Sky News presentation - New studio onwards

So they're allowed to make blindly-critical comments about people they don't even know and I'm not allowed to defend those people, who I do know? Seems an odd way of operating a free speech platform, but then I suppose I should expect nothing less from a group of people who only issued a warning to somebody who made outright bigoted remarks about my disability, rather than saying they were no longer welcome in your community.


For the record, I was disturbed by the Laura Tobin comments at least TWO DAYS before Charlie intervened, but didn't say anything, and only did so when somebody tried to claim they were fair game... which, again, last I checked, I'm allowed to do, or if I'm not, sends one hell of a conflicting message.

If that puts me on my high horse, then it's a saddle I'm happy to occupy. If it makes you feel better to hit the "Ban" button, then go ahead, but I'm walking out of here on my own terms.

By the way, Matt Freestone (formerly of ITN) says hello. He wasn't the first insider to try his hand at the TVF game before throwing up his hands in despair, and I'm sure he won't be the last, but he too got sick and tired of the echo chamber that would rather revel in its own ignorance than even begin to acknowledge the primacy of expertise, all while laying claim to a moral high ground built on sand, where the disabilities of members and the health of presenters and their (as-yet-unborn!) babies are fair game... at least until somebody gets their act together enough to realise it might look embarrassing if they weren't seen to act.

Goodbye and good luck. I fear you're going to need it, especially when the top bloke who is Rob Francis takes his NewsChat site out of beta shortly. It may take a while to build up a head-of-steam, but he's launching it with the explicit intent of being the "anti-TVF" in terms of its level-of-discourse, and I for one wish him luck!

Whether you know someone or not does not have anything to do with it. Like it or not, these are public figures. They chose a career in the spotlight and should be tolerant of constructive criticism about their work. After all, we as the viewing public are the consumers and are entitled to an opinion about the product with which we are engaging. If we take your line or argument to it's full extent, would you argue that because none of us know the Prime Minister personally, we cannot air an opinion of her if it happens to be critical of the performance of her role? That's how you end up being North Korea.

For what it's worth, I know of a number of "insiders" who visit here and post regularly - and have done for years - without any problems at all. The difference is they post unassumingly with useful contributions.

Don't get me wrong, I'm the first who feels rather uncomfortable about some of the chat about pregnant presenters and the like. However, my comments about the panelists on Press Preview were based on the editions that were aired.

The likes of Julia Hartley-Brewer and Isabel Oakeshott base their careers on controversial comments and the feedback from both sides, so to say that we then can't comment on them based on 22 minutes of on-air output is frankly ridiculous.

Skygeek, I have a lot of respect for you and the work you do and have largely supported you on here when other members have been inappropriate or have said something that really isn't how it happens in the industry, but personally I think you've got it wrong this time. If we can't make a comment saying that Thursday's Press Preview was a car-crash because you were the duty producer, then there's no point in posting. You'll have to take it on the chin sometimes, I do when people disagree with me on here.

Anyway... Don't know if it has been mentioned but they are continuing to tweak the weekend sunrise format. Friday - they used the same roles/positions as SJM & Jonathan Samuels. Today, Both were sat at the desk but at either side. As Stephen Dixon has his surface the desk was rotated to give Isabel the built-in monitors. Additionally, as Stephen mentioned, they were trying out a new idea for the paper review which was done with the presenters in the middle with the reviewer next to each of them (if that makes sense).

I know some don't like the new format, but I quite like it. Weekdays always seemed to be led by SJM whereas the weekends seemed more equal (and it seems this is what they are trying to reflect now)

It does seem to work well.

Does the desk not go down to coffee table height anymore? Can't say i've seen them use it that way for a while?

Oh they moved by the time I saw it, as the guests were where the presenters were sat later in the programme

I don't believe it does anymore, certainly doesn't for Sunrise nor Kay's show.
However, the desk now rises to a standing position for Sky News at Five onwards and is presented in front of the big screen now

The 3-7 shift has to be the hardest for the presenter as they're constantly standing up for four hours? (3.5 from September)

That's a ridicolous idea, it's almost like saying that the guests need two moderators between them and places focus on the presenters rather than the guests, for duos like Maguire and Pierce it would be a disaster.

In a way I quite like what they tried this morning, though I thought they did all look a little squashed. I'd probably prefer it if both presenters sat on the left and both guests sat on the right as they've done in the past.