Sky News presentation - New studio onwards

The reviewers have the right to express an opinion unlike the presenters and reports who are impartial. The Sky Papers hashtag also gets feedback about the reviewers.

As long as it's not open season on the reviewers private lives, which would be quite rightly slammed down on here if it was a presenter or a reporter, I don't see an issue as long as the comments relate to their ability while on-air.

I disagree. I think the channel feels more grown up now.

It's always felt grown up, even in its earliest incarnations. It's never felt less than a serious news channel. Even now, it still feels serious, but it just doesn't quite feel like it once did. It's no longer essential viewing, as it once was.

I appreciate there's more to a news channel than its top of the hour - but blimey, Sky's bland now. Feels really flat.
Rather timidly sneaks on the air.
It's background, unassuming and forgettable.
Different faces every time I watch, with the exception of Kay and Anna

Sky used to be an innovator - now just indistinguishable in the media mix. Don't think BBC's much better... they need a change too, but that's another point for another thread.

If anything I'd say there's a mismatch between the graphics and music and the contents and studio. I'd say the contents and studio are spot on, but the graphics and music need to be modernised. I've never taken to the current lower thirds and other graphic elements, and the music is a bit of a nothingness. The graphics could do with being flatter and a little more dynamic.

Sky is still doing enough to grab my attention, despite the disappointing format change to Sunrise. Currently, I actually prefer the summer format post 10am. No politically skewed mid-morning show, The Pledge is on a break which leaves rolling news and plenty of it.

urrrgh. Let people have their say. No-one is being defamatory. We all know you work for Sky News, you don't have to constantly make out like we are privileged to have you on the forum, and be so defensive about its output or its contributors. It's boring.

I just think it's not nice to sling mud at people you don't know. I'm fortunate enough to meet some well-known people reasonably often. Sometimes my pre-conceived opinion of them (whether positive or negative) turns out to match with who they really are, but quite often, they actually change my opinion of them for the better - so I've learned not to pre-judge so much.


As for your attack on me personally, see above, but exclude the "well-known" bit, and know that the ONLY way in which I regard myself as "privileged" is to get to do a job I love and, in so doing, sometimes have my mind changed for the better. As for whether you or anyone feels feels "privileged" that I contribute here or not, I frankly couldn't give a stuff.

I would bet money that almost anything written about presenters in the last page or two on here is far more civil than much of what is emailed or tweeted into Sky News on a daily basis. And really, almost all of it on here was about their roles on the channel, not the presenters personally.

Exactly. Digital Spy is really bad with presenter chatter and inane speculation about their private lives. At least we attempt to keep the presenter/guest talk in regards to the overall presentation.

You're certainly right about that. The contents of the main inbox - particularly as it relates to LGBT and BAME on-screen talent - is often utterly horrifying.

And I would suggest your back seat moderation be curtailed. Honestly, this has to be your final warning - you can't keep disrupting threads with your inability to handle members criticising people you know/work with/in the industry. If comments are defamatory or an invasion of privacy then of course action will be taken. Otherwise let people have their say without fear of you popping up. And you might not agree but I think there's a damn sight more constructive criticism on here than the likes of DS or Twitter.

You did the same thing the other day in the GMB thread - couldn't help but get involved even though Charlie had it covered. Your post offered nothing to further the discussion.