That was a full half hour with Dominic Waghorn in Jerusalem on the HD promo loop. I dipped in and out of it at first but it was actually quite interesting, the HD pictures looking more like a documentary than news footage.
Now it's Alex Crawford in the Himalayas, on climate change.
Very sloppy if they introduced the new logo just for the debates but are reverting back to the old one until Sky News HD launches properly. How hard can it be to alter the Vizrt graphics and stings to use the new logo, even if they don't launch the full new graphics.
Well they always said tonight was just a teaser and it's been exactly that!
I'm not talking about HD, I'm talking about a logo. In one sense it doesn't really matter because the logos look pretty similar, but what other company or service would introduce a new logo, only to then drop it for a while and bring it back later. It is branding madness, especially as I say it must be quite easy to alter the live Vizrt up to the hour sequence and other presentation elements that have the logo on to use the new one.
That's right...it must be...especially when you're in the middle of a rebrand...and launching a new channel...in HD...on new kit...whilst doing Leaders' Debates...and a General Election campaign...and an Election night package...whilst keeping the current channel going...honestly Sky, what were you thinking...
Adam Boulton showing his obvious anti-Plaid Cymru bias by only managing to say the man's name through a quickly swallowed mouthful of puke.
[media:78a553b1e1]http://up.metropol247.co.uk/davidlees/sky_news_boulton_gip.flv[/media:78a553b1e1]
Give the man a day off.
Why is Sky News ignoring the other polls. YouGov is the only one showing a Cameron win, the C4 and ITV polls have Cameron in 3rd place. Please Sky, bring us the other polls, and end this shocking Murdoch arse-licking, tory-hugging bias love-fest for David Cameron!!!!!!!!
I guess after last weeks YouGov poll had Cameron lagging behind Mr Murdoch ensured YouGov went searching for an answer they'd prefer this week.
Indeed, Murdoch, The Mail and the Telegraph can't have any other result other than a Cameron victory, anything else means they are left out as they've all nailed their colours to the Cameron mast.
They've all been caught on the hop by the increase in popularity of the Lib Dems, hence the smear campaign today (Thursday)
Overall I would say a pretty good job by Sky. Can't fault the debate itself, the production was good, the questions were good and I had no issue with Adam's question to Clegg. I was watching on HD though but had I been watching on 501 the large question captions would have irritated me.
As far as the rest of the coverage was concerned I thought the quality diminished as the day progressed. The stuff with Dermot and Anna followed by JT and Anna B was great and had a nice to flow to it. But the stuff directly before and after the debate wasn't as good as it could have been. I don't blame Kay for that, they should have given her a co-presenter and stuck roughly to the same format as before. There were also one or two technical issues. I did not like the Jeff Randall piece one bit, I can tolerate (but not approve of) him giving his views on the economy but, as a Sky News 'presenter', to make remarks about Gordon Brown is just not on. Fine if he was an expert or contributer but he is billed as a presenter by Sky.
But on the whole it was a pretty exceptional effort to produce a whole days outside broadcast.
I think this has been a huge success for sky. I feel they are like Nick Clegg just being involved is enough for them to increase their viewership. That was just their launching pad and they have to continue to improve and deliver good quality news. If they do that then sky's figures will no doubt increase in pretty substantial numbers.
Boulton's sneaky Telegraph jibe described as "outrageous" on Newsnight.
Yes - stuck out like a sore thumb, and totally out of order. That isn't the role of the moderator on these debates, however much Boulton wishes it were.
Editorially I am increasingly disappointed by Sky News. I used to be a regular viewer, and a few years back it was just as credible a news operation as the BBC and ITN. Watching Kay Burley last night, it was like watching a Murdoch paper on TV. They really are moving towards the Fox News model - with an obvious bias towards a particular party.
Murdoch really is desperate for Cameron to win - presumably so that the regulatory structure of UK TV will be reorganised in News International/BSkyB's favour - and he's now being increasingly unsubtle in his desperation for this to happen.
Editorially I am increasingly disappointed by Sky News. I used to be a regular viewer, and a few years back it was just as credible a news operation as the BBC and ITN. Watching Kay Burley last night, it was like watching a Murdoch paper on TV. They really are moving towards the Fox News model - with an obvious bias towards a particular party.
I'm not British, yet I also noticed a pro-Conservative bias in the post-debate coverage.
I was watching on HD though but had I been watching on 501 the large question captions would have irritated me.
I found the precis of the questions on the astons just served as a reminder of how far the panellists had strayed from the point. I asked a friend who watched on the BBC, and he said he didn't get as much of a feeling of that, except when Clegg brought it up.
