Sky News

chromakey123, you should follow your own advice.

True, on Digital for the last three days Sky News been ahead on All Day viewing with News 24 has pulled way ahead during evenings.

However, when judged across ALL platforms (Freeview, cable etc.) BBC News 24 is still a long way ahead. At 17.30 last night during the crucial Commons terror vote, News 24 had at least 60,000 more viewers than Sky.

And don't forget that BBC News 24 was simulcast on BBC Two for the Commons vote; viewership peaked at more than 2.2million.

In context - it means that yesterday there were nearly double the people watching BBC News 24, compared to Sky News' all time viewing record of 1,697,000 for the Louise Woodward trial.

Hype? What hype...

And since you ask - here are the digital figures for the biggest news story of, perhaps this week - the Commons vote.

(And remember; in the past Sky has routinely thumped News 24 on Sky Digital).

16.30
News 24 - 69,000
Sky - 43,000

17.00 - shortly after the result
News 24 - 86,000
Sky - 63,000

17.15 - when both channels peaked in viewers
News 24 - 125,000
Sky - 90,000

At 19.00, BBC News 24 again hit 110,000 viewers compared to Sky News' monstrous 25,000. Ouch!

Getting a bit confused timmy? I think you mean digital satellite ! Freeview and cable are digital too.

Yes! Sorry, I mean digital satellite.

I am terribly confused actually. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to do Soduku AND post brusque ripostes on this forum?!

I might also riddle the Aga and re-enamel the bath while I'm at it. Anyone wanna help?!

Who cares?

Lets say for argument sake, the figures were switched…would that increase Sky’s advertising revenue? Probably not. After all, their nearest commercial competitor is miles behind them and is demanding a much smaller share of the advertising pie.

We have to remember the reason Sky News exist in the first place…the Westminster Posse! They don’t care how many people watch in the great unwashed, its all about the politicians and braniacs in the quangos. They’re the people that count and they are the people that continue to watch in their thousands.

Please also remember, there isn’t anything more powerful in terms of free advertising when the BBC state at the end of their news bulletins in prime time during a breaking news event to ‘tune into News 24 for more’. Not saying they do it all the time, but it is a significant advantage when they do.

Which is amazing really, considering Sky were better with the Jordan news from 7-7.30 and had Charles Clarke interviewed at 7, about 10 minutes before News 24 got him on.

What is it they say, there's no accounting for taste?

I think people had formed the opinion that there wouldn't be any breaking news during the ATV shows, so what would be the point in tuning in.

cat, I think it's something to do with the TOTH.

I quite enjoy watching Sky most times, its the opening sequence that just makes me totally turn off. It is so hideous.

The opening titles with that contrived blonde male floor manager urgently shaking his head and then two people furiously passing a piece of paper is just all so phoney.
And then the presenters drone on about "This is Sky News tonight - three hours of news, views and interviews - lively debate and your e-mails too!"
By this stage I've switched to News 24.

Sky will start to win back viewers when they drop all the sham "newsy-newsy" Day Today-style.

And they need to lose the spinning cube on Live at Five.
And James Ruben spinning into vision on the Blankety Blank desk.
And Julie Etchingham saying that her show's going to be "fiery... appointment to view television."

It makes me cringe!

Im sure the spinning cube on Live At Five got viewers going in there dorves

and the word "Cringe" i hate that - as if people cringe, go shove your head up something that rhymes with cringe

I think we've now reached a new low in the parallel world of some TVForumers. On the one hand we have Caroline Hawley, an extremely brave reporter who has spent the previous three years in the world's most dangerous city. On the other hand some sad little twerp sits at home in safety, and berates her for not being on the phone to a news channel immediately after she is nearly blown up by a massive bomb. What do you think she is, a robot?

God almighty.

I really don't accept that you have to be in the same situation as someone, or capable of doing their job, to be able to criticise them.

If a doctor was walking down the street and passed a dying person without helping them, I'd criticise them. What would your response be magicmonkey? "How dare you criticise? He was off-duty! He'd left his defibrillator in the hospital! You couldn't do any better! You were just safe at home!"

We expect journalists, just as we expect doctors, to do there very best whenever the situation calls for it. I think a journalist being without their mobile phone is a mistake - an excusable mistake of course.

When they reported that she'd been in the hotel but was unhurt and someone else popped up I thought, "Where is she? She was on the spot!"

I have to say, I love the word 'dorves'.