Take the Asian Quake, within 10mins News 24 was on the line to its correspondents in the region. Then an hour later there were reports from upto and above 4 correspondents, with videolinks, phone and reports been sent back.
Reports within an hour? I don't think so.
Rachel Havey in Banda Ache
and Tim Willcox narrating a video report.
I must have missed Rachel, sorry, but none of the networks even had any pictures to talk over for at least an hour, and News 24 weren't the first to use them on screen either. And Tim Willcox was in London anyway, not "sending a report back".
I don't think either Sky News or News 24 is better - I just think they're different. People have different preferences as to how things are presented - both channels have a similar number of very good days where they're meeting the needs of their viewers well, and - to put it bluntly - bad days. It all comes out in the wash really.
Somebody earlier mentioned that News 24 was now getting more viewers than Sky. However I think this is down to Freeview. The BBC publicise it all the time on their bulletin, and I think there is a tendency for viewers who get freeview and who are not used to multi channel tv to not realise that there is anything outside the 'BBC box' if you know what I mean.
My aunt recently bought a freeview box and she didn't even realise that Sky News was on it.
I'm sad to say that Sky beats the living hell out of News 24. It's far punchier, far more relevant, demands your attention (as much as the breaking news whoosh might annoy many, it turns your head), and they are perfectionists at making news relevant (always going on about how news affects the viewer - "you will be paying more tax" "your petrol is going up").
BBC News 24 has access to an amazing array of correspondents, but loses out because it has to battle the rest of the Beeb to get them. News 24 appears to be low in the priority list, and therefore seems second-rate. Just last night they were stalling for about 10 minutes playing old clips for the earthquake coverage before playing an interview they'd blatantly recorded with one of their correspondents from BBC World.
I don't like Sky being the better news service - they're anti-union and owned by the same people as the horrendous Fox News service - but in this country at least, they are far superior.
BBC News 24 has access to an amazing array of correspondents, but loses out because it has to battle the rest of the Beeb to get them. News 24 appears to be low in the priority list, and therefore seems second-rate. Just last night they were stalling for about 10 minutes playing old clips for the earthquake coverage before playing an interview they'd blatantly recorded with one of their correspondents from BBC World.
Actually, News 24 is often given priority over BBC World. Having access to both N24 and World, I've noticed that correspondents are usually on BBC1 News or News 24 first, followed by an appearance on BBC World a little later. BBC World often air N24 interviews with correspondents, not vice versa.
Isn't BBC World there to make money anyway - surely if they air taped interviews from N24 it's going to save them cash on satellite bookings? I've always imagined World's buget must be a huge amount smaller than N24s.
Isn't BBC World there to make money anyway - surely if they air taped interviews from N24 it's going to save them cash on satellite bookings? I've always imagined World's buget must be a huge amount smaller than N24s.
Yep- last figures I heard were £13m for BBC World and about £50m for News 24 per annum.
There is no competition between the two- News 24 IS the BBC's flagship news channel (after all you can't really call World a rolling news channel anyway).
