Sky News: Presenters & Rotas

Outside of a paper reviewer possibly going off-script during another royal discussion, absolutely not, at least as a news story, until we got confirmation from Kensington Palace.

Kay Burley always divulges her own thoughts on us every afternoon to be fair so i'm sure she'd be the first to speculate if a story came up.

And to be fair to the poster 'Live at Five' it's not like he was asking you whether she was or was not, merely making an observation as I'd say most of us do. Not everyone does because some of us are angels, but I suspect many do ask themselves 'is she pregnant' 'she has a glow today' etc, it's natural.

The new schedule looks great on paper and hopefully it all comes together nicely.

All I will say on this Skygeek is do you think it is appropriate for Sky News to speculate on the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie breakup?

Sky have done so at some length since the announcement yesterday and going by your logic from posts they should have no right to do so and keep the divorce entirely private.

I merely made a simple observation and did not go into any detail whatsoever.

It comes down to common sense really, if I noticed a presenter was pregnant, it really isn't our business unless the person involved decides to mention it publicly. Alice Baxter was obviously pregnant, but didn't mention it until she finished her final shift on the NC via Twitter that she was off, which I think was the best way of dealing with the situation with the viewers.

Speculation about a presenter's personal life is uncomfortable reading for me personally. I don't see newsreaders/journalists in the same way Sky reports on Hollywood A-listers, so is really not a public issue for discussion..

There are other sites where those issues are discussed, but this place really doesn't deal with those issues.

But there's nothing on which to speculate. It has happened - it is therefore not gossip. It is - particularly given not only their extraordinary fame but their also work on geopolitical issues - news.


It is not in any way comparable to "Ooh, Presenter X looks pregnant. I wonder if they've legislated for her maternity leave and who might cover for her?" That is, inarguably, of far less consequence and far less any of your business given that said presenter's personal life is not in any way in the public domain.

Given their global influence, I would say that Brangelina are really one of only four couples whose breakup would necessitate "proper" news coverage - the only others being the Cambridges, the Cornwalls (if that's what Charles and Camilla are called) and whichever couple is currently occupying the White House (given that - unlike in Britain - leaders' spouses are given the scope to take on official duties and policy agendas of their own).

Have you ever seen a Sky News TOTH saying: "Could Kate be pregnant? And if so, who would step in for her on her royal duties?"

No - and you never will.

It really does come down to this, is the Sky presenter's private life in the public interest? No.

Given the fact the initial post which sparked all this was just speculating rather than asking, this has got way out of hand. If he was asking SkyGeek to divulge information than that would be wrong, but he wasn't, it was a posting which you've jumped on. But we all now know not to make any observations about Sky News presenters ever again.

It depends on who it is, some people post their whole life on social media.

In a way, appearing on TV is another form/way of doing this, even if it's not intentional.

I guess we have to be PC these days, where we all behave like robots, never let out a smile or think for ourselves, through fear of offending someone. Any place I have worked, if someone was walking around with a bump, it was in the gossip. It's not like you can hide it. As long as it sticks to "is such and such pregnant" "yes or no" "that's good", it's not a bad thing. If it goes beyond that, then yes, maybe it's time to mind your own business.

Like if someone looks very ill, people will discuss, be concerned and approach the person, which could be beneficial. And knowing someone is pregnant could be benificial if something happens.

Don't be needlessly passive-aggresive.


The original post queried whether her putative maternity cover had been factored into the plans, right after I'd laid out for everybody how the slots would work.


That particular point-of-detail isn't even the business of anyone who isn't directly concerned with working on the 3-6:30 slot (myself included), so it isn't the business of anyone here.

I don't think its wrong to say 'oh, X looks like shes got a little bump, I wonder if shes pregnant'. Its something people notice and may say across the living room, for example. Its not intrusive, its natural.

I'm not bothered either way whether Sarah is or isn't, but I'm sure the original poster meant no harm in what he said. It may not be our business, but its not wrong to suggest she might be if a viewer notices she has a bump.

To suggest an apparent pregnancy might have factored into her new role on the line-up is a stretch, though.

On another note and back on topic, I wonder what editorial changes we might see, particularly with Kay's shift. Kay's 2-5 slot at present is much more informal, conversational and brisk in comparison to Jeremy's 5-7 slot. With Kay now doing 3-6:30 - both shifts in a sense, will we see a change? I can imagine the Sky Debate working will in the 3:30 and 4:30 slot, but not the 5:30 slot, for some reason.

Perhaps Sky should prevent employees taking part in such stories as below if they do not want to encourage it. The article mentions presenting. But I don't believe the guys at Sky are so serious. I think anyone being pregnant will be discussed in gossip. But what do I know. Anyway, we could go on and on, I don't work at Sky, so what I think as a viewer.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2140653/Anna-Botting-pregnant-Sky-News-anchor-expecting-child-age-44.html

This is TV Forum, not an inane rag like the Daily Mail.