IS
HD will normally have more of a delay then SD due to the extra processing time, although AJE is all HD too and would have had at least an extra satellite hop than Sky news on satellite
There's always been more of a delay on DTT than satellite, again that's due to processing time - all the encoding and decoding takes longer
How come the picture is quicker watching Al Jazeera on Sky+ than watching Sky News on Freeview?
There is also a huge delay when comparing Sky News on Freeview and Sky News HD (with the latter being behind).
There is also a huge delay when comparing Sky News on Freeview and Sky News HD (with the latter being behind).
HD will normally have more of a delay then SD due to the extra processing time, although AJE is all HD too and would have had at least an extra satellite hop than Sky news on satellite
There's always been more of a delay on DTT than satellite, again that's due to processing time - all the encoding and decoding takes longer
ST
I enjoyed the Leaders' Debate on Sky News last night, but it wasn't as well produced as the ITV programme last week.
Adam Boulton was not a particularly good moderator. He allowed the partcipants to talk over each other and wasn't very forceful when they had run out of time. Alistair Stewart was more forceful and injected a faster pace into the debate by allowing what appeared to be short responses rather than long diatribes.
The strap which included the question was quite a useful aide-mémoire for when some of the politicians went off on a tangent. I don't think it obstructed the view of anything important.
As for the set: it was dreadful! It looked like either a random collection of tail fin wreckage from a BA plane crash, or the remnant of a promotional stand from a BNP recruitment rally. I really thought they'd have tried harder as it was the first broadcast on the Sky News HD channel.
Adam Boulton was not a particularly good moderator. He allowed the partcipants to talk over each other and wasn't very forceful when they had run out of time. Alistair Stewart was more forceful and injected a faster pace into the debate by allowing what appeared to be short responses rather than long diatribes.
The strap which included the question was quite a useful aide-mémoire for when some of the politicians went off on a tangent. I don't think it obstructed the view of anything important.
As for the set: it was dreadful! It looked like either a random collection of tail fin wreckage from a BA plane crash, or the remnant of a promotional stand from a BNP recruitment rally. I really thought they'd have tried harder as it was the first broadcast on the Sky News HD channel.
JW
I tend to agree, guys. Adam Boulton was kinda clumsy and messy and, whilst not intrusive (the moderator shouldn't be intrusive in any case), he just didn't appear to command the scene in the way that Alastair Stewart did last week. Adam looked as though he wanted to hide behind a tree most of the time.
I watched the debate live on BBC World News (again, the output was a few seconds ahead of Sky's own output), but sterling picture quality and I loved the pizazz (sp?) outside when they projected those images and moving displays onto the exterior of the building. Very "Sky" indeed. We had no visual straps however on World (displaying the question) - the screen was entirely clutter free.
Ms Burley was loud and domineering as usual in her after-show analysis, although I did thank her for allowing that argument between Paddy Ashdown and David Milliband to proceed un-interrupted. That was almost better than the debate itself.
As for the candidates - I was astounded to learn that David Cameron was considered to be last night's winner. I really didn't think his performance was massively better than last week. He did speak directly down the camera a lot more, but in a kinda Alan Partridge / Bob Monkhouse kinda smarmy way. Brown - I believe - was technically better. However, I still personally think that Nick Glegg was the overall best performer and the most credible of all three.
Adam Boulton - alas - was not!
I watched the debate live on BBC World News (again, the output was a few seconds ahead of Sky's own output), but sterling picture quality and I loved the pizazz (sp?) outside when they projected those images and moving displays onto the exterior of the building. Very "Sky" indeed. We had no visual straps however on World (displaying the question) - the screen was entirely clutter free.
Ms Burley was loud and domineering as usual in her after-show analysis, although I did thank her for allowing that argument between Paddy Ashdown and David Milliband to proceed un-interrupted. That was almost better than the debate itself.
As for the candidates - I was astounded to learn that David Cameron was considered to be last night's winner. I really didn't think his performance was massively better than last week. He did speak directly down the camera a lot more, but in a kinda Alan Partridge / Bob Monkhouse kinda smarmy way. Brown - I believe - was technically better. However, I still personally think that Nick Glegg was the overall best performer and the most credible of all three.
Adam Boulton - alas - was not!
NG
noggin
Founding member
I think putting the three leaders closer together worked better than the greater separation (or apparent greater separation) on the ITV set, and I think shooting them against black rather than a lighting splash that resembled an 80s paint-effect was a better choice. However I wasn't a fan of the Union Flag deconstructed elements - though it is Sky's election brand - and it felt the lack of yellow was a bit unfair to the Lib Dems(!)
Anchoring Boulton to a desk was probably a good idea in one way - he's not a natural TV presenter and needs something to anchor him. However it meant he had his back to the public asking the questions - which was plain weird. His general presentation skills are far from great - he can't deliver lines from autocue naturally - but Sky couldn't have given the job to anyone else.
