The ticker on Sky News SD is currently blank. What is HD doing?
EDIT
: It's back now.
Did anyone else notice that the end of one of the headlines regarding the BA strike on the breaking news ticker on Monday afternoon had a lot of white [yellow] space at the end of it. When the ticker got to that bit, it increased in speed until it got to the next headline. This was on SD, did HD do the same? Hmm, It's 1am and that is a bad description from me, but if you saw it then you will know what I mean.
Also, on SD... when Gordon Brown made his announcement this afternoon the single line headline graphic said "Gordon Brown quits as lea". The word 'leader' did not fit on the screen. After around 30 seconds, the headline came back as a two line headline graphic.
EDIT AGAIN
: At around 01:04 the screen jumped and the ticker and clock have now gone completely on SD.
Last edited by David on 11 May 2010 1:05am - 2 times in total
I think the yellow gap and increased speed is intentional and supposed to be attention grabbing when something new is added to the ticker.
As for the ‘GORDON BROWN QUITS AS LEA’ strap, I assume it’s some sort of problem with the software trying to convert from the single line HD straps to the double lines of SD. Anything further beyond that is out of technological expertise.
I don't think we should overstate the bias situation. Most of the accusations are Twitter-led which I think its fair to say is not representative of the population as a whole. I also sense there is a mood of it being 'cool' to slag off Sky News and accuse it of bias.
The fact is that there is nothing to suggest that Sky News is actively supporting the Conservatives. News International may well have endorsed the Tories, despite Rupert Murdoch preferring Labour but being persuaded by his son to back Cameron. The link between News International and Sky News is a minute one. BSkyB chief exec Jeremy Darroch stated clearly that BSkyB had no interest in getting involved in party politics. He made these remarks on Jeff Randall Live. There is also the fact that throughout its long history Sky News has maintained editorial independence not just from the Murdoch's but from BSkyB itself.
But it is true that BSkyB as a company will benefit from a Conservative government. It is a matter of public record that David Cameron has pledged to dismantle Ofcom, an organisation that has been, right up until the last few weeks, preventing Sky from doing what it wants. OK so he won't be able to get rid of it totally (it's functions will still have to be done by someone) but the abolition of Ofcom would be seen as a major triumph by BSkyB and J Murdoch. It should be noted that Ben Bradhsaw of course is Culture Minister, responsible for broadcasting
They are also the party most hostile to the BBC, an organisation that is at odds with both News International and BSkyB. The Murdochs don't like having it as a competitor and see it as an unfair one. Of course it's presence hasn't stopped Sky being one of the world's biggest pay tv operations and arguably the UK's second biggest broadcaster, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't like it destroyed to increase their share and profits.
To say there is absolutely no bias in Sky's coverage is just nonsense, there is some even if it's at a very subtle corporate level
Quote:
On the Kay Burley front she is far from perfect but the amount of stick she gets is at times OTT and despite putting in a pretty faultless shift this afternoon she receives no recognition.
She had several positive mentions on this website this afternoon.
However the thing is that people are remembered mainly for the bad things they've done. This is true of politicians and celebrities. Kay Burley is remembered for 'The entire eastern seaboard of the US has been destroyed', Peter Andre and the like but the hundreds of hours of perfectly fine uneventful broadcasting isn't. It's not fair but that's just the way it is. It's just like the way that the press portrays the last 13 years of Labour governments. They remember the bad points but not all the good things. and the same could be said for almost every administration.
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 11 May 2010 1:35am - 5 times in total
Basically, he's getting too involved and taking things too seriously. It's even more clear here that his interviewee is very relaxed while he's getting het up. Very unprofessional.
It should be the other way around. Think of all the great political interviewers that this country's produced - Paxman, Humphrey's, Frost; you don't see any of them getting that aggressive and antagonistic towards a guest. It should be the interviewee who's raising his voice, sweating and going red, not the presenter!
Bradsaw said "I know you're sore about this" - he got a little personal. But Adam is meant to be above the whole thing.
Adam is there to inform and explain he's not just an interviewer like Paxman, Dimbleby. The Labour Party have told their MPs to toe the party line and say it was FPTP but no party won and totally disregard the gains losses and share of the vote etc.
Adam has a right to actually state facts, so the viewer can make a judgment, but the Labour Party don't like it. The fact that the Tory party has the largest number of seats and the largest share is neither here nor there. Facts are facts and highlighting them is not bias.
Basically, he's getting too involved and taking things too seriously. It's even more clear here that his interviewee is very relaxed while he's getting het up. Very unprofessional.
It should be the other way around. Think of all the great political interviewers that this country's produced - Paxman, Humphrey's, Frost; you don't see any of them getting that aggressive and antagonistic towards a guest. It should be the interviewee who's raising his voice, sweating and going red, not the presenter!
Ummm, Paxo lost it rather with George Galloway during the 2005 election programme ISTR ?
Basically, he's getting too involved and taking things too seriously. It's even more clear here that his interviewee is very relaxed while he's getting het up. Very unprofessional.
It should be the other way around. Think of all the great political interviewers that this country's produced - Paxman, Humphrey's, Frost; you don't see any of them getting that aggressive and antagonistic towards a guest. It should be the interviewee who's raising his voice, sweating and going red, not the presenter!
Ummm, Paxo lost it rather with George Galloway during the 2005 election programme ISTR ?
Not in quite the same way though. Paxo asked a very difficult question - paraphrased "Are you proud of ousting one of the few black women MPs in Parliament?" - and Galloway refused to answer, so Paxo pressed him to. Repeatedly. Didn't get to the stage that Bolton got with Campbell, which was close to the John Sweeney Scientologist level of losing it...
Boulton needs to go! He's held that position for way too long. The BBC have seen maybe 4or 5 outstanding political editors through it's doors during the period Boulton has been at the helm at Sky.
Not sure how anyone can claim it is a resigning matter for Boulton, I think Niall Paterson gave a pretty good assessment
Quote:
niallpaterson
Can't let the morning pass w/o making brief comment about the spat yesterday betw @adamboulton and @campbellclaret. This is all I will say -Adam was clearly (and rightly) annoyed by Campbell's continuing unsubstantiated assertion of media bias, and called him on it. He also..called him on the nature of the "cabal" that saw GB make his announcement w/o consulting cabinet, let alone the plp. On both, campbell did..not have a comeback. Was it adam's finest hour? I don't think he wd say so. But AC didn't win the argument with his "calm down dear", either
This is all good for Sky News, it's all about ratings, this and the Burley stuff will be good for giving their presenters the profile they want them to have and people will want to watch.
