The Newsroom

Sky News: Presenters & Rotas

Chat about Sky News Presenters and Rotas Here (July 2010)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
SJ
sjhoward
Michael posted:
It's something that Graham Linehan has been complaining about on Twitter a lot and which is not just the tactics of Sky - inviting someone on to do an interview obstensibly about one subject and then ambushing them with another which they haven't prepared for. It's like going to the doctor about an ingrown toenail and then just after the medicine has been prescribed saying "oh by the way what about my chest pains?".


If I had a penny for every time a patient had done this to me...! Not once have I got up and left! Wink
WW
WW Update
Michael posted:
Murdoch wants a Tory / UKIP government. Murnaghan is going to toe the party line, end of.


But if that's the case, won't Sky News run afoul of Ofcom impartiality rules at some point? Or can a broadcaster lean towards a certain side of the political spectrum as long as it gives others (some sort of) a say?
LJ
Live at five with Jeremy
Michael posted:
Quite interesting that in the Bryant/Burley exchange, the shoe was on the other foot - Bryant was referring to a report that Burley was ignorant of. However she did notably deliberately steer the report towards an area which Bryant had already dismissed as irrelevant. It's something that Graham Linehan has been complaining about on Twitter a lot and which is not just the tactics of Sky - inviting someone on to do an interview obstensibly about one subject and then ambushing them with another which they haven't prepared for. It's like going to the doctor about an ingrown toenail and then just after the medicine has been prescribed saying "oh by the way what about my chest pains?". It's shoddy, sensationalist crap from shoddy, sensationalist journos. Sky News is a Rupert Murdoch operation. Murdoch wants a Tory / UKIP government. Murnaghan is going to toe the party line, end of.

Your speaking complete balderdash. To think Dermot Murnaghan has been told to take an editorial stance is just complete rubbish.
bilky asko and Skygeek gave kudos
SK
Skygeek
Live at five with Jeremy posted:
Michael posted:
Quite interesting that in the Bryant/Burley exchange, the shoe was on the other foot - Bryant was referring to a report that Burley was ignorant of. However she did notably deliberately steer the report towards an area which Bryant had already dismissed as irrelevant. It's something that Graham Linehan has been complaining about on Twitter a lot and which is not just the tactics of Sky - inviting someone on to do an interview obstensibly about one subject and then ambushing them with another which they haven't prepared for. It's like going to the doctor about an ingrown toenail and then just after the medicine has been prescribed saying "oh by the way what about my chest pains?". It's shoddy, sensationalist crap from shoddy, sensationalist journos. Sky News is a Rupert Murdoch operation. Murdoch wants a Tory / UKIP government. Murnaghan is going to toe the party line, end of.

Your speaking complete balderdash. To think Dermot Murnaghan has been told to take an editorial stance is just complete rubbish.

Well said, and I speak from extensive first-hand experience when I say that any assertion of conscious bias is utterly unfounded and entirely non-existent.
bilky asko and VMPhil gave kudos
BA
bilky asko
You would have thought he'd have read the letter; he's not exactly some obscure back-bencher. I don't think it was handled brilliantly by either side, really.
FO
fodg09
Dermot's approach was probably a bit heavy handed but I certainly don't agree with the idea the that a politician should be able to restrict the topics they can be questioned on; they should be prepared to be asked about current affairs without needing to strategise about it beforehand.
DV
DVB Cornwall
The sheer cheek of a Politician dictating the subject matter is ridiculous if not malicious. Any Politician appearing on any public platform, broadcast or not, should be expected to be asked questions on ANY topic whatsoever, whether they choose to respond is of course their decision. Refusing to answer however should be taken by the audience as obfuscation. Michael Howard's famous spat with Jeremy Paxman being typical of the dark art.
SE
Square Eyes Founding member
DVB Cornwall posted:
The sheer cheek of a Politician dictating the subject matter is ridiculous if not malicious. Any Politician appearing on any public platform, broadcast or not, should be expected to be asked questions on ANY topic whatsoever, whether they choose to respond is of course their decision. Refusing to answer however should be taken by the audience as obfuscation. Michael Howard's famous spat with Jeremy Paxman being typical of the dark art.


Watch again. He didn't refuse to answer the question, and in fact was answering. He answered in the best way he could having not read the letter in question. It would be irresponsible of him to give his views on the specifics of a document he had not seen.
WW
WW Update
Square Eyes posted:
DVB Cornwall posted:
The sheer cheek of a Politician dictating the subject matter is ridiculous if not malicious. Any Politician appearing on any public platform, broadcast or not, should be expected to be asked questions on ANY topic whatsoever, whether they choose to respond is of course their decision. Refusing to answer however should be taken by the audience as obfuscation. Michael Howard's famous spat with Jeremy Paxman being typical of the dark art.


Watch again. He didn't refuse to answer the question, and in fact was answering. He answered in the best way he could having not read the letter in question. It would be irresponsible of him to give his views on the specifics of a document he had not seen.


That was my impression as well. He answered the question, but in true Fox News style, his answer wasn't deemed to be the right answer, so Murnaghan concluded the interview with a rather nasty bit of editorializing at the end (which wasn't a question at all and essentially called Umunna dishonest).

To me, Umunna did not try to dictate the subject matter; he was explaining why he hadn't read the letter (because he was invited to discuss something else).

In such spats, my natural sympathies are usually with the journalist, but in this case, Murnagahn was clearly in the wrong.
Last edited by WW Update on 20 January 2015 5:59pm - 3 times in total
AN
all new Phil
The letter was the top story on most news programmes that afternoon. To suggest that he hadn't read it is ludicrous.
AS
ASO
Have you watched the interview? If he had read the letter, he'd be able to give at least a bit of an answer. It is pretty obvious that he had not read it and he didn't want to give an answer on something he didn't know about.
AN
all new Phil
Yes. It is more the case that he wasn't aware of the party line.

Newer posts