AQ
I was going to come on and let rip, but having read the last dozen pages, I feel a bit sorry for them...
You know, having spent the whole of election night watching the director, vision mixers etc, I had the utmost respect for them. I really don't know what to make of this. It looks, well, just incompetant.
They have been late with 3 breaking news stories that I have seen tonight.
I love Jeremy, but what is going on with him?
I don't like the fact that people like Jayne Secker are allocated to the Sky Report.
They have in the past. They were the place to go for big events like the tsunami, which were much more professional anchored from a disaster zone.
I think they believed their own hype. The titles are one part. They believed that people would follow like sheep, because we were loyal viewers. In TV-land, loyalty is paper thin. I loved Sky News, but I will go where gives me nearest to the service I want.
Moz posted:
There are a lot of talented people at Sky who know how to run a news channel. It's certainly not showing, but it will.
You know, having spent the whole of election night watching the director, vision mixers etc, I had the utmost respect for them. I really don't know what to make of this. It looks, well, just incompetant.
They have been late with 3 breaking news stories that I have seen tonight.
I love Jeremy, but what is going on with him?
I don't like the fact that people like Jayne Secker are allocated to the Sky Report.
Moz posted:
I don't want them to fail, I want them to push the bar higher. Only that way will the general standard of all TV news get better.
They have in the past. They were the place to go for big events like the tsunami, which were much more professional anchored from a disaster zone.
I think they believed their own hype. The titles are one part. They believed that people would follow like sheep, because we were loyal viewers. In TV-land, loyalty is paper thin. I loved Sky News, but I will go where gives me nearest to the service I want.
CA
They have been late with 3 breaking news stories that I have seen tonight.
Presumably you missed:
- The delay on publication of the smoking ban, on Sky at about 6.40 with a live to Westminster, only turned up on News 24 at 7pm. That was an exclusive on Sky's part, because Jon Craig got the story before the others, and knew what he was talking about, in contrast to James Lansdale who popped up late not knowing really what was going on.
- The confusion surrounding EU guidance as to whether we should eat raw eggs and poultry. Again, Sky were ahead and live in Brussels as the news broke.
I'm sorry, Delenn, but you've made yourself sound like an utter tard with your last post. Perhaps the consideration that they've just moved into a huge new production centre, with a tonne of unfamiliar technology, new shows, new presenters, new formats, means that things are a tiny bit shaky at the moment.
Your assertion that they have destroyed a channel that you know and love, that it is a national disgrace, blah blah blah. Goodness me, anyone would think they were producing the thing just for you. As for them not getting everything right all the time, clearly your watching of 24 hour news has fuelled your demand for instant gratification. Why don't you wait a week - like any sensible person would do - or even a month and then examine it as closely again to see how they are getting on.
Delenn posted:
They have been late with 3 breaking news stories that I have seen tonight.
Presumably you missed:
- The delay on publication of the smoking ban, on Sky at about 6.40 with a live to Westminster, only turned up on News 24 at 7pm. That was an exclusive on Sky's part, because Jon Craig got the story before the others, and knew what he was talking about, in contrast to James Lansdale who popped up late not knowing really what was going on.
- The confusion surrounding EU guidance as to whether we should eat raw eggs and poultry. Again, Sky were ahead and live in Brussels as the news broke.
I'm sorry, Delenn, but you've made yourself sound like an utter tard with your last post. Perhaps the consideration that they've just moved into a huge new production centre, with a tonne of unfamiliar technology, new shows, new presenters, new formats, means that things are a tiny bit shaky at the moment.
Your assertion that they have destroyed a channel that you know and love, that it is a national disgrace, blah blah blah. Goodness me, anyone would think they were producing the thing just for you. As for them not getting everything right all the time, clearly your watching of 24 hour news has fuelled your demand for instant gratification. Why don't you wait a week - like any sensible person would do - or even a month and then examine it as closely again to see how they are getting on.
BC
What desktop alert software do you think is quicker? Sky or BBC?
There's not much to choose between them, sometimes Sky's first, sometimes the BBC one. The Sky alert isn't as fast as the TV version, but once you click through to the website, Sky have details up very quickly while the BBC one stays as just a line on the ticker with "more soon" for a lot longer.
You don't seem to get as many alerts with the BBC one, too.
Blake Connolly
Founding member
Antz posted:
Blake Connolly posted:
It did update automatically, just had my first new-look desktop news alert.
