Sky News

WARNING RANT ALERT

I'm sorry but how much has Murdoch paid the Royal Television Society to name his wet drip of a news channel as 'News Channel of the Year'
The standard of journalism, presentation, technology has ebbed away over the past 18 months and has left Sky News looking like Fox News UK.
In the past, Sky had TWO anchors, proper news agendas, and an approach you could warm to and trust.
Now, its one anchor for four hours, with some poor munchkin reading the headlines and what Hillary from Bristol thinks about anti-social behavour.
The news agenda has been frittered away, in the past 12 months bulletins have been led with Britney Spears, Amy Winehouse and the other z listers no one really gives a hoot about.
Talks of saving money comes despite seeing people like Holmes and Murnaghan arrive on the channel, they could not have come cheap!
The company builds a huge news centre, with numerous presenting positions and now you are lucky to see two or three positions used during a day.
Decent journos and Sky stalwarts like Martin Stanford, Mark Longhurst and Paula Middleurst have been shunted away, programmes have been devised and axed within months of each other.
And what does the channel do when there is major breaking news, such as the death of Benazhir Bhutto? they go double-headed with two anchors!
The 2005 relaunch was brave, bold and put Sky News at the head of the game against BBC Snooze24, now both swim in a pool of mediocrity.
People do not need the same news stories every 15 mins, headlines yes, but not 15 minute repetitive cycle,
I cannot be bothered with this channel anymore and I sincerely hope it closes before we end up with Fox News UK.
There is no creative thought, just a pandering to the egos of princess Kay, Eammon Holmes and the like.
And now what are they doing to improve? going back to two anchors, introducing fresh shows to break up the boring schedule?
No, they have recruited ballet dancers to improve anchors posture and 'make them more authoritive'!
So Ryley saves money by employing as few presenters as possible and then fritters it away on pointless gimmicks like this!
I wish I was John Ryley - getting paid handsomely for ripping a former quality news channel to bits must be like taking candy from a baby.
Apologies for the post, I could not contain my feelings any longer.

This makes me raise the question - what exactly do people want from a news channel? I get the impresson people want a News At Ten type programme every 30mins 24/7.

I think people get blurred between how news has to be done on a news channel, and that of a programme on lets say ITV1.

Two presenters with a bit of chemistry between them would be a start. Then how about subtle graphics and decent titles?

Do Sky ever rotate the desk now, or has it been locked in position in front of the screen for the last few months?

There was something floating around towards the end of the closure of the News Channel that with them wanting to add ITV4 (and subsequently CITV) to freeview, they needed the space, and said that one of the things that they could do would be to air the channel as a quarter screen (I suppose it would look something similar to watching a channel through teletext).

I was also thinking along the lines of a smaller studio with locked off cameras so that you wouldn't need the production staff as much.