Pure speculation on my part. Have Dermot present the 10 after his shift at Millbank, this leaves Anna Botting to stay in Sky Centre to present the 9, 11 and Press Preview.
Pure speculation on my part. Have Dermot present the 10 after his shift at Millbank, this leaves Anna Botting to stay in Sky Centre to present the 9, 11 and Press Preview.
You're forgetting one key factor: Reach then vs. now, plus one other ace we've got up our sleeve that I can't discuss right now but will become apparent by about 2220 on Monday.
It is another attempt at a take on NaT? How quaint.
22:20 hmmm. Let me guess. Is that the point Sky News recognises that it's not making news programmes scheduled within a mass market mixed genre channel and flips to rolling news coverage?
You're forgetting one key factor: Reach then vs. now, plus one other ace we've got up our sleeve that I can't discuss right now but will become apparent by about 2220 on Monday.
It is another attempt at a take on NaT? How quaint.
22:20 hmmm. Let me guess. Is that the point Sky News recognises that it's not making news programmes scheduled within a mass market mixed genre channel and flips to rolling news coverage?
Nope. We know we're not going to do BBC or ITV numbers, but there are ways to structure that half-hour that should give us an editorial advantage. That's all I can say right now.
I just hope it's not Mark Austin and some sort of pseudo-news at ten.
Trouble with Sky is
a) it can never stick to anything more than a year or two.
So it doesn't really matter what they do.. by 2018/9 they'll be back to a fifteen minute bulletin with a long sports update. They never give anything time to bed in.
b) they prioritise getting stories on air asap (fine.. good)
but it means they have nothing to hold back as an exclusive for appointment to view bulletins. Case in point: I saw MSNBC the other day advertising an exclusive interview with (iirc) Trump, but they weren't going to show it until 6am est the next day because it was a 'Morning Joe' exclusive. Sky would never do that.
I truly hope it's an analysis show with political commentary and a really solid panel of political guests (not the awful Sunrise paper review idiots); a sort of unbiased Fox News 'Special Report'.
I also hope their cutbacks of senior newsreaders was in part to allow them to sign up some big hitters in the evenings.
But it'll probably only last a year or so anyway. Sadly The Pledge has proved more resilient.
I just hope it's not Mark Austin and some sort of pseudo-news at ten.
Trouble with Sky is
a) it can never stick to anything more than a year or two.
So it doesn't really matter what they do.. by 2018/9 they'll be back to a fifteen minute bulletin with a long sports update. They never give anything time to bed in.
b) they prioritise getting stories on air asap (fine.. good)
but it means they have nothing to hold back as an exclusive for appointment to view bulletins. Case in point: I saw MSNBC the other day advertising an exclusive interview with (iirc) Trump, but they weren't going to show it until 6am est the next day because it was a 'Morning Joe' exclusive. Sky would never do that.
I truly hope it's an analysis show with political commentary and a really solid panel of political guests (not the awful Sunrise paper review idiots); a sort of unbiased Fox News 'Special Report'.
I also hope their cutbacks of senior newsreaders was in part to allow them to sign up some big hitters in the evenings.
But it'll probably only last a year or so anyway. Sadly The Pledge has proved more resilient.
I can exclusively reveal that Mark Austin... ISN'T going to be presenting the bulletin.
Your first point is ironic given ITV's lack-of-commitment to the 10pm slot and the "News at When" wilderness periods out of which they periodically snap by moving it to Ten proper, but as to your second point, I can assure you that the plan is to offer a concise digest of the day's news done with as much depth as a full 30 minutes allows.
Nope. We know we're not going to do BBC or ITV numbers, but there are ways to structure that half-hour that should give us an editorial advantage. That's all I can say right now.
Must admit when you first said 22:20, I was worried Sky News had come up with a plan to use Sky Adsmart tech to deliver some crap targeted regional stuff. Editorial advantage though? Hmmm. Can't think what editorial advantage you can get in the 10pm hour that you can't get earlier in the evening but I'll look forward to seeing the efforts on Monday.
Nope. We know we're not going to do BBC or ITV numbers, but there are ways to structure that half-hour that should give us an editorial advantage. That's all I can say right now.
Must admit when you first said 22:20, I was worried Sky News had come up with a plan to use Sky Adsmart tech to deliver some crap targeted regional stuff. Editorial advantage though? Hmmm. Can't think what editorial advantage you can get in the 10pm hour that you can't get earlier in the evening but I'll look forward to seeing the efforts on Monday.
On the 22:20 point, it's more a question of what you won't see than what you will.