What desktop alert software do you think is quicker? Sky or BBC?
There's not much to choose between them, sometimes Sky's first, sometimes the BBC one. The Sky alert isn't as fast as the TV version, but once you click through to the website, Sky have details up very quickly while the BBC one stays as just a line on the ticker with "more soon" for a lot longer.
You don't seem to get as many alerts with the BBC one, too.
BL
Sorry, moz, but News 24 have been finding it hard to do anything professionally since 1997, let alone since their relaunch. As for the Sky revamp being 'disappointing'... for whom? You? I personally think it's a thousand times better than it was before, and still beats News 24 hands down.
Firstly, I'm nothing to do with News24, and would never work for the BBC.
I have actually worked for Sky News in the past, and currently work in the indi sector.
Right, now Cat you're making the mistake about using the wrong yardsticks.
Sky News has always been a loss leader, always a brand that is used to sell movies and sports for BSkyB
The channel burns its way through 45 million pounds a year.
This year, for the first time in its history, the boss was asked what he was going to do to make Sky News more popular, not more glossy, not more cutting edge, etc..
More popular, more viewers, more advertising, more reason for hte channel to exist.
In the past BSkyB has culled channels that have performed better than Sky News currently does.
Sky Two - 1.5 million viewers in its prime
[.tv] - the computer channel - peaked at 200,000 viewers
ATV, especially in news, doesn't work in Britain - CNN and News24 have used it since inception. It fails because OFCOM doesn't allow British television news to steer away from impartiality. Simply, right-wing Fox News bile isn't allowed.
While you're right, it'll take time to bed the format and changes down, it's also a MASSIVE failure. The likes of Eamonn Homes (1 million pounds a year) and James Rubin (isn't London based) are not going to stick around for ever.
They were brought in as the big name pullers, the people who will make column inches and by association bring NEW viewers.
So here's the dilemma. The service viewers turned to for breaking news (when there was a breaking news strap up every 10 minutes) which set them apart from the ATV news channels has gone, to be replaced by another ATV news channel with a few celebs (who manage to raise another 6000 viewers), and a host of unknown presenters.
I'm sorry, walk into any British street and ask them who they trust telling them the news Sir Trevor McDonald or Julie Etchingham? (Jeremy Thompson isn't even on 5 News, so I'm being kind)
Pollard was the first to admit he was worried that people only turned to the channel for breaking news, and couldn't be arsed at other times.
Cat - WHAT HAS SKY NEWS DONE TO MAKE IT MUST SEE TELEVISION OVER E4, BBC1, SKY SPORTS or even ITV3?
cat posted:
Sorry, moz, but News 24 have been finding it hard to do anything professionally since 1997, let alone since their relaunch. As for the Sky revamp being 'disappointing'... for whom? You? I personally think it's a thousand times better than it was before, and still beats News 24 hands down.
Firstly, I'm nothing to do with News24, and would never work for the BBC.
I have actually worked for Sky News in the past, and currently work in the indi sector.
Right, now Cat you're making the mistake about using the wrong yardsticks.
Sky News has always been a loss leader, always a brand that is used to sell movies and sports for BSkyB
The channel burns its way through 45 million pounds a year.
This year, for the first time in its history, the boss was asked what he was going to do to make Sky News more popular, not more glossy, not more cutting edge, etc..
More popular, more viewers, more advertising, more reason for hte channel to exist.
In the past BSkyB has culled channels that have performed better than Sky News currently does.
Sky Two - 1.5 million viewers in its prime
[.tv] - the computer channel - peaked at 200,000 viewers
ATV, especially in news, doesn't work in Britain - CNN and News24 have used it since inception. It fails because OFCOM doesn't allow British television news to steer away from impartiality. Simply, right-wing Fox News bile isn't allowed.
While you're right, it'll take time to bed the format and changes down, it's also a MASSIVE failure. The likes of Eamonn Homes (1 million pounds a year) and James Rubin (isn't London based) are not going to stick around for ever.
They were brought in as the big name pullers, the people who will make column inches and by association bring NEW viewers.
So here's the dilemma. The service viewers turned to for breaking news (when there was a breaking news strap up every 10 minutes) which set them apart from the ATV news channels has gone, to be replaced by another ATV news channel with a few celebs (who manage to raise another 6000 viewers), and a host of unknown presenters.
