Because if they're feeding it, presumably into the BBC and other outlets the source might rewind the tape.
As we saw on Sky
The source might then stop the feed to start it again.
As we saw on Sky
And hey! They might even restart the feed on the test card on which the BBC Scotland logo was blazed across Sky News.
As we saw.
That's why it's silly.
And?
Sky had a live feed available to put to air. But in that situation, you would have taken no pictures and instead recorded the pictures, and put them to air after minutes of delay?
Seeing a BBC Scotland logo on Sky News won't make the viewers dissolve. It's not too much of a rarity to see rough feeds on news channels - that's the nature of rolling news. Silliness is not taking a feed if it's available because there might be a possibility of it not being perfect.
Not so much Sky News as Sky Sports News - live coverage of the teams coming out onto the Millennium Stadium pitch kept losing frame - you'd have thought with all the money $ky pays for its football coverage they could at least use a decent camera
You sound suspiciously defensive - as if you were in a newsroom somewhere in deepest darkest Osterley.
Of course news channel always take live feeds and viewers understand when an APTN or REUTERS card suddenly appear...
But it was amusing to watch gung-ho Sky News bravely trying to beat the competition...
...only to end up with the competition's (BBC) logo filling the screen in three-inch letters.
I've yet to see Sky News' logo pasted across BBC or ITV's news output. Funny that.
You sound suspiciously defensive - as if you were in a newsroom somewhere in deepest darkest Osterley. Perhaps?!
Of course the viewers wouldn't have disolved (?), it's just always amusing to watch gung-ho Sky News bravely going...
...only to end up with a three-inch BBC logo filling the screen.
I've yet to see Sky News' logo pasted across BBC or ITV's news output. Funny that.
I'm nowhere near Osterley, as regular viewers know.
I'm just having fun with your argument that Sky News shouldn't have taken an available live news feed because there may have been the possibility of it breaking up, rewinding or showing the provider's logo on-screen. If news channels thought like that, you wouldn't have a news channel. It happens all the time. If the feed's available, you take it. That's not "silly".
Broadcasters would prefer that rival broadcasters logos not appear on air, so they would not air the material until they have removed the logo.
This reminds me of a little incident in America last year, during coverage of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. CNN had access to live feeds of what was left of the shuttle hurtling to the ground, through their CNN NewsSource affilates. FOX had none of these shots, and their coverage was rubbish compared to CNN, so FOX decided to simply use CNN off-air pictures. CNN noticed this, so after a few minutes they threw up every bug, lower third graphics, music they could, and split screen between the live shot and the studio. This sure got FOX's attention, and they soon bailed out and cut back to studio.
Again I say - they've got all this money and have to sponge off other people?
So glad I've never given them any of my money
How old are you? You have perhaps the most simplistic view of broadcasting I've heard. I suggest you get a bit of knowledge about how things work before making silly points, and you might sound a bit more credible.
intheknow posted:
This reminds me of a little incident in America last year, during coverage of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. CNN had access to live feeds of what was left of the shuttle hurtling to the ground, through their CNN NewsSource affilates. FOX had none of these shots, and their coverage was rubbish compared to CNN, so FOX decided to simply use CNN off-air pictures. CNN noticed this, so after a few minutes they threw up every bug, lower third graphics, music they could, and split screen between the live shot and the studio. This sure got FOX's attention, and they soon bailed out and cut back to studio.
LOL, typical dirty tactics from the news channels! They will go to any lengths to get exposure of their logo on rival networks. And when Fox are so dirty with their marketing, you can't really blame CNN for giving it a bash. I like to think the UK channels have a friendlier, more professional relationship... whether that's true or not, I don't know! I'd say it is to a certain extent, but of course not always.