CI
Quite correct, in the sense that more exposure to different biases and different ways of looking at the world give you more informed coverage, but Fox News wasn't doing anything that couldn't be found in The Sun or The Times, because they're owned by the same guy, albeit through different firms now, but still the same guy.
Also, and this is nothing to do with politics, Fox News had gone from a semi-serious, albeit right wing, news channel, through being a self-parody, to now being a parody of a self-parody of a news channel. It's so far away from anything that could actually be considered news, that they even stopped claiming it was fair and balanced.
That's because according to BARB, it was. 70,000 average daily reach, 244,000 weekly reach per the last available figures as I write this. 2,000 may have been the peak viewership for an individual show, but BARB doesn't show any Top 10 data for Fox News, which indicates to me that less than 10 shows a week registered an audience figure at all.
Out of the ones you mention, only RT is BARB registered, and they get over half a million viewers a week. Sky News and BBC News are the only news channels in the millions weekly, Sky News 5.8mlln and BBC News 8.3mlln. RT is 3rd, Fox News was 4th, NDTV 24x7 was 5th, and the remaining 2 were miniscule by comparison.
I don't think for channels like EuroNews, Al Jazeera, TRT World, RT and France 24, that viewing figures are really important to them. I think that what matters more to them is getting on as many platforms as they can. The more they can get their product seen, online, TV or on social media, the better in their eyes.
I don't understand how this is fantastic?
All news outlets are biased, whether it is subtle or not. Having as many ones of them as possible at least exposes us to different ways of looking at the world and different opinions.
All news outlets are biased, whether it is subtle or not. Having as many ones of them as possible at least exposes us to different ways of looking at the world and different opinions.
Quite correct, in the sense that more exposure to different biases and different ways of looking at the world give you more informed coverage, but Fox News wasn't doing anything that couldn't be found in The Sun or The Times, because they're owned by the same guy, albeit through different firms now, but still the same guy.
Also, and this is nothing to do with politics, Fox News had gone from a semi-serious, albeit right wing, news channel, through being a self-parody, to now being a parody of a self-parody of a news channel. It's so far away from anything that could actually be considered news, that they even stopped claiming it was fair and balanced.
Quote:
Anyhoo, 2,000 viewers a day. I always thought it would be in the tens of thousands, for some reason.
That's because according to BARB, it was. 70,000 average daily reach, 244,000 weekly reach per the last available figures as I write this. 2,000 may have been the peak viewership for an individual show, but BARB doesn't show any Top 10 data for Fox News, which indicates to me that less than 10 shows a week registered an audience figure at all.
Quote:
Does anyone know how to get a run-down of the average number of viewers across all news networks in the UK? An awful lot of money is spent on Al Jazeera, RT, TRT and France 24. I wonder how much bang they get for their buck.
Out of the ones you mention, only RT is BARB registered, and they get over half a million viewers a week. Sky News and BBC News are the only news channels in the millions weekly, Sky News 5.8mlln and BBC News 8.3mlln. RT is 3rd, Fox News was 4th, NDTV 24x7 was 5th, and the remaining 2 were miniscule by comparison.
I don't think for channels like EuroNews, Al Jazeera, TRT World, RT and France 24, that viewing figures are really important to them. I think that what matters more to them is getting on as many platforms as they can. The more they can get their product seen, online, TV or on social media, the better in their eyes.
CI
Possibly, I can't see any other reason for doing it except for compliance reasons but that's not been an issue till now except at election time.
I wonder how much it costs to run, how much it costs it takes to play out the breaks. I assume that it's done automatically (unlike Sky News which has a dedicated TC to run the breaks)
You use the word temporary, wasn't it's appearance in the UK originally only temporary? It was a 9/11 aftermath reaction
It originally appeared on the old Sky News multiscreen in the aftermath of 9/11. If I remember correctly, it was about 6 months later when it got an EPG listing.
As to how much it costs, the content that was seen on the FOX Extra segments obviously weren't produced for nothing, but they were generally pretty cheaply produced. The original weather sequence was literally a constantly running computer so would probably have been cheaper overall.
As much as it personally pleases me to discover that Fox News has stopped broadcasting in the UK, I can't help but feel that this is only a temporary move whilst they try to get the Sky buyout through,
Possibly, I can't see any other reason for doing it except for compliance reasons but that's not been an issue till now except at election time.
I wonder how much it costs to run, how much it costs it takes to play out the breaks. I assume that it's done automatically (unlike Sky News which has a dedicated TC to run the breaks)
You use the word temporary, wasn't it's appearance in the UK originally only temporary? It was a 9/11 aftermath reaction
It originally appeared on the old Sky News multiscreen in the aftermath of 9/11. If I remember correctly, it was about 6 months later when it got an EPG listing.
As to how much it costs, the content that was seen on the FOX Extra segments obviously weren't produced for nothing, but they were generally pretty cheaply produced. The original weather sequence was literally a constantly running computer so would probably have been cheaper overall.
