Sky News Serious Fault

Has anyone seen the serious fault on sky news??? The screen went all green over the main feed and Mark longhurst appologised. Then they just cut to the ads.

EDIT: Now back on air fine and Mark said "We're back and no longer green"

sky news does seem to fall over quiet a lot. i was watching a couple of weeks ago, and the main feed went very blurry and the news wall started doing funny things. there were no graphics or straps either.


has anybody noticed that on the videowall, there is one monitor near the top which is always blue when it's showing the feeds?

yes i do agree that Sky News does seem to have the odd accident and usualy involves openers. Today at the 12pm opener Sky news today played the wrong opener and the music had finished and they had to wait till it said "Live from the sky news centre, sky news today ....." and then Julie said "We got there finaly". LOL!

To be honest I think they like it, seeing it as dramatic and realistic broadcasting.

Call me boring, but I'll stick to News 24 personally.

I'd avoid anything funded by a right-wing, ruthless, unscrupulous, cultureless tyrant whose prime mission is to eradicate anything that isn't paying him money.

That's Rupert Murdoch BTW

If that were the case, he'd have got rid of Sky News 15 years ago.

sky news pays him money as its part of the sky pack you get when you pay for sky. besides, the money murdoch gets for each sky customer must more than pay for the cost of running sky screws

Sky news is a free channel therefore pays no money for part of any 'pack' even if it was a pay channel it is owned by BSkyB as is the platform it broadcasts on so wouldn't pay any money to anyone

Sky News has traditionally run at a loss (not sure if it still is) - like virtually every news channel. It's a status symbol and a loss leader rather than a money spinner.

Also remember that Murdoch only owns 30% of BSkyB

I've been lurking for a bit (the more attentive of you will spot that I'm new).... I thought you had left Meic?

That is not possible and it's wrong on all levels.

1) Sky News has, AFAIK, never made a profit in all of the time its been running. Therefore it has no money to give Murdoch.

2) It is not part of any Sky package, take your viewing card out of your digibox and see what happens, then tune into ITV1 and back to Sky News.

3) "the money murdoch gets for each sky customer must more than pay for the cost of running sky screws" - see number one above. The revenue also goes towards all the sky channels as well; News is not the only channel it funds.

I thought that they did go into profit during and after the Iraq War. Not sure if they've retained this profit or are now making a loss again.

Welcome, Inspector.

AJ: I would be very surprised if any news channel in the world made any sort of profit during the war. Given the amount of money they all spent on covering it, I don't think even the highest of audience figures would redeem their costs.

CNN USA and International a making a profit, and have been for some time. Fox News is, I think, breaking into profit. I know Sky nearly got there a few years ago, but think September 11 and advertising revenues sliding as a result probably meant that never happened; not sure if they are now or not.

Especially with the number of ad breaks dropped for continuous coverage!