Sky News

We were talking about ITV anyway!

I agree with News Update's comments and think the rant is justified, as Sky News used to give us a stable diet of journalism.

It is a crying shame yet again that something that was held with such high regard is going down the pan so rapidly...however, I think that many news channels, indeed programmes, are spending a lot of air time reporting on z listers. The new daytime light hearted look and content of Five News mirrors this ethos.

The sad thing is that with this award, the channel will see this a thumbs up for continuing pottering along with a sub standard output. It may not be Fox News in name but it is Fox News in content.

I now choose CNN International and Al Jazeera English as my news channels.

Their over-doing the flashes this morning aren't they? By flashes I mean the sound effect and screen wipe which is usually used at the TOTH just before the VO. They've used into and out of the weather, and before and after the Oscars news this morning. Its very annoying actually.

A little harsh - as someone who regularly watches Fox to confirm just how bad it is - Sky News is nowhere near reaching the appalling depths of bias and poor journalism that Fox News has plumbed.

I agree that recent changes have weakened it - and sometimes the story choice and mix is not what it once was - but when they do political and world news it is still very much done in a responsible journalistic manner, not in a Fox News way...

CNNI are having a stonking US Primary coverage season - doing really well - and they are my first choice for US coverage. However Al Jazeera, whilst very competent and very laudable in its coverage of Africa and the Middle East, still seems just that bit dull and worthy. They do decent reporting and packaging - but seldom do I see anything exceptional in content terms. Sure in access terms they get some amazing stuff - but they seldom lift it to another level.

I have to say - in packaging terms - the BBC and ITN still do a very good job - with well crafted, well scripted reports on occasions, which lift their coverage to another level.

Often AJE just seems a bit bland and workmanlike.

I would still turn to Sky News for a major breaking story. It's what they do best.

On the other hand, Dustin the Turkey has just been on live. I'm glad there are still some people left at Sky News with a sense of humour.

I would have done a few years ago - these days I go to News 24 and then if they drop the ball I see if Sky are doing a better job. Sky are no longer my first choice - they get scooped increasingly often by the BBC, and are often, unlike previous years, not the first to get live pictures and reporters on scene on domestic stuff.

For overseas breaking News I'd check out News 24, then CNNI, then Sky, and possibly AJE as well.



He was on the One Show last week when Westlife were on... Will he win tonight - that is the big question!

Great interview,i loved when Dustin asked if he could have Adam Boulton's autograph or Kay Burley's phone number.

Must say i have quite enjoyed Andrew Wilson's show today,he seems more relaxed than usual,very comfortable in what he is doing.

I agree completely with youor sentiments- people fuss over whether sky is Fox News - you'll know when it's Fox News, it'll be the day when the Attack of the Heads ends and the Attack of Kay Burley's ass, legs and clevage begins.

I think yesterday proved (with the Steve Wright sentencing) that they've still got it, they can deliver decent rolling coverage with exclusives, well polished and considered reports,and have the pictures, and the opinions and the debates - just like they always used to.

I think the problem is aesthetically buffing it up a bit, and making that leap to attempt to stand out from a much more competitive BBC News 24. I'm not suggesting that they have to be all jazz-hands and showbiz, but sky news has always been abit more pantomine-ish than News 24, it has always had the big newswall, the big openers, the OTT v/o's, and now they have a big studio too - it is just a matter of using it, and making that statement, that we stand for rolling news, for breaking news, for a fuller broader picture - but we'll do it differently to everybody else.

Indeed - or when Sky suddenly start showing total political bias in their reporting, and start becoming a xenophobic channel dominated by "personalities" with "opinions" and with no room for any form of reasoned debate on any subject...

I despise Fox News and all it stands for, particularlys its role in the demise of a well informed US populace... I don't despise Sky News, and I hope I never will.


Yep - the Steve Wright case is a good test of covering a story you KNOW will happen with only a small number of outcomes, and one that you can prepare for. Any decent news channel should be able to produce decent explainers and backgrounders - though often the quality of guest and "think piece" is the distinction between good and very good.



Yep - though I think Sky's OTTness is beginning to grate now that the audience is exposed just as much to the lower, key and more understated, yet in some ways less "traditional" News 24.

