As Kelvin still says today, if it were not for him publishing that tory he would not have such a high profile media presence today. Whether you like it or not that story and the Neil Kinnock story are what he's famous for.
As Kelvin still says today, if it were not for him publishing that tory he would not have such a high profile media presence today. Whether you like it or not that story and the Neil Kinnock story are what he's famous for.
So basically, he's famous for being a complete and utter d******d? Let's not forget what he tried to do to Sky News.
Quote:
In early 1994 Kelvin MacKenzie, former editor of The Sun newspaper, was appointed Managing Director of BSkyB. MacKenzie's proposed changes to Sky News lead to clashes with CEO Sam Chisholm and the head of Sky News, Ian Frykberg, who protested what they saw as an attempt to take its news values downmarket and concentrate on stories that would be more familiar to tabloid newspapers than its rivals at the BBC and ITN.
The main problems arose when it became clear that Frykberg, then head of News and Sport at BSkyB, wanted to take Sky News to a wider international audience. Frykberg outlined his intention to open 15 new Sky News bureaux around the world and make the channel a serious alternative to CNN. At the time, he was backed by Rupert Murdoch *[3]. There was also talk of the US CBS network acquiring a stake in Sky News, and the two launching a joint international news channel. Mackenzie, in contrast, wanted the channel to focus on more domestic and 'tabloid' stories. The most ferocious battle occurred when Mackenzie wanted Sky News to run an interview with Lady Buck, exposed by the News of the World as being the mistress of Chief of Defence staff Sir Peter Harding. Frykberg refused to air the interview and resigned shortly afterwards. The interview did not air on Sky News, and was instead shifted to Sky One.
MacKenzie announced his resignation in August 1994.
I've been stuck on standby in a strange hotel room all day today, with only CNNI and Sky News for company. I have been dipping in and out of Sky (rarely get to do it on a weekday other than Friday), so have had ample opportunity today to see Dermot, Colin, Anna and Jeremy in action, so to speak.
Dermot's programme: came across as very contrived and he gave me the impression that he really didn't want to be there, by overly trying to make it jolly and bouncy. Came across as a bit Bob Monkhouse, to be honest. Something didn't quite sit right. And I guess with audience figures of next to zero at that time of the day, he must be wondering why he is there in the first place. Probably waiting for a bigger gig?
Colin Brazier: appeared to be a fleeting glance only. He was in and out in next to no time. Repeated much of what DM had presented in the previous hours. A bit of a disjointed programme. Left with the impression of a visiting relative who you only see once a year, and that for thirty minutes on Christmas morning.
Anna Jones: was good on Afternoon Live. Kept things flowing and pacy and made it feel almost worth watching. Anna comes across as elegant and informed. On top of her game. And switched in and out of serious mode as the mood warranted. Lots of breaking news, handled seamlessly. (I suppose that other lady had a day off today to play havoc with 101 black and white canines somewhere.........................)
JT: well, it's JT, isn't it!! Nothing to say, really. His face is taking on that battered and beaten Sandy Gall-esque look more and more on an almost daily basis. Which is a good thing, IMO. The commander of the fleet is supposed to be mature and formidable and reliable beyond question. And JT is. No need for him to change anything, IMO. I wouldn't mind seeing him on the Ten.
Not sure who's on next. It's almost by bedtime..........
JD
jdav
Theres nothing wrong with Dermot nor his show. I find it probably one of the best slots on the channel. No whizzing around a studio, straight to the point and I don't get the feeling he doesn't want to be there.
The Live Desk is just a glorified hour of Sky News On The Hour... Nothing much different to be worth a separate programme. Afternoon Live has lossed its relaxed feel it used to have, its all a bit mish-mashy now and looks a mess with that extra piece of desk.
Theres nothing wrong with Dermot nor his show. I find it probably one of the best slots on the channel. No whizzing around a studio, straight to the point and I don't get the feeling he doesn't want to be there.
The Live Desk is just a glorified hour of Sky News On The Hour... Nothing much different to be worth a separate programme. Afternoon Live has lossed its relaxed feel it used to have, its all a bit mish-mashy now and looks a mess with that extra piece of desk.
They could certainly do with redesigning the island, it looks so odd on screen. Perhaps they could try re-create something similar to the one in the old Sky News Centre.
What happened the cool graphics that were on the Live Desk when Colin would introduce the coming up segment it would appear to his left. Them graphics made the show differentiate from others.
What happened the cool graphics that were on the Live Desk when Colin would introduce the coming up segment it would appear to his left. Them graphics made the show differentiate from others.
They're features of Fox News as well, on the odd occasion I've seen it. I think the "coming up" segment is now on the HD side panels.
i notice Sky are advertising for a new defence correspondent. I thought that position had been made redundant when they got rid of Geoff Meade?
and what's the deal with using Sky Sports News presenters as well? so now they have a surplus of sports presenters acting as 'correspondents' presumably on the same pay. can't see how they're saving money there.
i notice Sky are advertising for a new defence correspondent. I thought that position had been made redundant when they got rid of Geoff Meade?
and what's the deal with using Sky Sports News presenters as well? so now they have a surplus of sports presenters acting as 'correspondents' presumably on the same pay. can't see how they're saving money there.
Re: Sports- Nick Powell has become sports editor on sky news and sky sports news and at certain points in the day a sky sports presenter will provide the sports on sky news its explained in more detail from about page 11.
I always thought Geoff Meade was a good defence correspondent sky were stupid to get rid of who they did in the clear out.
i notice Sky are advertising for a new defence correspondent. I thought that position had been made redundant when they got rid of Geoff Meade?
and what's the deal with using Sky Sports News presenters as well? so now they have a surplus of sports presenters acting as 'correspondents' presumably on the same pay. can't see how they're saving money there.
Re: Sports- Nick Powell has become sports editor on sky news and sky sports news and at certain points in the day a sky sports presenter will provide the sports on sky news its explained in more detail from about page 11.
I always thought Geoff Meade was a good defence correspondent sky were stupid to get rid of who they did in the clear out.
We know that but your not addressing his point. Although SSN present some sports bulletins it would appear that none of the Sky News sports presenters have been sacked and have been rebranded as sports reporters etc and thereby Sky are not saving any money on their sports coverage.