Sky News presentation - new newswall

This isn't a personal criticism (and I'm also not trying to push this off topic) but I think that use of the word 'highlights' shows exactly what is wrong with Sky's obsessive coverage of the trial.

Yes I also picked up on the 'highlights' word used by Sky and have just sent them an email. Jeremy might be back for what will be a huge week for the trial when Pistorius takes to the stand to give evidence.

In relation to Jeff Randall, I would not be surprised to see the new business programme take over the 1pm slot. It could be alot more fast paced and realtime while the markets are still open in London. However, Adam Boulton's show does not begin until the Autumn so it may be a while before there are schedule changes.

I also thought that the coverage of the debate tonight hosted by LBC was way over the top. The fact that Sky had Kay Burley, Adam Boulton, Joey Jones, Darren McCafferey, Jayne Secker and Anuska Asthana covering the debate seemed excessive for my viewing.

I think you're conflating "highlights" and "high points". The highlights-lowlights dichotomy is a recent thing - "lowlights" being an analogous formation that's nearly always reappropriated as a synonym of "low points". In its traditional sense, it's a perfectly acceptable word to use.

Bilky Asko is absolutely right:


Source: merriam-webster.com



Source: dictionary.com

(My emphasis)

Did I interpret this wrongly? There wasn't any mention of new plans for the 7pm hour.

In its traditional sense it may be, but 'highlights' does now have connotations of the "best bits" thanks to sport reports. I don't feel overly comfortable with it being used to describe a murder trial when other words could easily be used without said connotations.

You could say something like "main points" or "important points", but that doesn't cover otherwise interesting parts of the trial, and could seem like that the points that they've picked out are the important points to consider, and not just a summary (another word, that may seem like it's glossing over the day's events).

I don't think the newer connotations are strong enough to cause any level of offence for most people - it's not necessarily the wording I'd use, but I don't have a problem with it.

I hear what you're saying. Obviously just a matter of opinion.

I would suggest the use of 'key moments' or 'main evidence' instead of highlights. I've read the above posts and while the use of the work highlights may be technically fine I just think that the connotations and inference created by the use of the word highlight is not something which I would describe much of the evidence shown.

Looks like a bad decision to send Jeremy Thompson out to Pretoria. The court has been adjourned for 10 days. This court case is farcical. They have sat twice this week and three days last week and for the days they are sitting it is only a couple of hours long. At this rate it will be well into the summer before the trail concludes.

I have to smile always when I see David Bowden in this dark studio with experts to discuss the search areas of MH370. To me this is a move backwards for at least some decades as they use non-virtual cards to "HIGHLIGHT" the areas. They could to this at the big screen or at a touch screen.

At last! Someone has said what we have all been thinking. It's as if that idiot judge doesn't know the first thing about running a court room. Doesn't she realise that viewers will get bored if they have to wait several days for new instalments? It doesn't matter how compelling the evidence is or what the final verdict is if no one is watching. Have viewing figures actually been published? I bet she hasn't mentioned them on air.