I felt that his moderation, mostly, was a bit lighter touch than Stewart (who seemed to be manically building his part for no reason), though the Telegraph jibe was completely out of order for that role. Jaw droppingly so.
The Kay Burley coverage before and after was appalling. I had to switch her off. Any pretence that Sky News made of being an unbiased broadcaster flies out the window when she's on screen. (If anyone has watched "OutFoxed" the doc exposing how Fox News actively supported Republican election efforts on-screen - I detect a very low level of the same insidious techniques arriving on Sky News... Really disappointing.)
Anchoring Boulton to a desk was probably a good idea in one way - he's not a natural TV presenter and needs something to anchor him. However it meant he had his back to the public asking the questions - which was plain weird. His general presentation skills are far from great - he can't deliver lines from autocue naturally - but Sky couldn't have given the job to anyone else.
I felt that his moderation, mostly, was a bit lighter touch than Stewart (who seemed to be manically building his part for no reason), though the Telegraph jibe was completely out of order for that role. Jaw droppingly so.
The Kay Burley coverage before and after was appalling. I had to switch her off. Any pretence that Sky News made of being an unbiased broadcaster flies out the window when she's on screen. (If anyone has watched "OutFoxed" the doc exposing how Fox News actively supported Republican election efforts on-screen - I detect a very low level of the same insidious techniques arriving on Sky News... Really disappointing.)
JW
Really? What about Messrs Thompson or Murnaghan or Standford?
- but Sky couldn't have given the job to anyone else.
Really? What about Messrs Thompson or Murnaghan or Standford?
MA
Really? What about Messrs Thompson or Murnaghan or Standford?
For a political debate, not to have had Adam Boulton would have been a professional kick in the teeth. He has been a political editor at Sky for over 20 years, he has regularly presented programming (despite not being a natural admittedly) and he has immeasurable experience. He was the only feasible choice and, for what it’s worth, I thought he did very well indeed with the exception of the Telegraph gaffe.
- but Sky couldn't have given the job to anyone else.
Really? What about Messrs Thompson or Murnaghan or Standford?
For a political debate, not to have had Adam Boulton would have been a professional kick in the teeth. He has been a political editor at Sky for over 20 years, he has regularly presented programming (despite not being a natural admittedly) and he has immeasurable experience. He was the only feasible choice and, for what it’s worth, I thought he did very well indeed with the exception of the Telegraph gaffe.
WW
That's a pretty low number for a nation of more than 60 million, isn't it? In the US, the second Obama-McCain debate in 2008 got an audience of 63.2 million viewers (in a nation of 307 million) -- although it was carried on all the major networks.
And in France, whose population is similar to that of the UK, the 2007 presidential debate got an audience of 20 million.
But even considering that not all viewers were able to watch yesterday's debate live, I would have expected a higher figure given all the publicity -- the event even received prominent coverage here in Slovenia.
Last night's got 4 million viewers between Sky News, Sky 3 and the BBC
That's a pretty low number for a nation of more than 60 million, isn't it? In the US, the second Obama-McCain debate in 2008 got an audience of 63.2 million viewers (in a nation of 307 million) -- although it was carried on all the major networks.
And in France, whose population is similar to that of the UK, the 2007 presidential debate got an audience of 20 million.
But even considering that not all viewers were able to watch yesterday's debate live, I would have expected a higher figure given all the publicity -- the event even received prominent coverage here in Slovenia.
Last edited by WW Update on 23 April 2010 11:11am
TR
The coverage on Sky was so hideously biased towards David Cameron, I hope people can see through their agenda. The Murdoch tabloids and Sky News constantly say how Gordon Brown performs miserably at these debates and how Cameron 'shone' and was a 'clear winner' - perhaps they think if they repeat it enough it'll become fact, and I fear some parts of the audience are taken in by that.
:-(
That's a pretty low number for a nation of more than 60 million, isn't it? In the US, the second Obama-McCain debate in 2008 got an audience of 63.2 million viewers (in a nation of 307 million) -- although it was carried on all the major networks.
And in France, whose population is similar to that of the UK, the 2007 presidential debate got an audience of 20 million.
But even considering that not all viewers were able to watch yesterday's debate live, I would have expected a higher figure given all the publicity -- the event even received prominent coverage here in Slovenia.
A digital channel was never going to get 10million for a debate like this. It could have quite easily been shown live on BBC Two, instead of a repeat at night.
Last night's got 4 million viewers between Sky News, Sky 3 and the BBC
That's a pretty low number for a nation of more than 60 million, isn't it? In the US, the second Obama-McCain debate in 2008 got an audience of 63.2 million viewers (in a nation of 307 million) -- although it was carried on all the major networks.
And in France, whose population is similar to that of the UK, the 2007 presidential debate got an audience of 20 million.
But even considering that not all viewers were able to watch yesterday's debate live, I would have expected a higher figure given all the publicity -- the event even received prominent coverage here in Slovenia.
A digital channel was never going to get 10million for a debate like this. It could have quite easily been shown live on BBC Two, instead of a repeat at night.