The Newsroom

Sky News | General Discussion

(January 2018)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
BF
BFGArmy
EastEngland posted:
The trend for non news programming is continuing with repeats of previously aired documentaries.

Today we have
A Plastic Voyage - 1.30pm - 2.00pm
Plastics in Paradise - 3.30pm - 4.00pm
Artic Peril - 8.00pm - 9.00pm

Friday we have scheduled
Dirty Business 9.00pm - 10.00pm (I believe this one is new?)

richard h posted:
Sky Ocean Rescue has changed the colour of the branding on the 1 year anniversary of the campaign - They seem to have dropped the little plastic bubble on the strap too.


*


I'd imagine these ones today are more to do with it being the first anniversary of their Ocean Rescue campaign than anything really.

If they suddenly start doing filler programmes at those times every week you may have more of a point.

In any case the amount of filler programmes still is really small fry compared to many news channels.
EastEngland, UBox and BBI45 gave kudos
EE
EastEngland
freddied056 posted:
Look - just because there are some fillers on Sky News, it doesn't mean anything. Sky are trying to promote a clear thing here - protecting our oceans from climate change and plastics. They are trying to convey a message


I actually support the Sky Ocean Rescue Campaign and they are doing a lot of good work.

Filling the back half hours or showing new documentaries has merit - People who switch over at the TOTH and see a repeated documentary instead will just switch over to the competition though I'd say if this is to become something that is not just a one off for the anniversary of Ocean Rescue.

BFGArmy posted:
I'd imagine these ones today are more to do with it being the first anniversary of their Ocean Rescue campaign than anything really.

If they suddenly start doing filler programmes at those times every week you may have more of a point.

In any case the amount of filler programmes still is really small fry compared to many news channels.


Essentially what I said in this post - Hopefully it's true, I totally agree with you.
EE
EastEngland
New graphics now being used on the website

*

Suggests that we could well see the channel start to use this style as has been hinted at by the promo video.
AG
AxG
I saw that and was going to post it here, just to moan about how uncentred it is.
WH
Whitnall
Sky News has an uncertain future the Guardian reports.

Quote:
The chief executive of Sky has cast further doubt on the future of Sky News, saying the service is no longer critical to the pay-TV broadcaster.

The future of Sky News potentially hangs in the balance after the UK regulator said on Tuesday that Rupert Murdoch’s ownership of the news service could block his £11.7bn bid for Sky because it would give him too much control over UK news media.

The deal would see the Murdoch family control the Times, Sunday Times, Sun, Wall Street Journal and Sky News, a situation the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) said would give them “too much influence over public opinion and the political agenda”.

Jeremy Darroch, the chief executive of Sky, told analysts on Thursday that the loss-making Sky News was not as important as it was when the company launched in the 1990s and was no longer a “critical” part of the pay-TV broadcaster’s business.

“Sky News is a great service. It’s very highly valued,” he told analysts following publication of Sky’s latest financial results. “It was more important in the overall mix of the company when we were launching, in the early days. It had a lot of brand presence. It was an area we could build in. I wouldn’t describe Sky News as critical to the business today. Indeed I wouldn’t really pick any part of our business as critical.”


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/25/sky-news-no-longer-critical-to-broadcaster-says-chief-executive

Seems to me like he is saying we will close it if we have to but we would rather not? between the lines.
MD
mdtauk
The new look Sky News appears as a cost saving endeavour. Loosing higher paid, experienced presenters. Downsizing the studios. It is clear that it is not seen as the heart of the operation, and with the upcoming sale to Disney, I guess they are trying to minimise how it shows up on the balance sheets.

Murdoch was probably the only reason Sky News lasted as long as it has, and as he is bowing out of Sky, the writing may be on the wall.
EE
EastEngland
The current plans and studios were designed way before any takeover by Disney was on the cards so that's just a complete co-incidence.

You're probably right though in relation to reducing costs - I can't see any other broadcaster purchasing it and keeping it on the same scale as it has been for the last 25 years or so, therefore making it leaner and a smaller operation with smaller studios and buildings and a lower wage bill probably makes it more attractive to buyers.

It's a shame because I really think we need a proper competitor to BBC News when it comes to a British run news service., but I doubt that is going to be the case a few years from now sadly judging by the way that things seem to be heading.

The apt words of JT and et-all being that changing studios was a good time to leave etc are very apt now - I wonder if anyone who left felt such a day was coming?
SK
skyviewer
EastEngland posted:
New graphics now being used on the website

*

Suggests that we could well see the channel start to use this style as has been hinted at by the promo video.

The Skynews YouTube and Twitter accounts have switched to the new logo background this evening. Potentially a sign of things to come
AN
all new Phil
I think if there were things to come, they would have come last week.
MA
mapperuo
mdtauk posted:
The new look Sky News appears as a cost saving endeavour. Loosing higher paid, experienced presenters. Downsizing the studios.


They have also recently reduced from 2 permanently leased transponders to just 1 for their satellite OBs. Though these are becoming more and more over 3G/4G anyway.
CA
cat
Whitnall posted:
Sky News has an uncertain future the Guardian reports.

Quote:
The chief executive of Sky has cast further doubt on the future of Sky News, saying the service is no longer critical to the pay-TV broadcaster.

The future of Sky News potentially hangs in the balance after the UK regulator said on Tuesday that Rupert Murdoch’s ownership of the news service could block his £11.7bn bid for Sky because it would give him too much control over UK news media.

The deal would see the Murdoch family control the Times, Sunday Times, Sun, Wall Street Journal and Sky News, a situation the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) said would give them “too much influence over public opinion and the political agenda”.

Jeremy Darroch, the chief executive of Sky, told analysts on Thursday that the loss-making Sky News was not as important as it was when the company launched in the 1990s and was no longer a “critical” part of the pay-TV broadcaster’s business.

“Sky News is a great service. It’s very highly valued,” he told analysts following publication of Sky’s latest financial results. “It was more important in the overall mix of the company when we were launching, in the early days. It had a lot of brand presence. It was an area we could build in. I wouldn’t describe Sky News as critical to the business today. Indeed I wouldn’t really pick any part of our business as critical.”


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/25/sky-news-no-longer-critical-to-broadcaster-says-chief-executive

Seems to me like he is saying we will close it if we have to but we would rather not? between the lines.


Load of absolute rubbish

Would they kiss goodbye to their ability to influence the news agenda, their CEO slots to talk about their ocean rescue campaign, their provision of news to every commercial radio station in the country, millions of users of their online news content, the chance to host leaders debates at their shiny campus... the only thing that lends them any serious credibility as a national/international broadcaster*, the list goes on... for what is less than the annual programme budget for Sky Living?

No. Of course they wouldn’t.

It’s a tactic with the CMA. Pretty ridiculous and transparent one at that.

*they have failed spectacularly at home grown original programming (where is their ‘Crown’ or ‘Transparent’?) and for all they’ve done with sports, it’s nothing someone else couldn’t easily replace.
Inspector Sands and Ratflump gave kudos
BR
Brekkie
How is he defining Sky News - would the closure necessarily of the channel mean the end of Sky News itself. Could it continue without the 24/7 news channel and be a major player in the online and app market, with potentially on demand content and possibly updates or even bulletins on other Sky channels?

Newer posts