Sky News presentation - New studio onwards

Those people don't need to be in the studio. The don't need access to the anchor. They need access to the production team, incoming lines, communications and those sort of facilities. While it's become common to dump them all on the studio floor for both the BBC and Sky, it's not a requirement. ITN don't have issues putting their election team in the studio because they don't bother.

I'm sure if Sky wanted to they could kit out one of the areas opposite the box to host their election teams, stick a couple of extra cameras over there and put a Maitliss style touchscreen in. Couple of handovers across the atrium and people here'll be raving about how good it is to see the whole building (like they do when they reminisce about the ITN atrium days). Alternatively, they've got a whole load of studios on the site which they could host the entire programme from. The BBC's election coverage doesn't suffer because they can't fit a load of production members on the catwalk in Studio E, so there's no reason why Sky's has to because there's only space for one desk behind the video wall in the glass box.

Yet the BBC has neither in it's main news studios and gets by perfectly fine.

....and why the heck are they having a mariachi band in the studio, as I say it's not Blue Peter


My understanding is that the new studio is the basic one for overnights and off-peak so one would assume not

And that was the reason?.... not that it was a snap election and the new facilities weren't ready?

I'm going to make a prediction here. Within 2 years, the glass box will be consigned to the history pages of TV Ark (if it ever comes back!)

We need to wait and see, but we are all TV presentation enthusiasts, so we're pretty good at making quick judgements, and the overall sense is that this is a cost-cutting drive from Sky News, which is a bit of a shame. That's why I believe the glass box is ultimately doomed. The accountants have clearly played their role in ensuring costs are kept low in the studio move, and they will eventually make the case that two studios is too 'lavish' when the Westminster studio is also in regular use.

A few posters have compared Sky Sports with Sky News. I worked at Sky during the previous move and can confirm that the soon-to-be-demolished Sky News building was originally commissioned for Sky Sports. The only reason Sky News took ownership of it was because of an infamous site tour by some senior execs from the US. Upon seeing how appalling conditions were at the old Sky News studio, a top-level decision was made to give the new facilities to Sky News. It gives you some sense of where we are right now. Much of the investment and big thinking comes from those people not on the ground at Sky. The middle management based in Isleworth then tends to over-ride it and play safe by investing in the divisions that return big bucks - like Sky Sports.

But, we are where we are! What I would like to see with this move is a more consistent approach from Sky News. Everything has felt very bitty and patchy recently. I hope the Westminster studio lighting, desks, etc are brought in-line with this new look and I hope there isn't endless tweaking. It's always a sure sign that the powers at the top aren't completely sure themselves about the current approach to presentation.

We may not like it, but they need to adopt a style and try to stick with it.

So you're saying that Sky had a purpose built studio for the 2015 election when they didn't need one? I think your criticism of Sky for the way they handled the last few elections is very unfair - may I ask why you have not raised these points before in the past, since I am unable to find any criticism of what Sky have done in the past in your posts and why you suddenly do not like a studio that in the past you had no issue with? I believe that the elections that Sky have covered in the past have been excellent, even if clearly you believe that they were overkill and didn't rate the presentation.

There are plenty of things with Sky News that need addressing - my issue with new studio is it addresses none of the issues really that there are with the glass box and merely recreates the same issues and the difference this time is we're not going to have the option of a studio that offers something different - we're essentially gone from a large multi-purpose versatile studio to two boxes, one enclosed in glass and the other enclosed with screens and all the limitations that they bring.

A soft and larger area is a must, if you were discussing in the studio about the death or a traumatic moment in your life, would you find it easier to discuss it with the anchor next to you on a sofa or in a clinical environment with a massive desk with you at one end and the presenter at the other end in what looks like a meeting room? Personally I'd think that nearly everyone would choose the former for the same reason that people have sofas in their lounges rather than office chairs.

Because some of the programming is supposed to be more relaxed rather than ultra serious behind a desk and it makes Sky a better channel for it rather than desk bound presentation.

Sunrise, Kay's shift and the press preview are far better when they are in a more relaxed environment rather than being stuck in the same panel interview style format that they are consigned to in the glass box.

Does anybody know what the other studio looks like apart from the glass box ?

Because I've no problem with the old studio or really any opinion on it.

I'm not expressing that view now, stop assuming and stating what my opinion is.

I just don't see extreme reaction is to the new studios. They're news studios, they're perfectly functional for that, why need bells and whistles and sweeping cameras and space for bands?

As you've read all my past comments, you'll know I tend to play a bit of devils advocate especially when it comes to incidences like this when everyone's moaning about something they've not even seen on air yet. Sorry if I offend you by not following the forum hivemind

They are functional for individual news bulletins, not really for a 24 hour news channel, unless Sky News is going back to the original idea of having feature programming at the bottom of the hour.

Well you are the person who is coming on here and saying that the old studio allowed these things which are no longer needed or not essential and are overkill and that therefore the changes to the new studio are not really issues. I just wondered what changed your mind overnight. You clearly think the new studio is vastly superior to the old one else you would not be saying the things that you are.

I just find it strange that someone suddenly raises issues with an old studio that they never had before the new studio was built - it sounds almost like they just are going to simply defend whatever Sky do since their views are influenced by that rather than what they actually think - if you're saying Sky's new approach is better, then you're saying the old approach was worse.

But as I say the BBC have two 24 hour news channels out of functional studios as do other broadcasters. There's little space in the BBC's for anything other than people sitting at desks or at big screens in them.... you couldn't get a mariachi band in but then they've never needed to because they're a news channel!