Sky News: Presentation Discussion

Here's an MP3 of the new headline bed should anyone be interested.

Clicky! Courtesy of those FAB Metropol people.

Not a happy Bunny
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gnasheruk/4589816216/

Sky News does seem to be having credibility problems nowadays that they previously managed to avoid. I am no fan of Murdoch but his previous line on Sky News seemed to be that having a respected, impartial news service was important as it built respect for the brand even if it cost a lot. However recent decisions seem to be allowing this reputation to slip. Segments like 'Jeff's Judgement' seem a mistake to me as they are unlikely to bring in new viewers but will probably cause problems for the 'decision makers' that services like Sky News (and their advertisers) endlessly try to attract.

Sky News always had a bit of a more 'gung-ho' reputation than the BBC but this never used to be viewed in such a negative way. Part of the problem as I see it has been their attempts to attract 'average, everyday' viewers that started with the revamp in 2005 and has never really worked. The BBC News Channel's ratings and the fact that 'News, Sport, Weather' consistantly tops Sky News' ratings shows that the demand is for a news based service and that rolling news viewers are less interested in the person reading the news.

That's your interpretation of a Guardian blogger's interpretation. And the Guardian can never be accused of being Sky-friendly.

This is a question rather than statement but were the Murdoch empire behind calls not so long ago to allow TV channels to show bias in the same way the press does?

I believe James Murdoch said he would like the UK news impartiality rules removed, and John Ryley, I think I recall, said he agreed with this but said that Sky News would not go down the Fox News route because Sky News viewers want and expect balanced coverage or words to that effect.

Whereas Fox tells its viewers that it's fair and balanced.

I didn't see the Kay Burley incident live, but I have just watched the youtube video and personally I see nothing wrong with it. The man simply unable to articulate his opinions and seemed to just stand there smiling.

The problem with journalism in this country is that it is obsessed with 'impartiality' and 'balance'. This leads to obscene and ridiculous suggestions that there should be two 'opposing' views covering every story to ensure fairness - a suggestion seen earlier in this thread no less. The problem is (and it is a big problem) that at the end of any discussion, the viewer is not left better informed, as they will have just heard two sets of talking points and opinions that appeal to their own pre-existing prejudices.

Unfortunately this is a very American concept, and unfortunately not even Fox News is to blame for this one, for we can be much more specific. Roger Ailes and Frank 'I can get you any result' Luntz are two names that spring to mind

What is more important is truth. There must be a set of facts that all sides can be agreed on.

Kay's questions were factually based and correct. The simple question whether you politically agree or disagree is that the man was not able to put his opinions into clear and concise points. Watch how he stalls after she poses a point. Watch how he smiles uncomfortably. He got pummelled.

EDIT: Comparisons on the youtube page suggested that Kay was some kind of O'Reilly. Absolute nonsense. Bill O'Reilly is at his most sinister when he and his channel are actively promoting, sponsoring and attending public events, gatherings and marches on the behalf of astroturf organizations such as FreedomWorks, American Solutions, Heritage Foundation et al who are bankrolled and supported by the likes of Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich. The next time Kay Burley is spotted taking Afternoon Live on the road to a blue rinse brigade bash, someone please drop me an e-mail.

Some changes to the press preview, now done at the main desk with the guests with their backs to the rather lovely new newswall background.

The way the protester was smiling throughout the interview gave me the impression he just thought he was being clever by protesting. A real, impassioned protester who really believed in their cause would have acted in a more serious manner and been able to answer the questions about what they were protesting for.

Sky News is fine, if you don't like it then don't watch it.

I don't have any particular opinion on any bias from Burley, or Sky News in general, towards the Conservatives, however I did find that interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELJh2bTK1ew) to be one of the most unprofessional I've ever seen conducted.

Fair enough, the interviewee may not have been the most articulate in describing his viewpoint, however I think that Burley's constant interruptions - particularly towards the end of the interview - restricted even further his ability to give a coherent argument.

And her claim that 65% of the electorate voted for a hung parliament is just blatently incorrect.

To me, Burley comes across as a presenter who is confident and sure of herself to the point of appearing just plain arrogant.

She might not be biased at all, but it certainly comes across that way.

I think this is is where the problem was. He didn't manage to get across the point that they are not protestors and were not protesting. They are campaigners and were campaigning to get their message out.

The fact that Sky (and other news organisations) instantly view people standing in a street with placards as 'protestors' is worrying. I can see why they do it though - they can hint at all the usual negative connotations associated with "trouble-making protestors" and make the news that bit more exciting - when these people were just exercising their right to hold a public rally about their issue.

In fact I don't agree with the campaigners really, but after weeks of political parties getting their supporters out on the streets with placards campaigning on their policies, why is the media so quick to criticise others who are campaigning on an issue they care about?