Sky News: Presenters & Rotas

Is it asking too much that people explain themselves and justify their opinions when posting on here? Three out of the last five posts contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion whatsoever (and lo and behold, they were from three of the usual suspects).



Firstly, on what basis do you suppose that - in a year or two's time - Charlotte Hawkins will be one of the main presenters? The only position likely to open up is on Live at Five if and when JT decides to retire. If that occurs, there are one or two others that are better placed to move into that slot than Charlotte, eg., Andrew Wilson, Stephen Dixon or Colin Brazier. It is doubtful that Anna Botting or Kay Burley will vacate their roles. Secondly, how do you know that Sky 'highly rate' Charlotte? If that was the case then surely she would be seen on screen a) more frequently than she is now and b) in a more prominent role, perhaps as a substitute for Colin Brazier or Kay Burley. Thirdly, the BBC do not have a strategy of looking from within. They have a strategy of hiring people if they become available (such as Natasha Kaplinsky, Dermot Murnaghan, Simon McCoy, etc.) which is based on market dynamics. Fourthly, what's wrong with the morning shift on a Sunday? It can be one of the most interesting shifts with the fallout from any story that's been published in the Sunday newspapers. For a fair percentage of the population, I'm sure that they don't rush to get up on a Sunday morning and either the radio or the News Channel is their first exposure to the headlines. I'd also be interested to know how often Nicholas Owen has anchored shifts on a Sunday morning against all of the other available times; he sits in frequently enough for Huw Edwards on the 5 O'Clock News and appears throughout the week.



So here goes... On what basis have you formed your opinion of Charlotte being terrible at ad-libbing? Offer some reason for your opinion. I don't like Kay Burley but it isn't because it's just popped into my head. It's based upon having watched her over the years and compared her style of presentation and journalism to that of others. Also, how would Charlotte be better off at the BBC? Does it offer more chances to develop her skill at ad-libbing?



What marks Alistair Stewart out from his colleagues at the BBC or ITV? If you are going to critique people then at least do it properly. Why has Huw Edwards been made a star out of nothing? Surely that is what all anchors are? Huw Edwards made a name for himself as a political correspondent which was no different to Michael Buerk making a name for himself because of his reporting from Africa. Similarly, George Alagiah has a reputation built upon his experience reporting from around the world as has Bill Turnbull for his work in the US. These attributes and characteristics (for want of a better phrase) are applicable equally to Mark Austin or James Mates.

She would be more suited to the BBC as there is no ad-libbing... just hard journalism. Perfect for a dryy fish personality like Charlotte. She'd probably get six o'clock news I'd say.

I think you're seriously underestimating the prominence of the BBC News at Six, the BBC's judgement and Charlotte Hawkins' profile. Not only will the News of the World be almost certainly wrong in thinking Charlotte is being considered to replace the high-profile, vastly experienced Sian Williams but for you to suggest Charlotte would overtake so many highly experienced, high-profiled and highly credibly journalists to "get six o'clock news" is just bonkers.

Remember before Sky she was only a regional news presenter for ITV. If she'd "get" anything at the beeb I'd imagine it would be on the news channel.

Well that wouldn't suit her "dryy (sic) fish" personality, I hear the experts say she's no good at ad libbing either.

I'm going to assume the "three out of the last five posts" and "from three of the usual suspects" bit included me and my post.

If that is the case, I'd like to explain my simple "You do talk a lot of trout" was because I've become disillusioned with posts from Ginofish and Danslink, randomly babbling on about things they can't fully contemplate without giving justifiable reasons, in posts littered with spelling mistakes and issues in sentence structure, grammar and punctuation, only then refuse to take on board the criticism other members have of said posts, instead re-iterating the same old argument and later claim they're being victimised.

I felt "You do talk a lot of trout" would explain the above feelings, which I have now outlined numerous times on this forum, without needing to go over them yet again. In future I'll just ignore said posts, in the hope the "problem" goes away.

Far from it House. I laughed out loud and you summed up my gut reaction to ginofish's latest posting perfectly. I also wondered why we don't use vetting techniques to prevent these people from posting until they've been trained properly. It was your comment that made me post, actually. The 'three out of the last five posts' and the 'usual suspects' to which and whom I refer were all quoted in my post. I don't see the point of posting on here if people are not going to explain themselves. How can you have a proper discussion about presentation when all people say is that somebody has a 'dryy fish personality'? What does that add to the debate? These members then claim that they are being victimised if we question them. I had no problem with your comment at all. When members fail to explain themselves or engage in discussion properly, then they are fair game. I've been through this with Danslink recently over his 'metaphorical puke' catchphrase (how on earth did he beat Bruce Forsyth to that one?) and I've made similar critiques in the past (notably in the Raoul Moat discussion). Please don't stop trying to correct these members and guide them in the right direction.

Oh. That was a long post to type out in that case.




Agree with everything you said. The thing that really annoys me about certain members here is their assumption that members of this forum object to "summer holiday kids" based on age and occupation alone, when in fact there are (I'm sure) many members on this forum who are of that age, or have been of that age around the time they joined.

The difference is they don't hide behind a wall of flimsy defences, badly constructed arguments and "metaphorical puke", but rather add useful, insightful and interesting posts to the debate and discussion on TV presentation and I believe others respect that, even if they don't see eye-to-eye on a particular view.

I'm sure that if Ginofish, Danslink and co learned to abide by those levels of practise when posting here then they would be accepted by the other members (at least as accepted as anyone on here is - Gavin and Pete will still make snide, sarcastic and occasionally humorous comments back I'm sure) but sadly I'm not sure that day will come.

I would hope that the mods could, if they haven't already, have a quiet word with those concerned and try to encourage them to be better participants to this forum. Presumably they would be more likely to listen to someone with board authority, with whom they can't play the 'well Danslink does it so that makes it alright' card.

P.S. Schwing: I missed the vast majority of your original post, for some reason. Had I seen you quote the individuals I wouldn't have made the assumption I did. Apologies for any confusion




Getting back to the actual thread, does anyone know what Phillipa Hall's main position is? I've seen her on Five and overnights, but her Sky biography says she's a "Sky Active" presenter. I think her, Lukwesa and Chloe (Potter) are very good, considering most of their appearances are during overnight bulletins.

Doesn't she normally combine the Sky Active bulletins with the token Five lunchtime news? I'm guessing she's just holiday cover on overnights - either that or Sky are trying to give her more experience

Have they reinstated Chris Roberts yet?

/wishful thinking post.

[quote="jdav" pid="675761"][quote="Bob Paisley" pid="675712"]

I don't think it's like the days of Sandy Gall or Reggie Bosanquet etc - when newsreaders were genuine high-profile public figures - but perhaps I should've said people are far more likely to know the newsreaders on ITV and the Beeb than Sky.

I think that newsreaders are 'high-profile public figures' but, sadly, not for the genuine reasons for which you suggest that the likes of Sandy Gall and Reggie Bosanquet were recognised. Today, newsreaders are known increasingly for their appearances on Strictly Come Dancing or for the length of their skirt, whether or not they are sat down or stood whilst reading the news, and how they are perceived by their colleagues in the newsroom. Setting aside Bosanquet's alleged propensity for a libation or two, in those days newsreaders were recognised at least on their merits.

Georgie Thompson presenting the sport at the moment from the Sky Sports News building. Worked quite well with good interaction between Georgie and Dermot.