How Would You Restore Sky News?

What makes those programmes ATV? To my mind, they are simply presenter-led rolling news programmes. Having a 'named' presenter in a regular slot doesn't make it ATV.

It's the stories that are used and the way the programme is set out e.g. in Lunchtime Live - human interest stories etc. Live at 5 desgined to be a fast paced info-rich digest of the days events. Ok so Live at 5 hasn't really worked for whatever reason but bear in mind the following....

(And to Moz) - Lunchtime Live represents one of sky's biggest gains in terms of viewers since October 2005. So obviously there is a place for ATV (so long as it is done in the right way)


In response to a point raised earlier...Murdoch would not put sky news as a pay service. It suits him to have the channel as FTA - lets him get his message out to more people.

The Multi-Channel Summary of Share of Audience for w/e 17 December 2006 is out, this was a major week for the two news channel as its was the week Suffolk Killings made headline as another two bodies were found bringing the total to 5, both channel when mad over this story with Sky pulling out all the stop. But the ratings are bad news for Sky News as once where it use to trash BBC News 24 when a major breaking news story breaks, it doesn't anymore.

Sky News
Share - 0.7% (week before 0.4%)
Average Weekly Viewing - 0:10 mins (0:07 mins)

BBC News 24
Share - 0.7% (0.6%)
Average Weekly Viewing - 0:11 mins (0:09 mins)

Right, here are some of my thoughts.

Basically all the 'high profile' presenters who were given solo anchored shows were all part of the best pairings, and since then the new pairings have all been rather dull. Added to this the 'back to basics' format of the rolling news shows, it creates a rather dated approach to news presentation.

IMO Live at 5 needs to go, the evenings need a new more 'drive' style of show.. Jeremy just doesn't suit a single anchored porgramme. They need to develop the pairings again, put Julie back with Martin. Although Kay works well on her own - she was always great with Mark Longhurst.

To be honest, I was disappointed with the presenters they poached for the relaunch. Holmes was a big name, as was Rubin in a way, but the other presenters were essentially 'nobodies', and so their arrival lacked impact. Anna Jones is good though, if a little dull.

Lunchtime Live, and Martin's shows are good. 'Sky news with a twist'. They are different enough, but still very much Sky News.

Sunrise is a bit, well, nothing at the mo. I just can't warm to Lorna - she's polished, but like so many, is just forgettable. I'm not that keen on Eamonn, but I'd be tempted to make it more like Lunchtime Live with Eamonn as sole anchor, with another presenter doing the headlines, and news summaries etc. Maybe cut it back to just 2hrs from 7am with a straight news prog before.

Thats my thoughts, anyway.

I think having a NewsBrief at 6am, with just Lorna would be good. High news content, no trash with business summaries - something they don't have on Sunrise at the mo.

I like the idea of Eamonn on his own to a certain extent, but i think his inability to do anything vaguely serious would just make the slot GMTV from a balcony.

I'm not really sure what Sunrise should be. I don't think it should be all fluff - as thats done, you can't beat GMTV at their own game, but then there is not really a market for a but of news and fluff later on as that is what the BBC do. At the same time I wouldn't want a just news service from sky in the morning as that would just lose them viewers further.

I don't think sky have a bad apckage, it's just a little rough round the edges. If they give viewers an alternative, building on the friendly yet fast-paced setting which they built up prior to 2005, i.e. using the newswall, presenting from the newsroom more. Then they won't be far off.

I'd also try and get away keeping Breaking news on screen for too long, despite the fact that news 24 seem to be doing the same thing as well. I would probably put breaking news into the ticker after about 10-20 minutes if it's a major story. I would flash the ticker red too when this breaking news comes past on the ticker - a la News 24.

I'm not saying that they should be copying News 24, but just as they picked up on several ideas, standing up, in studio screens (newswall type things), the ticker etc I think they should now pick up on what they are doing

I think someone has pointed this out already, so at the risk of repeating what has already been said...

One of the main attractions of Sky News since its creation has been the use of presenter 'teams' - two people, always presenting alongside each other, in fixed slots, at regular times, with a good on-screen relationship.

Think of 1999/2000 (vague memory here, but i'll try)

Martin Stanford and Kate Garraway on Sunrise, Simon McCoy and Vivienne Creegor on in the afternoon, Kay Burley and Jeremy Thompson in the early evening, and Bob Friend and Anna Botting late.

Now what do we have? Fatty (on and off) with Lorna thingy (sometimes) or another young female who isn't very good. Then Anna Jones and the perennial Colin Brazier, bit of Kay Burley in the middle, then back to Colin Brazier but this time with a different woman, then Jeremy Thompson sometimes with Anna Botting sometimes without, then Martin Stanford, then Martin Stanford and that other woman, then that other woman on her own.

Not exactly a coherent line up, is it.

I'm a little behind with this thread, but for me the difference between the two was underlined last week.

I work in an 24-hour office where we have a news channel on during the day. 80% of the time it's tuned to Sky purely out of habit (it's always been that way for 10 years plus), but occasionally and increasingly News 24 gets an outing (someone prefers it so changes over, someone gets bored of Sky's style, or maybe the night shift had it on and no-one changes it)

Last Thursday, there were two ongoing "news" stories - Celebrity Big Brother and the stormy weather hitting the country. Then the BBC Licence fee story broke in the afternoon. We had Sky on that day, and it seemed like wall-to-wall Jade Goody. You could have been forgiven for thinking nothing else was happening. It was a real pleasure to switch News 24 on when I got home and see the news - as opposed to the cheap tabload trash (sorry, but that's what it is) that Sky push out. I sometimes wonder how they can call themselves a news channel.

The same way The Sun calls itself a newspaper.

Sky should act quickly now. News 24 are way ahead in several ways

Content
Graphics/Presentation
Breaking News - Fast, the music that follows the news grabs your attention unlike Skys lame swish
Music - Modern, pacey, dramatic, newsy
Presenters - They seem to be alive, and good banter (do Sky get their presenters from the grave?)