Sky News

I have to agree with this. It makes a lot of sense over the holiday period, where special programming on the other channels would mean that the majority of viewers would only be interested in tuning in to a news channel for a short amount of time.

I think that many people on here fail to see Sky News through the eyes of a typical viewer - i.e. they're not bothered about where its presented from in the studio or what the studio looks like etc, they just want what they've tuned in for - the news, and they can get it all in a handy 15 minute segment on Sky.

so why has it lost loads of viewers then? and no, it gives us more to talk about because there are more intros, one every 15 minutes in fact. you would know why we don't like them if you read our posts.

It doesn't give 'us' more to talk about because no one likes them nor do they watch them and they're exactly the same?

Wonder how they will do Afternoon Live from the virtual studio on Monday?

Probably the same as the rest? Will this be the first time we see Kay sat behind a desk since 2005?! I know she doesn't do Mondays, but the rest of the week.

What are the chances of being back in the real news centre on Monday?

I have heard its the virtual studio until late January. But hopefully I am wrong as I am not a fan of the virtual set.

Hi everyone. I'm a new user so please be kind

Sky is my preffered news channel. Being on freeview I only have a choice of two but prefer Sky because its seems less formal with presenters not just being behind a desk all the time, and its brigher colours than BBC News.

On the News/Sport/Weather debate, as someone who tends to have the news channel on a lot in the background I don't like it since it obviously gets very tedious after half an hour of watching it. However when it get in from work at says quater past nine and want to watch a news before Eastenders at 10 on BBC Three it has been very useful so I can understand why Sky do it - some of the time

However I think 10 hours a day which it is currently is way too much. Firstly Sky News at 7 has been axed this week and last in favour of NSW even with Sportsline at 7.30. Whats the harm in running a 30 minute bulletin then? Secondly theres not even been an hour full bulletin at lunchtime. Surely doing something weekend lunchtime like wouldn't have been too hard and allowed more scope for interviews - something which there has been a lot off this week.

I also noticed no business bulletins this week, despite the stock market being opened. I did see the screen with the markets on and music in the background one night but that was it. Sky are trying to improve their business coverage yet virtually neglect it for a week. I suppose it comes down to using NSW during the day - bit hard to fit a business bulletin into that

Considering Monday/Tuesday/Friday were normal days (BBC News were back to double heading) I don't see why Sky couldn't have done a normalish schedule. To reduce staffing they could have axed the Live Desk and either started Afternoon Live at 1 or done Sky Today 10-2 with Sunrise till 10. The same headline presenter could have done both daytime shows (seen that happen before) and they would just need an extra presenter for the main show. Dermot was even working Monday/Tuesday so he could have done his normal show. And such a schedule would have been useful with the events in Gaza. And while obviously Sky didnt know that would happen, something big usually happen between Christmas/New Year - Bhutto assasination, tsunami, Saddam Hassain hanging

Another point with Sky's schedule as a whole is that the likes of Gillian and Samantha who were used to joint anchoring can't like being relegated to headline presenters. I know they get a chance to anchor every now and then but effectively they've had a demotion

And finally what a shame Sky are using Emma. Shame they stopped using her as an occasional stand in on Afternoon Live as main presenter ever since she went to doing the business

Sorry for the long post but just a few things I wanted to get off my chest

As expected,looks as though 15 min updates have now been dropped for rolling coverage of the beginning of Israel's ground offensive in Gaza.

I don't know about anyone else, but this is what I have against them...

- Too repetitive. It's the same news every 15 minutes. Neither ITN News Channel nor EuroSport News managed to make a 15 minute format work.

- Not a ratings winner. Hasn't garnered ratings for Sky News, and didn't garner any ratings for ITN News Channel or EuroSport News.

- Bulletin too short. You don't feel properly briefed by such a short bulletin. It's feels more like a quick-ish update in lieu of a longer bulletin later.

- Done only for economic reasons. It's a cost cutting measure, so they don't have to spend so much money on live inserts and reports. Indeed, have seen several Sky News 15 minute bulletin and several ITN News Channel bulletins where no reports appeared. Only interview segments, some of which very short, and edited footage from the scene.

That's why I don't like them.

For econmoic reasons, would it cost anymore to make them into 30 minutes, just using reports from previous programmes such as Live at Five etc...

Ah, but then you need to spend the money to make those reports for those bulletins in the first place. BBC News re-use a lot of reports, especially from the 6 and the 10, in order to save costs, but those main bulletins, being funded out of the BBC1 budget, can afford those kinds of spends. Sky has to spread its spend across the whole news channel, plus of course, the bulletins they produce for Five, and they can't skimp on those.

They can re-use wherever possible, but that still means spending the money to make those reports.

Steve Dixon,as always,superb covering tonights big breaking story solo.