I clearly know how much behind the scenes room they need etc. But I clearly made the point from a presentation point of view the presenters could be in Millbank. I was only making the point that the vast space which is in Osterley is not been used to its potential as they just present from the desk all day and practically that same dest is in Millbank. I now its not feasible from a logistics point of view.
I clearly know how much behind the scenes room they need etc. But I clearly made the point from a presentation point of view the presenters could be in Millbank. I was only making the point that the vast space which is in Osterley is not been used to its potential as they just present from the desk all day and practically that same dest is in Millbank. I now its not feasible from a logistics point of view.
I clearly know how much behind the scenes room they need etc. But I clearly made the point from a presentation point of view the presenters could be in Millbank. I was only making the point that the vast space which is in Osterley is not been used to its potential as they just present from the desk all day and practically that same dest is in Millbank. I now its not feasible from a logistics point of view.
The desk in Millbank is basically static, whilst the desk in Osterley rotates depending on the time of day. Are you suggesting that Sky News should just have one background (Millbank)? It would affect presentation if it was just presented from Millbank because we'd only see one studio shot all day, and it's a much smaller studio.
Only a few shows have been affected, and even then most viewers will not/have not noticed any difference.
Well personally I don't think viewers would notice a major difference if presentation came from Millbank. They could use the newsroom background and the gallery backdrop which is in Millbank aswell as other shots like we see on Murnaghan. Im just trying to say that in HQ they have so many potential presentation points so why not use them?
Well personally I don't think viewers would notice a major difference if presentation came from Millbank. They could use the newsroom background and the gallery backdrop which is in Millbank aswell as other shots like we see on Murnaghan. Im just trying to say that in HQ they have so many potential presentation points so why not use them?
Because they don't want to?
As has been posted, they want to focus on the actual news again rather than the presentation of the news. Using areas of the studio simply because they can, and not because it's actually helping them tell a story seems to be at odds with this re-focus.
Just to clarify, yes or no, are you seriously suggesting they should move all their presentation to Millbank?
Or why not just move presentation to Millbank full time if their not going to make use of their vast studio space they have in Osterley.
How
dare
the news anchors stay in one place while they're doing the news! The nerve of them! Move them to Millbank where they will probably also stay in one place, that'll show them!
As there's no dedicated thread to Sky.com, I thought I'd point out that Sky have changed the video player they used on Skynews.com to a new design, where the play and pause elements all fade in and fade out upon mouseover.
Definitely a 3 steps forward 2 back situation here.
The evenings is a much better proposition now, although Martin is obviously underused and in the wrong job.
The whole Live At Five, Afternoon Live renaming thing is pathetic. Has this been thought up by the same muppet that renamed News 24 as BBC News Channel, as the phrase BBC was not being used enough? Really, do you really think us poor pathetic uneducated unwashed masses cannot spot the Sky News logo in the corner, and really get confused that Jeremy Thompson might be on Al Jazeera?
Still, Sky News is a far worse channel than it was when it was housed in the old studio. Things like this just add a little bit more to an already big heap of things they have messed up.
And yet, in amongst all the mess-ups, they do some good things. Really mad.
Definitely a 3 steps forward 2 back situation here.
The evenings is a much better proposition now, although Martin is obviously underused and in the wrong job.
The whole Live At Five, Afternoon Live renaming thing is pathetic. Has this been thought up by the same muppet that renamed News 24 as BBC News Channel, as the phrase BBC was not being used enough? Really, do you really think us poor pathetic uneducated unwashed masses cannot spot the Sky News logo in the corner, and really get confused that Jeremy Thompson might be on Al Jazeera?
Still, Sky News is a far worse channel than it was when it was housed in the old studio. Things like this just add a little bit more to an already big heap of things they have messed up.
And yet, in amongst all the mess-ups, they do some good things. Really mad.
So all in all, a step forward?
I really don't think the programme name changes were to do with promoting the 'Sky News' name. Rather, they were superfluous as most of the programmes were the same (and if not, are now). they're trying to bring consistency.
A man in Northern Ireland has been accused of endangering life and Scotland's top police officer...
[media:a46c968b58]http://up.metropol247.co.uk/davidlees/sky_news_scotlands_police_edit.flv[/media:a46c968b58]
