AJ
I'm sure he would have probably been around Sky Centre for those 9 hours, so why not have him on air?
Who knows - staffing issues may have been a factor. The only people who know are those in Sky Centre.
Luke posted:
Good as he may be, is there any reason for him to be on for up to 9 hours? Although i notice he's now been joined by Juliette Foster.
I'm sure he would have probably been around Sky Centre for those 9 hours, so why not have him on air?
Who knows - staffing issues may have been a factor. The only people who know are those in Sky Centre.
GR
I'm sure he would have probably been around Sky Centre for those 9 hours, so why not have him on air?
Who knows - staffing issues may have been a factor. The only people who know are those in Sky Centre.
Your making it sound like a prison.
Nothing gets out the walls of the
Sky Centre
mohahahaaaa
AJ posted:
Luke posted:
Good as he may be, is there any reason for him to be on for up to 9 hours? Although i notice he's now been joined by Juliette Foster.
I'm sure he would have probably been around Sky Centre for those 9 hours, so why not have him on air?
Who knows - staffing issues may have been a factor. The only people who know are those in Sky Centre.
Your making it sound like a prison.
Nothing gets out the walls of the
Sky Centre
mohahahaaaa
MA
I've often wondered why Juliet Foster isn't more high-profile than she is. I don't often watch Sky but whenever she's on she is pretty impressive, the best of the lot - calm, with the gravitas I think most people like in a newsreader, without being stuffy and boring or making fatuous comments in an attempt to be liked by the viewer. I didn't see her on Boxing Day morning 2004 when she dealt with the breaking news of the tsunami alone for the first couple of hours, but I hear she did excellently and I can well believe it.
DU
The sooner Pollard goes the better IMO- he's turning into a walking disaster. Rubin's show is a gonner, and very soon.
Which is why Mr Pollard you spend half your time complaining about it!
This argument is so crap it barely merits consideration- presumably we'll ignore the years when more people were buying Sky TV than Freeview? Presumably we won't say that these people were more likely to adopt Sky News than News 24 because they were 'younger, more liberal' people?
The only way he can get this argument to stick is if Sky News wasn't on Freeview. Well, last time I looked, it is and so it's basic competition across the platforms.
And he's losing.
Diddums.
And he spent £20m relaunching the channel, only to see its ratings drop (something he's finally admitted after a few monts of indifference:)
I really don't see why he's waiting for Airey to give him the boot.
Londoner posted:
Quote:
Big name signings, including Holmes and Rubin, are safe, he says categorically. This despite Rubin's ratings being so low they have almost fallen off the radar.
The sooner Pollard goes the better IMO- he's turning into a walking disaster. Rubin's show is a gonner, and very soon.
Quote:
The reason, according to Pollard, is simple: 'The most important factor in this is Freeview.'
Freeview boxes are significantly outselling Sky. 'News 24 clearly does better than us in Freeview homes, says Pollard. 'People who get Freeview are more likely to be traditional terrestrial viewers. They are older and more conservative, so when they do get multi-channel TV they are more likely to watch News 24. It's frustrating, but it's the world we're in. The last thing in the world we'd do at Sky is complain about it.'
Freeview boxes are significantly outselling Sky. 'News 24 clearly does better than us in Freeview homes, says Pollard. 'People who get Freeview are more likely to be traditional terrestrial viewers. They are older and more conservative, so when they do get multi-channel TV they are more likely to watch News 24. It's frustrating, but it's the world we're in. The last thing in the world we'd do at Sky is complain about it.'
Which is why Mr Pollard you spend half your time complaining about it!
This argument is so crap it barely merits consideration- presumably we'll ignore the years when more people were buying Sky TV than Freeview? Presumably we won't say that these people were more likely to adopt Sky News than News 24 because they were 'younger, more liberal' people?
The only way he can get this argument to stick is if Sky News wasn't on Freeview. Well, last time I looked, it is and so it's basic competition across the platforms.
And he's losing.
Diddums.
And he spent £20m relaunching the channel, only to see its ratings drop (something he's finally admitted after a few monts of indifference:)
Quote:
'For four weeks before the launch we were absolutely neck-and-neck. In the 11 weeks since, we have been 0.54 per cent compared with their 0.58,' Pollard concedes. 'They have crept slightly ahead.'
I really don't see why he's waiting for Airey to give him the boot.
TW
The sooner Pollard goes the better IMO- he's turning into a walking disaster. Rubin's show is a gonner, and very soon.
What are the latest figures for Rubin's hour?
Dunedin posted:
Quote:
Big name signings, including Holmes and Rubin, are safe, he says categorically. This despite Rubin's ratings being so low they have almost fallen off the radar.
The sooner Pollard goes the better IMO- he's turning into a walking disaster. Rubin's show is a gonner, and very soon.
What are the latest figures for Rubin's hour?
ST
The sooner Pollard goes the better IMO- he's turning into a walking disaster. Rubin's show is a gonner, and very soon.
What are the latest figures for Rubin's hour?
Do not know but they cannot be good as he is a walking talking liability to sky.
Time Warp posted:
Dunedin posted:
Quote:
Big name signings, including Holmes and Rubin, are safe, he says categorically. This despite Rubin's ratings being so low they have almost fallen off the radar.
The sooner Pollard goes the better IMO- he's turning into a walking disaster. Rubin's show is a gonner, and very soon.
What are the latest figures for Rubin's hour?
GE
I can't remember exactly who the interviewee was, but Martin Popplewell was speaking to a senior Lib Dem (party chair?), and asked if there were any other bits of Lib Dem gossip that he might want to share. His response was along the lines of "Yes, there probably are, but you know as well as I do that this country has quite strict libel laws". It was just a bit of good-humoured banter, and I'm sure the Lib Dems haven't been up to anything worse than any other party...
thegeek
Founding member
dodrade posted:
When the Mark Oaten story broke last night the presenter seemed to imply in an interview that he had been expecting another sex scandal story to break instead. Anyone know what that might be?
JO
I can't remember exactly who the interviewee was, but Martin Popplewell was speaking to a senior Lib Dem (party chair?), and asked if there were any other bits of Lib Dem gossip that he might want to share. His response was along the lines of "Yes, there probably are, but you know as well as I do that this country has quite strict libel laws". It was just a bit of good-humoured banter, and I'm sure the Lib Dems haven't been up to anything worse than any other party...
Yes, It was Martin Popplewell. He said that line whist talking to a editor from the News of the World.
thegeek posted:
dodrade posted:
When the Mark Oaten story broke last night the presenter seemed to imply in an interview that he had been expecting another sex scandal story to break instead. Anyone know what that might be?
Yes, It was Martin Popplewell. He said that line whist talking to a editor from the News of the World.