I think that one of the masterstrokes of BBC News branding of the last 10 years or so has been the adoption of a very contemporary music package, that doesn't have the pomposity and Day-Today-ness of some of the more overblown Sky packages. It allows 24 to appear both more contemporary and less cliched than Sky can appear. It also gives 24 a much more British/European feel, whereas Sky still feels a bit American/Australian to me - all brass and front and no substance.

Sky have always been good at injecting (slightly fake) drama into their reporting of Breaking News - but they started to blow it a bit when they were overdoing it, so that everything, and thus nothing, was breaking news. They also have to be very careful not to overdo it when 24 have already broken the news. Increasingly you see a story broken on 24, flip to Sky a few minutes later to see them break it, but they do it in such an excited and dramatic manner (when they aren't breaking it first) that if you've seen both 24's lower-key approach AND get there first, Sky can appear a little false - desperate even.

Oh I definitely agree with what you say about the breaking news, and yes, alot of people take the mick about the straps and the sound effects and everything, and fair enough I appreciate that is not to everyone’s taste, but then that is Sky News in all it's glory, this I guess is reflected all the way down to the presenters and reporters themselves.

For example you have people such as Martin Stanford, Tim Marshall, Kay Burley, JT (at times) all of whom I suspect would be at home in a local am-dram production – indeed Martin is. People who ultimately struggle to pull out these dramatic undertones in their presenting ultimately go and 'flourish' elsewhere. The Julie Etchinghams of this world spring to mind - yes a talented and qualified journalist, somebody who will undoubtedly go far, but she simply, and unfortunately could not hack it solo in a way that Sky wanted her to, e.g. in the style of Kay and JT (although at times he is shakey) because she is rather subdued and serious, she misses that rather dramatic edge. The success that the two of them (Martin and Julie) met with Sky News Today was the combination of the two of their efforts really and the flashes of brilliance that we all today get semis over were the mixing of the formal and the panto in a kind of grey mesh.

What pains me so much is that the current Sky News Centre should in theory be the ultimate (and perfect) arena for such exploits. Only a few years ago when I was there we only had really 4, at a push 5 different presentation points (desk, pod, newswall, green screen and in front of desk) to work with. But in many respects the small and limited studio design aided us because the layout meant that, on screen, you could treat it as if it were a stage plucked straight from a West End theatre. This I think is where a lot of people draw their conclusions, as you rightly referred to above.

As far as I’m concerned there is nothing wrong in it, because in such a limited environment we had to go with what the set lent itself to – and I for one, as many others did, looking back on it now, definitely ran and ran and ran with that theme.

From that spawned the music and the openers, the graphics, the language. By the time I left in August 2005 to go into teaching this was something that we’d, IMO, perfected and the feedback that we got from the audience was that this was something that they liked, enjoyed and in many ways expected from us – on more than one occasion there were e-mails from viewers left in the newsroom effectively asking us to venture into the realms of illegality (e.g. bias and libel) in terms of the newswall graphics and headlines because some savoured this aspect of our identity to such an extent.

Now, with the move to the new complex in October 2005 there were obviously a great many changes which, looking back on the early pages of this topic, impressed people to a degree of ‘murdering’ the competition. But the problems came when that superficial infatuation faded and the realisation sunk in that their previously perfected techniques didn’t quite translate as well as they’d anticipated. Take the breaking news issue, which many people picked up on. The trouble was that the designers had created an area so vast that it was now ni-on impossible to ‘fill’.

For me, certainly, the fact that we got news on air first was inconsequential what mattered was that we built up the atmosphere to fever-pitch to such an extent that the PERCEPTION was that we were first, that we were in control of developments rather than being taken by surprise as a few lines came in. I won’t patronise but it’s pretty obvious how this was done, and the tunnel nature of that newsroom/set meant that the newswall was inevitably crucial.

So, to return to October 2005, and the breaking news issue. As I was saying it was incredibly hard to fill that studio with the kind of dramatic tension I suspect that many had taken for granted, in my opinion this was in part because of the large sweeping pans that were used, which yes, are very nice to look at, and do send out a massive statement about the ‘stature’ and ‘quality’ of the channel, but shatter the illusion of that almost claustrophobic atmosphere. This is where the attack of the heads and the current schedule comes in – nice, poorly framed shots of people’s heads and seldom few wide shots do not reveal the size of the studio, thus fostering an environment for that all-to-familiar atmosphere to be concocted in and thus the problem is cured.