S7
All the European streams of Fox News such awful picture quality on 19.2e the picture is SD and dull looking.
Yeah, major problems with the picture, huge. That's actually why they're stopping it
Good news though, it's to be replaced on Sky by Trump TV.
I've always thought, if I had a BARB monitor it'd affect my viewing choices subconsciously. Arts and culture, yes yes, that's what I'm into. No, I've never heard of Tucker Carson or speedway.
Yes, Carson.
All the European streams of Fox News such awful picture quality on 19.2e the picture is SD and dull looking.
Yeah, major problems with the picture, huge. That's actually why they're stopping it
Good news though, it's to be replaced on Sky by Trump TV.
I've always thought, if I had a BARB monitor it'd affect my viewing choices subconsciously. Arts and culture, yes yes, that's what I'm into. No, I've never heard of Tucker Carson or speedway.
Yes, Carson.
IS
Yes, they'll probably do their own audience research but they don't subscribe to the 'official' ratings systems because there's little point. They'd have to sign up for every ratings body in the world, and many countries don't have one, and there's no standard way of coming up with those figures. Imagine trying to get reliable audience figures from somewhere like India with thousands of cable companies, and a massive population many in remote areas.
RT presumably are a member of BARB because they have a UK specific channel and sell advertising for it
I don't think for channels like EuroNews, Al Jazeera, TRT World, RT and France 24, that viewing figures are really important to them. I think that what matters more to them is getting on as many platforms as they can. The more they can get their product seen, online, TV or on social media, the better in their eyes.
Yes, they'll probably do their own audience research but they don't subscribe to the 'official' ratings systems because there's little point. They'd have to sign up for every ratings body in the world, and many countries don't have one, and there's no standard way of coming up with those figures. Imagine trying to get reliable audience figures from somewhere like India with thousands of cable companies, and a massive population many in remote areas.
RT presumably are a member of BARB because they have a UK specific channel and sell advertising for it
JO
johnnyboy
Founding member
I love Al Jazeera English - think it's a marvellous service. But you never really hear about the internal problems and repression in Qatar.
TRT World is an impressive new channel. But you never really hear about the increasing secularisation of Turkey, one of the key founding blocks of the nation upon formation.
France 24 has never really pressed my buttons and that was set up to show to the world what the French government thinks.
RT has a deliberately disruptive agenda, very pro-Russian government of course, but it is actually an enjoyable channel to watch a lot of the time, particularly the finance guy ( I can't remember his name ).
Every station and broadcaster has an agenda. What I don't understand, as a slightly right-of centre libertarian guy, is why there is almost a collective bloodlust on the left about the death of Fox News in the UK but the very same people aren't railing against channels broadcast from China, for example. This is a nasty regime which uses brutality, force, repression, and theft against its people.
It's the suppression of opinions that leads to trouble like in Charlottesville, in my opinion. That's my two-penneth.
Now, let's start a campaign to get me kicked off TV Forum!
TRT World is an impressive new channel. But you never really hear about the increasing secularisation of Turkey, one of the key founding blocks of the nation upon formation.
France 24 has never really pressed my buttons and that was set up to show to the world what the French government thinks.
RT has a deliberately disruptive agenda, very pro-Russian government of course, but it is actually an enjoyable channel to watch a lot of the time, particularly the finance guy ( I can't remember his name ).
Every station and broadcaster has an agenda. What I don't understand, as a slightly right-of centre libertarian guy, is why there is almost a collective bloodlust on the left about the death of Fox News in the UK but the very same people aren't railing against channels broadcast from China, for example. This is a nasty regime which uses brutality, force, repression, and theft against its people.
It's the suppression of opinions that leads to trouble like in Charlottesville, in my opinion. That's my two-penneth.
Now, let's start a campaign to get me kicked off TV Forum!
JA
You use the word temporary, wasn't it's appearance in the UK originally only temporary? It was a 9/11 aftermath reaction
It was indeed, coming on 19.2E and 28E hours after the attacks FTA. Apparently viewer feedback led to a permanent place on Sky Digital behind the paywall.
Why on Earth did they even launch on 19.2E? Sky analogue was only a fortnight away from it's demise.
You use the word temporary, wasn't it's appearance in the UK originally only temporary? It was a 9/11 aftermath reaction
It was indeed, coming on 19.2E and 28E hours after the attacks FTA. Apparently viewer feedback led to a permanent place on Sky Digital behind the paywall.
ST
As to how much it costs, the content that was seen on the FOX Extra segments obviously weren't produced for nothing, but they were generally pretty cheaply produced. The original weather sequence was literally a constantly running computer so would probably have been cheaper overall.
That Fox Extra stuff is also shown on the 19.2E version as part of Movistar so it will still need to be produced, presumably its shown on the Sky Italia version too.
