I think Sky News are seriously taking the p*ss. Sure, the trail deserves some coverage, but they have devoted HUNDREDS of hours of air-time to this trial over the past three months what with their reconstructions etc.
The BBC covered it without too much hype or devoting ridiculous amounts of air-time to what is essentially a story for the trashy 'sleb' magazines such as Heat.
I've come to the conclusion that Sky News is no more reputable than it's sister publication, The Sun. Both pander to the braindead masses. Sky didn't used to be like this, but it's taken that road now and I don't see it pulling itself together in the near future, if at all!
I think Sky News are seriously taking the p*ss. Sure, the trail deserves some coverage, but they have devoted HUNDREDS of hours of air-time to this trial over the past three months what with their reconstructions etc.
The BBC covered it without too much hype or devoting ridiculous amounts of air-time to what is essentially a story for the trashy 'sleb' magazines such as Heat.
I've come to the conclusion that Sky News is no more reputable than it's sister publication, The Sun. Both pander to the braindead masses. Sky didn't used to be like this, but it's taken that road now and I don't see it pulling itself together in the near future, if at all!
what do chavs have to do with this? tenuous link if i ever saw one.
Anyway, somebody has written a blog on the TV coverage over on Media Guardian:
Quote:
By Neil McIntosh / USA 09:56pm
Waiting for tonight's Michael Jackson verdict gave us the chance to indulge in some serious TV news geekery. So let's get the obvious, cliched response out of the way. This was the OJ chase all over again tonight, not quite 11 years since the last one, but looking much the same as before.
All the channels cut to helicopter footage of Jackson's four vehicle SUV convoy slowly being waved out of his Neverland ranch by a long line of staff, and then watched as it made its way along the freeways to the courthouse in Santa Maria.
As those images filled our screens, each of the British news channels was living up to stereotypes in the background. So ITV News Channel did something cheap-looking, with lots of people on the phone and - it seems - none of their own people actually in California, relying instead on the US MSNBC network. The BBC managed to be rather more sober and, of course, big budget, with their correspondent going on matters like security and What Happens Next from Live Outside The Courthouse.
But Sky News took the biscuit, as usual with these big developing TV stories. Key was its quite Day Today-esque "Maximum Time Until Verdict" clock, in brash orange and red, counting down to the big news and filling a third of the screen.
They had to reset the clock at one point, when it became clear the Prince of Pop was going to turn up late, and then it was dropped entirely as Jacko made his final approach to the courthouse. But presenter Martin Stanford breezed past these setbacks with customary professionalism.
We heard Stanford and his team deploy a full, frightening arsenal of dead air-filling techniques. Like a great jazz musician, Stanford himself was able to riff on the barest, most abstract of bases. Dramatic talking points would be whispered into his earpiece or appear on his monitor, be picked up in mid flow, wrung dry and tossed away, the slightest crowd reaction or snatched shot of car rooftop from their "chase helicopter" following Jacko's entourage setting him off in a new direction.
Would the courthouse crowd get unruly? Was the convoy really carrying Jacko? Might he be a flight risk? Is this all a decoy run? Could he fall "ill" again, as he did at a vital stage of the trial? What of the chaos in the parking lot outside court? Would the media get their seats in court?
The key was simply to speak things, even gramatically incorrect things, with conviction. If you'll pardon the pun.
His colleagues - not quite as good - would insert the odd bum note, mind you, like when one revealed with some urgency that media were being told not to run into court. Images of stampeding newsmen hardly heightened the drama, given most will break into a trot for a free cup of coffee.
But, really, this was a masterful display from Sky. It almost came as a shock when something did actually happen, and an ill-looking Michael Jackson finally stepped from his vehicle outside the courthouse, ready to hear of his fate
Sky News tops 1 million for Jackson verdict
Sky News pulled in more than 1 million viewers for its live coverage of the Michael Jackson verdict last night, according to early ratings figures.
The channel was the clear destination of choice for viewers hungry for up-to-the-minute information on the trial outcome, beginning at 9pm with 178,000 viewers (1.1%) before rising significantly to 742,000 (4.6%) an hour later.
When the "not guilty" verdict was finally delivered at 10pm, an estimated 1.03 million (6.6%) were watching the station, almost double than rival News 24's 569,000 (3.7%).
I think ITV probably helped the news channels a lot.
Rather than going into news coverage, they just directed people to the ITV News Channel.
Given that ITVNC is not most people's news channel of choice, they'll have just gone over to Sky/News24 instead.
For what it's worth, I thought they all did quite well, but I found it much more appealing to watch Sky actually presenting their entire show from the place rather than the BBC having to sit in London and look on with some correspondents.
Why would Jackson offer the Chandlers a substantial pay-off if he had nothing to hide?
Innocent parties often pay out settlements in civil cases simply because it would be cheaper than the legal fees incured by going all the way to court.
I think the real question is, if your child was abused, would you really let your family be bought off? I doubt it, no matter how much was offered.
There is no doubt Jackson is a disturbed individual with an unhealthy interest in children and childhood, but a paedophile? Probably not. He's strange but not sinister, though I think his career is finished and he probably wont be having any more children staying at neverland.
I was interested to see a red and white Sky News 'Breaking News' strap appear over programming on Sky One yesterday evening alerting viewers that the verdict was imminent, and to switch to Sky News for more. Quite an effective bit of cross promotion (even though the banner was stretched to 16:9 and so not 4:3 safe) - at least it got me switching over. Does anyone know if any other Sky channels carried this?
I think Sky News are seriously taking the p*ss. Sure, the trail deserves some coverage, but they have devoted HUNDREDS of hours of air-time to this trial over the past three months what with their reconstructions etc.
The BBC covered it without too much hype or devoting ridiculous amounts of air-time to what is essentially a story for the trashy 'sleb' magazines such as Heat.
I've come to the conclusion that Sky News is no more reputable than it's sister publication, The Sun. Both pander to the braindead masses. Sky didn't used to be like this, but it's taken that road now and I don't see it pulling itself together in the near future, if at all!
Well it certainly worked for Sky News - over 1 million people tuned in, apparently their 4th highest audience ever!