Sky News

I think thats the plan...

Sky News is a constant investment, and makes no money in return. This new guy comes in with the sole task of bringing down sky news.

First is the reputation, that goes down the drain, then the viewership, and when that happens, the argument for keeping it going vanishes, and then the shareholders can loose it all together.

This is a sad day if it happens, and it is the beginning of the end for Sky altogether.

Hmm - Sky News has always been a very convenient figleaf for Murdoch. Whenever anyone criticises Sky in some way - he can point to his "excellent news service" - and MPs in particular are fans of Sky. Getting rid of it would lose a useful PR point...

On the other hand Sky may feel the benefit is less than it once was, and now it is not the market leader, it is less prestigious.

I don't see Sky ditching their News service - but if they make it pay-TV on Freeview, and the non-Sky Freesat launches soon, they may feel that Freesat viewers shouldn't get it.

They may also see lapsed Sky-subscribers still getting Sky News as a reason not to re-subscribe.

Who exactly is hinting at this and who is the Sky source - someone in the know or someone purely speculating?

If this is true - then would Sky still control the news output of Channel Five or would they have to let this go out to tender? They also have the railway stations gig at the moment as well - what would happen to that deal?

There also could be one hell of a scrap with who gets a job on Five News - indeed.

I also wonder if they would pull the plug on Sky Sports News if they would scrap Sky News?

While I do not think most folk are news junkies a news channel is viable in the UK, Ireland - indeed Europe.

I hope it does steers clear of subscription and if the 'rumours' are true of impending new titles and graphics why would they splash out on this when they are wanting to start a subscribe to view system shortly after this?

I think that old saying of If It ain't broke, why fix it? comes to mind.

Sky News has never made a penny since Day 1, I don't even know if it breaks even, originally Murdoch was happy to keep it going out of his own back pocket. But when Sky started to make mega money due to The Premier League, then the money would be used from the subscriptions coming in, and that's how it's been since.

It makes sense to have Sky News open to everyone, to get maximum impact, granted the Virgin Media situation didn't help, but that only affected a small amount of viewers in comparison to the amount of people who are watching on Freeview or Sky.

Granted Sky News has been taking the píss a little bit lately with the McCann's, but overall I find it a nice alternative to watch, but I wouldn't pay to watch it. It's not as if Sky need the money, I think I'm right in saying that it only costs £35 Million per year to run? That's not too much within hundreds of millions of pounds of profit.

Sky's sub revenue per user has been dropping since the 'mix pack' options were launched. News & Events Mix is worst performer.

As i undertand it, a cut down news active (without the live screen) will be launched as a promo and Sky News will be pay tv only.

Sky as also closing to new launches (other than the existing list, which is full of crap channels, radio and plus 1's) So no Virgin/ITV news channel, Setanta Sports News or anything else.

Well I think that Sky News is truly stuffed then!

The whole channel is now such a mess, why spend money on this huge new News Centre and on salaries, like the ridiculous amount they pay Tubby Holmes.
I got to work from home one day last week and had Sky News on in the background as normal, have to say the output is awful.
Sky Today for four hours is awful, Julie sitting at the desk, then news summaries from someone sitting right next to her!
Afternoon Live - no real issue, seems well done as Princess Kay does at least explore the studio
Live at 5 - this needs to be two presenters, JT needs someone alongside him to cope with the news.
7-12 - For the love of pete, please get two presenters on during this period, changing at 10 for Sky News at Ten.
Maybe on the half hour between 7-10 have programmes like Jeff Randall's show etc.
If Sky News is closing then it will be a dark day for journalism in this country, if it isnt then John Ryley must go, he has done nothing but stuff the channel since he took over.
Surely Sky makes enough money overall to subsidise the channel, Wonder what Nick Pollard is thinking about all this?

What does this mean? Are you saying that the Sky platform isn't allowing any new channels? I think Ofcom would have something to say about that.

I was thinking that too. Surely there is plenty of space on the transponders to allow more channels, and there is certainly space on the EPG for more in each genre.

Is someone hurling cuddly toys across the nursery because they're not top dog anymore?

I certainly cannot see Sky closing their platform to new launches. The TV world is becoming increasingly volatile and as a result many are closing. Would Sky really be stupid enough to unnecessarily stop new channels from launching and adding to Sky's offering?

As for Sky News - it'll be a very very sad day if it ever closes or becomes subscription only. I think that they consider the channel to be more sought after than it actually is.

They probably feel they need to give people a reason to get News and Events, I got Sky [partly for the news but all the channels I want are free, most of the majors are free to air anyway (Sky News, BBC News 24, CNN, Al Jazeera) so maybe by putting Sky News into the News and Events package they hope to attract people to it (not that you'd know it was free to air given their current marketing).

OMG Kay has met her match with Jon Gaunt talking talking talking lol.

I see what you are saying but is Sky News currently good enough to pay extra to watch it as part of a News and Events package?