It was FTA so people across Europe using 19.2 would also have been able to watch it.
Ste
Founding member
As to how much it costs, the content that was seen on the FOX Extra segments obviously weren't produced for nothing, but they were generally pretty cheaply produced. The original weather sequence was literally a constantly running computer so would probably have been cheaper overall.
That Fox Extra stuff is also shown on the 19.2E version as part of Movistar so it will still need to be produced, presumably its shown on the Sky Italia version too.
Why on Earth did they even launch on 19.2E? Sky analogue was only a fortnight away from it's demise.
It was FTA so people across Europe using 19.2 would also have been able to watch it.
S7
Alan, in this case please address your genuine censorship concerns to the chief censor, Rupert F****** Murdoch.
Re: The left and the China paradox, I suppose it's because CCTV is less obnoxious than Fox. Possibly less distorted too.
(joking) (I think)
Re: The left and the China paradox, I suppose it's because CCTV is less obnoxious than Fox. Possibly less distorted too.
(joking) (I think)
NG
As to how much it costs, the content that was seen on the FOX Extra segments obviously weren't produced for nothing, but they were generally pretty cheaply produced. The original weather sequence was literally a constantly running computer so would probably have been cheaper overall.
I'm guessing compliance must also have been a cost - or at least an annoyance to the US teams...
Fox News had to comply with Ofcom rules and UK broadcast law (hence them coming off-air completely during the election voting window) and have had a number of Ofcom complaints upheld against them for various breaches.
I'd assumed someone in the Fox News or Sky hierarchy had to at least keep a weather eye on those issues daily - which would not have been zero cost?
noggin
Founding member
As to how much it costs, the content that was seen on the FOX Extra segments obviously weren't produced for nothing, but they were generally pretty cheaply produced. The original weather sequence was literally a constantly running computer so would probably have been cheaper overall.
I'm guessing compliance must also have been a cost - or at least an annoyance to the US teams...
Fox News had to comply with Ofcom rules and UK broadcast law (hence them coming off-air completely during the election voting window) and have had a number of Ofcom complaints upheld against them for various breaches.
I'd assumed someone in the Fox News or Sky hierarchy had to at least keep a weather eye on those issues daily - which would not have been zero cost?
NG
TRT World is an impressive new channel. But you never really hear about the increasing secularisation of Turkey, one of the key founding blocks of the nation upon formation.
Err - isn't it the decreasing secularisation that is the issue in Turkey, with an increasing strength of religious institutions, and a dilution of secular principles ?
noggin
Founding member
TRT World is an impressive new channel. But you never really hear about the increasing secularisation of Turkey, one of the key founding blocks of the nation upon formation.
Err - isn't it the decreasing secularisation that is the issue in Turkey, with an increasing strength of religious institutions, and a dilution of secular principles ?
IS
There is a difference between Fox News and channels like France 24, AJE or TRT.
Yes they do tend to avoid reporting negatively about their respective countries but outside of that they are doing proper serous journalism and are impartial, albeit with the hegemonic influence of the nation that it comes from. It's very much like the BBC World Service, it's a source of soft power. AJE in particular has a code of ethics on its website which it can be held up to.
Fox News is none of those things, it's a commercial domestic broadcaster that has a very blatant agenda and is partisan (although it makes great effort to persuade us that it's not). The laws in the US are different so that has made it totally at odds to the journalistic ethics that we, and most modern countries are used to on our broadcast media. There's also a lot of snobbery and culture shock about its brash tabloidy style.
Being a commercial entity makes it different as its essentially an outlet for a very rich person to influence politics and public opinion, rather than the rather soft influence that a state owned international broadcaster provides. Although it's worth remembering that Fox News isn't the creation of Murdoch, it was the late Roger Ailes who gave it its agenda and its format. Ironically with a Republican in the White House and Ailes gone it's turned into more of a state broadcaster than an actual state broadcaster
Yes they do tend to avoid reporting negatively about their respective countries but outside of that they are doing proper serous journalism and are impartial, albeit with the hegemonic influence of the nation that it comes from. It's very much like the BBC World Service, it's a source of soft power. AJE in particular has a code of ethics on its website which it can be held up to.
Fox News is none of those things, it's a commercial domestic broadcaster that has a very blatant agenda and is partisan (although it makes great effort to persuade us that it's not). The laws in the US are different so that has made it totally at odds to the journalistic ethics that we, and most modern countries are used to on our broadcast media. There's also a lot of snobbery and culture shock about its brash tabloidy style.
Being a commercial entity makes it different as its essentially an outlet for a very rich person to influence politics and public opinion, rather than the rather soft influence that a state owned international broadcaster provides. Although it's worth remembering that Fox News isn't the creation of Murdoch, it was the late Roger Ailes who gave it its agenda and its format. Ironically with a Republican in the White House and Ailes gone it's turned into more of a state broadcaster than an actual state broadcaster