Sky News

Yes but that ratings drop had nothing to do with the move but the programming as you've mentioned which swiftly changed. The news center itself has led to better production and reduced costs in Sky News radio and web output, all of which comes from there also. Job losses too aren't unique to Sky News or any other broadcaster at the moment, caused by moneygeddon or downsizing.

Had Sky done nothing back in 2003 and stuck with the same format, location and schedule they would be no better than they are now, things change and evolve and adapt to the current needs and trends. Sometimes people get it wrong but people who don't change at all loose out more*

It's Sky's current tabloidism and fascination with breaking stories rather than researching them that's caused their (and many others) current problems. News shouldn't be rolling; it should be researched, checked, packaged and then presented.


*Channel 4 news is an obvious exception but their target audience hasn't changed much, unlike Sky's, ITVs and the BBCs.

Just to expand on that slightly, being first on the scene at breaking news will gain you some viewers, but having to broadcast retractions, corrections and apologies later for not having checked the facts or background to the story will lose you far more than you have gained, and this is something that Sky seem to lose focus of at times. Making sure what they broadcast is factual, accurate, impartial and tells the full story should be more important
than just being on air first.

The other thing which has turned me off the channel, is the strict 15 minute rolling pattern (I appreciate it's not all day, but it's in this pattern whenever I turn it on). On busy days you just get headlines, one story (which you saw 15 mins ago), some sport and the weather. Once you've seen a 15 minute segment for an hour, you can turn over for two hours safe in the knowledge that you won't miss anything. BBC News on the other hand is a pain to watch for a few minutes at a time, because you have to wait 30 minutes to get the headlines, but if you want it on in the background, I feel I get a much better understanding of what's happening that day.

As a viewer, I prefer to watch stories develop live rather than having to wait for an edited bulletin/report.

I like the raw-ness of breaking stories and following things as they happen and as different facts break.

As far as I can see from ratings in the past, they shoot up when there is breaking news, as people are interested and I presume like to watch it unfold. That is the whole point of a news channel, to break and roll with news. It's the excitement and unknowing I guess, well that's what gets me hooked.

Really? Doesn’t the endless tedium of press conferences that don’t actually tell you anything boring. Just for the press to ask “did x do this to y and is y going to affect z” to be met with “At the moment we’ve told you all we can and will update you accordingly next time”

Even major events like 7/7 and the like don’t work live, yes by all means put a ticker on BBC One with emergency details, but hours of “BREAKING” news that’s hours old filled with rumour and speculation and hastily found “experts” with conjecture of what may of happened/caused this/prevent it/started it is just dull.

I’d much rather know there is something happening, who to call/what to do then let an investiagion take place and know what happened, when, where and why with information that’s accurate and fact rather than opinion.

But that just my viewpoint, I understand yours and accept it, but you're still wrong.

Well, me and many others must be "wrong", then.

Breaking News is exactly that - BREAKING. It means things are still happening involving the story, hence the BREAKING NEWS tickers.

If you don't like the rolling news channels may I suggest you just simply watch the bulletins on various terrestrial channels? Seems pointless to watch something you don't like, and then complain about the fact you don't like them.

There is a difference between racing to break the news, with no regard for what's broadcast, as long as it fits the story and is on-air first, and covering breaking news, and broadcasting the facts as the become apparent.

Looking back to 9/11/01, I spent the afternoon flicking between Sky and BBC, and Sky was probably better coverage then, utilising it's American resources to the max, while the BBC struggled with out of date and innacurate news feeds, dodgy satellite bookings and uninformed guests and reporters. When it got to 7/7/05, Sky spent hours leaping to conclusions, chasing dead ends and generally trying to depress us all, covering things like other areas terrorists could attack to disrupt the city further, while the BBC were covering the impact of the tube/buses being shutdown, discussing the leads that the police had announced, and trying to keep things upbeat by showing the captial couldn't be that affected by idiots with bombs.

That's more of an argument against whether you prefer Sky News or BBC News. thankfully they have very different styles - each to their own.

Anyone have any idea when the gallery will be back up and running?

Long / medium term I don't prefer one over the other. At the moment I prefer the BBC News channel, as it's not as obsessed by celebrity, outrage or being first regardless of the whether that means being correct. A few years ago they were much closer in editorial standards, and Sky News pulled it off better than the BBC.

Mid December according to that studio director's twitter.

Backdrop being used to illustrate the moon story on SN now looks amazing.

Thanks. Im surprised they didn't video the gallery and put it on the newswall instead.