Watched (sorry, endured) Sky News last night for the first time in a very long time. There is really no other way of saying this, but it's totally rubbish. The whole thing is a mess. Nothing good to say about it at all.
You must be watching a different Sky News to the one I watch!!
Watched (sorry, endured) Sky News last night for the first time in a very long time. There is really no other way of saying this, but it's totally rubbish. The whole thing is a mess. Nothing good to say about it at all.
You must be watching a different Sky News to the one I watch!!
No, I think you're watching a different one to everyone else? The channel is utter ****.
Mediocre music. Unknown presenters. Extremely cluttered screen. Abysmally large and intrusive and distracting graphics. Poor use of an excellent set. Hyper-realized delivery of every verbal, audio and visual aspect of bringing us the news. Over-use of Breaking News straps. Fifteen minute segments of the news every fifteen minutes, and which they persist in reminding us all the time. Exclusive after exclusive after exclusive. Tabloid. Astons thrust into obscure corners of the screen. Too many breaks and gaps. Becoming too much like Fox News. Persistence in anchoring from those pointless benches. It'just all reeks of tabloid and Fox to me. I am sorry to say.
There is no such thing as a good half hour or one hour news digest from Sky News (such as CNN's CNN Today or YWT or BBC's WNT). Sky News comes across as all bits and pieces and too interactive and too glitzy and, well, kinda pointless really. It is like a televised version of the Daily Mirror or Daily Star, IMO. Ridiculed as it may have been, but the relaunch in 2005 was a format that actually DID work and I will never fathom why they have gone down today's route which is pitiful in comparison. Rubin and Buckley may have been thrown away too soon, but there were aspects of the format (News at Ten and World News Tonight (minus Rubin)) which could be considered as decent anchor blocks and watchable programmes in the schedule. Today it's way off the mark.
Mediocre music. Unknown presenters. Extremely cluttered screen. Abysmally large and intrusive and distracting graphics. Poor use of an excellent set. Hyper-realized delivery of every verbal, audio and visual aspect of bringing us the news. Over-use of Breaking News straps. Fifteen minute segments of the news every fifteen minutes, and which they persist in reminding us all the time. Exclusive after exclusive after exclusive. Tabloid. Astons thrust into obscure corners of the screen. Too many breaks and gaps. Becoming too much like Fox News. Persistence in anchoring from those pointless benches. It'just all reeks of tabloid and Fox to me. I am sorry to say.
There is no such thing as a good half hour or one hour news digest from Sky News (such as CNN's CNN Today or YWT or BBC's WNT). Sky News comes across as all bits and pieces and too interactive and too glitzy and, well, kinda pointless really. It is like a televised version of the Daily Mirror or Daily Star, IMO. Ridiculed as it may have been, but the relaunch in 2005 was a format that actually DID work and I will never fathom why they have gone down today's route which is pitiful in comparison. Rubin and Buckley may have been thrown away too soon, but there were aspects of the format (News at Ten and World News Tonight (minus Rubin)) which could be considered as decent anchor blocks and watchable programmes in the schedule. Today it's way off the mark.
But I suppose everyone has different tastes.
Regards,
James
There you go - that's the type of critique I was looking for.
For me, the current failings of Sky News stem from when they moved to the new News Centre. The channel has never seemed quite right since in my opinion, no matter what they've tried.
Before the move, the channel was pacy, bustling, engaging, and had a real lively spark to it. Yes it was tabloidy and brash, but that's essentially their remit, and they fulfilled it well. Ever since, it's just seemed a bit flat, drab and lacking in that proud, magic sparkle which gave the channel its character.
I think part of the problem lies in the design of the studio itself. Previously the busy news team was always in view behind the presenters, with the news-wall in the background behind them, making the presenters appear much more part of the newsgathering operation.
Nowadays other staff are often hard to spot, off at the right and left extremities of the studio. This coupled with the vast size of the News Centre gives the channel a cavernous, empty feel, and has killed off the previous bustling, urgent atmosphere.
In the previous set-up, the alternative presenting positions actually seemed to have a purpose (even if it was a slightly contrived one). Presenting from the newsroom or news-wall again gave a sense of the presentation being at the heart of the newsgathering operation. The current non-desk positions all just seem a bit pointless. What does presenting from half-way up the stairs add to the channel? Nothing. It just emphasises the vast emptiness of the studio.
The mix of presenters has also never been right since the move. Part of the attraction of the channel was the chemistry between the presenters. Great partnerships like Julie Etchingham and Martin Stanford were split up, and replaced in some cases with silly triple-headed teams, which went to prove the old adage that three's a crowd. There were also of course the soul-less appointment-to-view programmes, which further eroded the pacy nature of the channel.
Since then, they've not rectified the situation, but actually made things worse through the focus on single-headed presentation. There just seems to be no on-air chemistry at all these days. I know news isn't all about banter between presenters, but these days with mostly double-headed presentation, the BBC News channel comes across as friendlier and more approachable - something which previously was one of Sky's big strengths.
In short, they need to get back to basics: double headed presentation and if possible, rearrange the studio so it looks less empty, and actually feels more like a news-gathering operation. Oh, and some better graphics, titles and music wouldn't go amiss either. And if that all costs too much, get rid of Holmes and put his wage to better use.
You see I have an issue with this one you see. You say you don't watch sky news, so it's not really surprising you don't knonw the presenters is it? Or are you expecting that everyone on the channel should have presented on BBC or ITV first, just so you know who they are?
You see I have an issue with this one you see. You say you don't watch sky news, so it's not really surprising you don't knonw the presenters is it? Or are you expecting that everyone on the channel should have presented on BBC or ITV first, just so you know who they are?
Unknown presenters is one criticism I wouldn't level at Sky News. For most of the day you've got Eammon Holmes, Dermot Murnaghan, Kay Burley or Jeremy Thompson presenting. All fairly well known, even to the most casual viewer.
What I am trying to point out is the lack of consistency. I don't dispute the fact that the Burleys, Thompsons, Braziers are all still there. But Sky also now has an increasing number of new faces as a proportion to the "known" ones.
If you tune in to Sky News programming OUTSIDE of Live at Five, Sunrise and the Kay Burley segment (whatever it's now called), the peripheral segments are almost all presented by new-ish, non-legacy presenters.
A viewer of the channel will probably find it difficult to match any programme's identity with that of a regular anchor. Most of them move around a lot. A lot of the "old" faces have all but disappeared or have been sidelined into presenting obscure slots of a few minutes here and there.
