Sky News

This kind of thing has been the case for years.
There is a lack of communication / interest / desire to consistently match the EPG with the output.
Sky News have traditionally also been very poor for years with deciding whether they are actually a rolling news channel or actually have 'programmes'. Their best attempts were a number of years ago when 'Sky News At Ten' for example was a distinct programme in its own right.

jli4637,

Out of interest, what is your actual reasoning behind placing certain presenters at certain times?
I mean, seeing as they all essentially do the same job, I'm interested as to why you think person A is better at a certain time than person B.

thats a stupid question surely. in one sense yes, they all read the news, but it's about more than that. The people presenting it are what makes the channel/programme likeable. and certain people suit different times and certain people make a nice pair.

Precisely. You cant place a serious and stern looking presenter to do Sunrise and a chirpy guy to the Sky News Tonight...

A number of reasons really, take Mark Longhurst and Matin Stanford, they have both done the same shifts for a couple of years now and, in my opinion at least, are very good at what they do. Style is also taken into account, e.g Martin Stanford for example suits a more informal setting, whereas Jeremy Thompson as a much more formal tone to his voice, which lends itself more to a 'flagship' program such as Live at Five. Once you get one presenter in each slot its easy, becasue you can just think of those who have similar personalities, or have a 'connection', the most obvious example of this would be Bob Friend and Vivien Creegor, they had a great connection which came across really nicely on screen. You also have to take into account the program too, eg SNTpm has a large breaking news content, and so you need strong and experienced presenters, hence my choice for chosing Anna over Ginny. Then after that you just kind of 'fill in the blanks' e.g. Sky News Tonight, which I always find is the hardest one, patly becasue the shift is so 'dead'. I prefered it pre-October where there was at least an element of surprise because you never knew really which presenters would be on when. If I had my way, I'd send Chris and Gilian back to reporting, put Steve Dixon on with a rotating partner of Ginny and Paula. You've got strength and confidence in Steve, Paula has notably improved since the relaunch, and Ginny just needs to keep her emotions out of things.

Hopefully we can see Julie back with Martin Stanford on Sky News Today AM. In my opinion along with Anna and Jeremy they were one of the strongest presenting teams.

Then they can put Anna Jones with Mark Longhurst on Sky News PM.

jli4637,

I can understand your thinking.
However I think personal opinion comes into it to a large extent.
I still believe that all the presenters do the same job as each other, and one could replace the other quite adequately. If one or more cannot handle the most demanding scenarios of breaking news etc at any time of day, they should not be working there as a presenter at all.
The issue of pairing teams is different, and yes, some work better with others.

Further, if Jeremy Thompson is 'so good' as to deserve the title of Presenter Of The Year, shouldn't he be on the breakfast slot which arguably is any channel's most important section of airtime ?

I said that exact same thing on the day of the relaunch. I do wish Julie and Martin are re-united. Theres a clip on TV-Ark of banter between producer/julie/martin at the newswall.. Julie and Martin just suit eachother on air. I used to lookforward to Sky News being put on every now and again during Today. Ala The original Today.

Can you imagine JT on Sunrise? No! But yes, your right personal preferance does come into it alot. For me, I think Kay Burley is great, although, I can see why perhaps many of you may not warm to her. People who can not break news coming in, no, probably shouldn't be working there, but its a question of whether people do it better than others. Some presenters just read it out, fair enough, but whats better is when you have a presenter who have the experience and the knowlegde to know all of the background information which enhances the news and puts it in perspective for the viewer.

Does anybody know whether James Rubin is going to lose his slot, whether he will be sacked, they could always use him for 'Weekend World' on 'Saturday Live' and have a debate between the reporter, James Rubin and Martin Stanford. It seems a shame to waste his talent, since they spent so much time bigging him up. It would allow them to have a resident 'global commentator' say doing a 9-5 job where he sits an comments on any global news stories of the day, for example today it woukld ahve been good to go more in-depth with the chinese dam story, he would be able to give a international perspective on stories. That way he would give Tim a bit of a break. Further, if sky WNT goes wil World news also go as they are produced by the same teams, it seems a waste for just a couple of people to be working on two hours of proramming to go out at 4am and 5am. Perhaps this will be where the cuts come in?

Question: If the cameras on the floor are motorised or remote controlled is there any reason why there can not be a wider variety of camera angles? using the mini-newswall on the front of the desk and taking the graphics from Live at Five, or the use of the 'wider' angle that is used on sportsline at 10:30pm would also be good for the top story.

If anybody that works at sky news is reading this.....please....take note...we want Martin and Julie on Sky News Today. Now!!

Why not? If the guy is so good !

Yes, no replacement for worldly experience there.

Yes, I can see the use of him doing that.

Is WNT & The Sky Report going to be replaced by rolling news again or do we not know yet? Would they replace them with other programmes such as going back to Littlejohn, 3D etc.... - considering they didn't work well before - probably not.

I wonder if Lunchtime Live & Technofile are safe?

Good point.
I wonder if any of the ATV shows will be safe?
The changeover of the bosses may also herald a more radical overhaul of presenters and programming.