Sky News

They quite often record their overnight bulletins. At least they certainly did when they were in Studio 2. So I don't think its a staffing issue. They've always got access to a long list of freelancers who could and would step in at the last moment.

I'd say any of the election broadcasts, or the last BBC strike.

Yeah there was a giveaway to the pre-record in the early hours of Saturday at 0100 when the clock and ticker had obviously been recorded from the previous hour as part of the output (so it showed 1159 when it was 0059)... took pres about 30 seconds before putting up a new clock with the right time.

Didn't Jeremy Thompson do something ridiculous like 23 hours during election 2001 coverage?

I was told that on 9/11 ABC's Peter Jenning did continuous coverage for about 2days?

Another thing, i read somewhere that BBC News 24 broke the news first the Blunkett was to resign, but it was Sky News that said he was to resign first, take a look at this video i have.

http://media.putfile.com/Blunkett-Resigns

Another classic example of the new Sky News this hour.

Before the quarter-past headlines there's a replayed interview with Patrick Viera (done by Burley) in which the presenters childishly smirk at being able to quote "son of a bitch". This is in the first 15 minutes of a "live newshour", and it's a book plug...this stuff would struggle to make the last 10 minutes of a hour of the old Sky News.

Then the headlines followed by "send us your old wives tales" on the basis of the story about causes of the common cold...a fairly interesting topic that they didn't choose to cover, but instead use a basis for their pap.

It's embarassing, purile, childish crap...and it ain't news.

They may not have given up on breaking news, but why would anyone tune into such a service when major news breaks. I never thought I'd say this about Sky, but it's knocking on ITVNC's door for poor news content.

Why is Sky Sports 1 on the same channel as what Sky News should be (121) on NTL??

The main problem seems to be with the 2-5pm hour. The presenters are all so childish, and have to make a joke out of absolutely ANYTHING. They're so happy it's like they're on something.

The morning 'Today' slot isn't so bad, it's just from 12 onwards when it starts going wrong.

I know you criticise the new Sunrise, but I much prefer it to the old one. The previous incarnation was so cold and stale it was like a Hovis factory in the Arctic.

To be fair, I criticise them for being too cheerful, I flicked on to News 24 at about midday and was treated to Julian Worricker and some other woman in what was quite possibly the most depressing and unwatchable doubt-act ever seen on a news programme. It was utterly dire. They didn't even try to look happy.

I guess there only trying to make the news more enjoyable, but the 2pm lot dont gel as true as the 9pm lot

Seriously, f*ck off.

Your posts are so difficult to understand and, even when I have grasped what you're talking about, most of them are still worthless crap.

Oh dear, aren't we moody Tom.

He's saying that the people who present at two o'clock don't have as good chemistry as the people who present at nine o'clock.

His point is valid, yours was just a silly excuse to have a go at somebody. Which, I might add, you've done over the past ten pages of this thread, arguing pointlessly with "theblokewhowritesthenews". How pointless - as though it was HIS fault they took Sky News off the ring main.

No wonder so many of the people who work in media don't want to sign up here. They don't want people like you jumping down their throat.