I'm sorry, walk into any British street and ask them who they trust telling them the news Sir Trevor McDonald or Julie Etchingham? (Jeremy Thompson isn't even on 5 News, so I'm being kind)
Pollard was the first to admit he was worried that people only turned to the channel for breaking news, and couldn't be arsed at other times.
Cat - WHAT HAS SKY NEWS DONE TO MAKE IT MUST SEE TELEVISION OVER E4, BBC1, SKY SPORTS or even ITV3?
MO
Ah! Good to see Cat back on form. I think he was shocked for 40 odd pages, but he's talked himself round that his beloved channel is great and has let rip!
And what seemed to set him off? Me saying that people were judging too early, and that it'd get better. Do you disagree with that Cat? Do you think people are right to judge now? Don't you think it'll get better?
And what seemed to set him off? Me saying that people were judging too early, and that it'd get better. Do you disagree with that Cat? Do you think people are right to judge now? Don't you think it'll get better?
RO
We want your views, email news@sky.com
Moz posted:
Do you disagree with that Cat? Do you think people are right to judge now? Don't you think it'll get better?
We want your views, email news@sky.com
RJ
Im not cat, but A news channel is a totally differnt kettle of fish to E4, BBC1 and Sky Sports. It delievers news, and features. It is must see TV when breaking news happens (7/7, 9/11 ect), aswell as that it keeps people informed on what is goin on in the world instead of waiting until 1/6/10 ect.
E4= Entertainment channel, no news, just comedy, drama ect
Sky Sports= thats a no brainer, so im stopping
theblokewhatwritesthenews posted:
Cat - WHAT HAS SKY NEWS DONE TO MAKE IT MUST SEE TELEVISION OVER E4, BBC1, SKY SPORTS or even ITV3?
Im not cat, but A news channel is a totally differnt kettle of fish to E4, BBC1 and Sky Sports. It delievers news, and features. It is must see TV when breaking news happens (7/7, 9/11 ect), aswell as that it keeps people informed on what is goin on in the world instead of waiting until 1/6/10 ect.
E4= Entertainment channel, no news, just comedy, drama ect
Sky Sports= thats a no brainer, so im stopping
AQ
I'm going to ignore that.
Remember they did it. They did not have to do the studio, graphics change, personnel/line-ups change, ATV programming all at the same time. They chose to, so apologies for not cutting them tons of slack.
But they are, aren't they?
No actually. I am just working a lot of hours at the moment on a massive project at work, and I would like a decent news bulletin at whatever time I happen to get a chance to go home. Thus, I am a bit more grouchy than normal.
Hmmmm. Let's see. Have I stopped watching yet? No.
Have I been slagging off *everything*? No.
Have I claimed News 24 is the best thing since sliced bread? No.
Do I feel I am less likely to put Sky News on through my Sky Gnome than I would have done a week ago (if I had one then obviously)? At the present rate, yes.
I do feel there has been a significant shift of focus, away from an agenda I liked to one I dislike. A national disgrace. No, there are far more important things that deserve that label.
cat posted:
but you've made yourself sound like an utter tard with your last post.
I'm going to ignore that.
cat posted:
Perhaps the consideration that they've just moved into a huge new production centre, with a tonne of unfamiliar technology, new shows, new presenters, new formats, means that things are a tiny bit shaky at the moment.
Remember they did it. They did not have to do the studio, graphics change, personnel/line-ups change, ATV programming all at the same time. They chose to, so apologies for not cutting them tons of slack.
cat posted:
Goodness me, anyone would think they were producing the thing just for you.
But they are, aren't they?
cat posted:
As for them not getting everything right all the time, clearly your watching of 24 hour news has fuelled your demand for instant gratification.
No actually. I am just working a lot of hours at the moment on a massive project at work, and I would like a decent news bulletin at whatever time I happen to get a chance to go home. Thus, I am a bit more grouchy than normal.
cat posted:
Why don't you wait a week - like any sensible person would do - or even a month and then examine it as closely again to see how they are getting on.
Hmmmm. Let's see. Have I stopped watching yet? No.
Have I been slagging off *everything*? No.
Have I claimed News 24 is the best thing since sliced bread? No.
Do I feel I am less likely to put Sky News on through my Sky Gnome than I would have done a week ago (if I had one then obviously)? At the present rate, yes.
cat posted:
Your assertion that they have destroyed a channel that you know and love, that it is a national disgrace, blah blah blah.
I do feel there has been a significant shift of focus, away from an agenda I liked to one I dislike. A national disgrace. No, there are far more important things that deserve that label.