky in the first place- so they could have equal access to Sky's global resources ( unlike at ITN where ITV was the priority) not so they could show reports with Sky News plastered all over.
Its not Sky News on Five. Its Five News produced by Sky News.
BC
Yep, it was removed for the whole report on yesterday's Five News.
Blake Connolly
Founding member
thegeek posted:
Did they actually remove the Sky News logo from the polo shirt for the whole of that segment, or is that a still from their website?
Yep, it was removed for the whole report on yesterday's Five News.
JH
Not sure that's entirely accurate. I would have thought that when it was with ITN, Five News simply got resources commensurate with the value of the contract, as opposed to having certain resources specifically declined or unavailable to them because "ITV was the priority" - as your post might suggest.
North East posted:
That was the main reason they went to Sky in the first place - so they could have equal access to Sky's global resources (unlike at ITN where ITV was the priority) not so they could show reports with Sky News plastered all over.
Not sure that's entirely accurate. I would have thought that when it was with ITN, Five News simply got resources commensurate with the value of the contract, as opposed to having certain resources specifically declined or unavailable to them because "ITV was the priority" - as your post might suggest.
SM
How funny! Your reply to his email correcting him on ITN's 'priorities' is no different to what he's saying! Basically, five is a smaller broadcaster, therefore, ITN treats it like that. Not really ITN's fault. However, you can understand why five decided to move to Sky. Sky doesn't provide news for any other clients, therefore, it's top priority will be five. It all makes sense and, frankly, the news is a little fresher looking now. Whether you're keen on the new look five news or not, it can only be a good thing for democracy and journalism having more than just two news outlets on terrestrial tv. (And no comments about Rupert Murdoch and his lack of journalism)
JH
Er, no. Firstly your reply.
That's a bit of a cynical view of how companies and broadcasters operate. I can't imagine ITN "treated" five like a smaller broadcaster. ITN would have provided the best possible coverage and service for the value of the contract. You get what you pay for.
North East's previous post said:
I (perhaps wrongly) took that to suggest or infer that whilst Five News was produced by ITN, there may have been occasions where resources that may rightly have been available to Five were redirected to ITV because "at ITN... ITV was the priority".
I was attempting to counter that by suggesting this to be unlikely. I'm sure that Five News got all the resources it should have under it's contract. The point is that if Sky News can provide more resources than ITN for the same or cheaper contract price, then that's why they won the contract, and fair enough. I would be very surprised, though, if the news provider contract awarded to Sky is worth more than the one previously held by ITN.
smgboi posted:
How funny! Your reply to his email correcting him on ITN's 'priorities' is no different to what he's saying!
Er, no. Firstly your reply.
smgboi posted:
Basically, five is a smaller broadcaster, therefore, ITN treats it like that. Not really ITN's fault.
That's a bit of a cynical view of how companies and broadcasters operate. I can't imagine ITN "treated" five like a smaller broadcaster. ITN would have provided the best possible coverage and service for the value of the contract. You get what you pay for.
North East's previous post said:
North East posted:
That was the main reason they went to Sky in the first place - so they could have equal access to Sky's global resources (unlike at ITN where ITV was the priority) not so they could show reports with Sky News plastered all over.
I (perhaps wrongly) took that to suggest or infer that whilst Five News was produced by ITN, there may have been occasions where resources that may rightly have been available to Five were redirected to ITV because "at ITN... ITV was the priority".
I was attempting to counter that by suggesting this to be unlikely. I'm sure that Five News got all the resources it should have under it's contract. The point is that if Sky News can provide more resources than ITN for the same or cheaper contract price, then that's why they won the contract, and fair enough. I would be very surprised, though, if the news provider contract awarded to Sky is worth more than the one previously held by ITN.
NE
Er, no. Firstly your reply.
That's a bit of a cynical view of how companies and broadcasters operate. I can't imagine ITN "treated" five like a smaller broadcaster. ITN would have provided the best possible coverage and service for the value of the contract. You get what you pay for.
North East's previous post said:
I (perhaps wrongly) took that to suggest or infer that whilst Five News was produced by ITN, there may have been occasions where resources that may rightly have been available to Five were redirected to ITV because "at ITN... ITV was the priority".
I was attempting to counter that by suggesting this to be unlikely. I'm sure that Five News got all the resources it should have under it's contract. The point is that if Sky News can provide more resources than ITN for the same or cheaper contract price, then that's why they won the contract, and fair enough. I would be very surprised, though, if the news provider contract awarded to Sky is worth more than the one previously held by ITN.
It is worth more. five knew they got the last ITN deal on the cheap and were looking for a higher value contract. Both ITN and Sky placed bids which were higher than the old ITN one, Sky offered more for less but the price was still higher than the previous ITN deal.
As for the earlier coments what i was saying was that ITV was the priority and rightly so. The reason i was saying it was because the guy at five news had said that ITN had to in certain circumstances hold footage back until it got its first showing on the evening news (therefore missing five's 5:30). i wasn't knocking ITN or anything.
Jonathan H posted:
smgboi posted:
How funny! Your reply to his email correcting him on ITN's 'priorities' is no different to what he's saying!
Er, no. Firstly your reply.
smgboi posted:
Basically, five is a smaller broadcaster, therefore, ITN treats it like that. Not really ITN's fault.
That's a bit of a cynical view of how companies and broadcasters operate. I can't imagine ITN "treated" five like a smaller broadcaster. ITN would have provided the best possible coverage and service for the value of the contract. You get what you pay for.
North East's previous post said:
North East posted:
That was the main reason they went to Sky in the first place - so they could have equal access to Sky's global resources (unlike at ITN where ITV was the priority) not so they could show reports with Sky News plastered all over.
I (perhaps wrongly) took that to suggest or infer that whilst Five News was produced by ITN, there may have been occasions where resources that may rightly have been available to Five were redirected to ITV because "at ITN... ITV was the priority".
I was attempting to counter that by suggesting this to be unlikely. I'm sure that Five News got all the resources it should have under it's contract. The point is that if Sky News can provide more resources than ITN for the same or cheaper contract price, then that's why they won the contract, and fair enough. I would be very surprised, though, if the news provider contract awarded to Sky is worth more than the one previously held by ITN.
It is worth more. five knew they got the last ITN deal on the cheap and were looking for a higher value contract. Both ITN and Sky placed bids which were higher than the old ITN one, Sky offered more for less but the price was still higher than the previous ITN deal.
As for the earlier coments what i was saying was that ITV was the priority and rightly so. The reason i was saying it was because the guy at five news had said that ITN had to in certain circumstances hold footage back until it got its first showing on the evening news (therefore missing five's 5:30). i wasn't knocking ITN or anything.