If you want an example of how the shots at the moment are framed with this in mind look at Sky Today and when Dermot throws to the sports presenter, the shot that is used is almost flush with the sports presenter’s chair, meaning that you have a very tight shot which is dominated by two bodies, one in the foreground and ever so slightly in the background with the newswall even further behind. You feel very close to the ‘action’.

In relation to the current schedule there was no secret made of the fact that it was all about the key figures, like the star names in a Broadway performance, and about their breaking news ability, again an attempt to recapture some of this drama?

How can you explain their liking for big names? Especially when they have very little experience of breaking news, or have spent years on the couch of a ‘trashy’ breakfast program? For the ‘appeal’? No. Sky News knew, whatever anybody was fed and naively swallowed, that Eamonn could not attract major numbers to a newschannel of all things. They nabbed him (and Dermot) because of the personality, and crucially because he has the ‘Sky News voice’ as I call it. Listen to Eamonn’s early morning patter, beautifully off the cuff yet so prepared and thought through you would not believe. That same patter though in a breaking news situation builds up (as he speaks at times relatively quickly) is like a snowball tumbling away. Now sky bought Eamonn before they dropped the Breaking News basket in the July of 2005, but it’s just as well they did, Sunrise would look very different without him.

Then there is Dermot, surprisingly in itself that he would move to Sky News, but not when you consider that he has worked with Ryley before. Dermot too suits his slot down to the ground (REMEMBER: this is not the same type of slot that they wanted it to be in 2005) he has a more serious tone to his voice, but the way he enunciates at times can be inferred to be quite dramatic, note especially the way he puts an over-emphasis on certain syllables.

If I were in charge though I’d probably move him to the evenings, I think the mornings should be more Sky News Today circa 2002/5.

The same actually goes for Andrew Wilson, who despite having a courser tone than Dermot’s manipulates his speech in a quite similar manner. Hence his inclusion in affairs now.

Then we have the new newswall background which works once again with the limited shots and the tone/voice of the presenters to build up that dramatic effect, itself becoming a piece of furniture on a par with that of the old traditional newswall (2001-2005) – a recognisable and iconic feature in other words. It’s graphics however aim to simulate the effect of the original newswall, which dominated and effectively made the newsroom feel a lot smaller than it was, whilst simultaneously adding little details and effects which conflict against each other.

Although it’s design is even more traditional; harking back to Sky News circa 2000 – interesting then that so many posters on this forum praised it, maybe Mr Ryley and others have a point?

I guess the only way of describing how this came about is to note the problems of the newswall itself, which as an entity, is supposed to be a recognisable piece of furniture, it can’t be though, because it is too big to be consistently shown in it’s full length which is what is required (it would be impractical).

Added to this the issue of the story-specific graphics, which some might argue would actually detract from the newswall as a feature (e.g. because it is constantly changing). Therefore a standard backdrop, which addresses the failings of the 2005 studio whilst working alongside other aspects of presentation can foster that kind of drama and fever-pitch atmosphere so associated with Sky News in before 2005.

Ryley is a very, very clever man, I just don’t agree with his policy of ‘tie everyone to the desk/elbow’, as I firmly believe that you could create the same effect of intimacy and at the same time embrace a fresher and more modern sky news by having a dedicated presentation area for each program (although I’d be careful about the mezz frame it in the wrong kind of shot and it can look awfully open up there) I think in terms of 2005 there were a lot of positives that are being ignored, but I don’t believe that we are going to see changes as many wish too soon – in took 16 year to reach 2005’s standards, it’ll take another few years before we see something like that again I think.

I really wish they would do something soon. I used to really like SKY News.. But the graphics and close ups of presenters bugs me. N24 looks smart but lacks atmosphere. When you look back at TOTH clips from the relaunch! It had such energy! They show they are more than capable and I would still turn to them for Breaking News... other times the news contents seems.... "Fluffy". Needs taking by the scruff of its neck a sorting out before it all goes to far... you never know what could happen!!!!

http://www.rp-network.com/tvforum/uploads/sky2.jpg

Perish the thought!