The Newsroom

TV News ownership/relationships

(November 2016)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
WO
Worzel
Most will know of the relationship between Sky News and Fox News and the ownership there but I've always wondered what the relationships are between ABC News and BBC News and also CNN and ITV/ITN.

During last night's US Election in particular, Andrew Neil kept referring to ABC News as 'our sister network' but technically they're not owned or operated by the same organisation.

Is someone able to talk us through the relationships in particular with the US and UK networks.
NJ
news junkie
My understanding was that it was to do with the sharing of resources. So the BBC can access ABC staff/reports and vice versa. I believe ITV and NBC have a similar relationship. Often when there are early breaking stories or weather based news like hurricanes, often the UK networks will use their 'sister's' reporters and resources. I'm not sure if Sky and CBS are sisters as they seem to use their reporters before that of Fox.
IS
Inspector Sands
Yes, the BBC News and ABC News have a sharing agreement that covers resources, content and news gathering.

They have similar deals with other broadcasters, though I think apart from the EBU, the ABC deal is the most extensive.

Many broadcasters around the world take a feed of the main BBC news bulletins followed by a compilation of the packages from it. ITN have something similar
CH
Charles
In my opinion, the reach of these these kinds of consumer brand partnerships is a little overstated around these parts. If you're a producer and you need video from some far flung place, you'll go through your own network's wire (ABC, CBS, FOX, BBC, etc.) and other wire services that are a little more behind the scenes (AP, AFP, ITN, CNN) if you have access to them. If you're a producer for an ABC affiliate in the US, 90% of the video on the international tab on NewsOne is going to come from the AP. The rest comes from whatever small amount of international stuff ABC produces itself, and then the remainder from random primary sources or other networks. A BBC newsfeed editor might see some amazing video of, say, protests in downtown Los Angeles and call up ABC to say "hey, can you send that video over to us?" But I don't think their arrangement is much more than that. Or at least, not a crucial, day-to-day dependence on each other aside from perhaps some major international stories of significance in both the US and UK.

Out of any of them, Sky and Fox are probably the closest. They actually are (or at least were) owned by the same company, Sky reporters show up on Fox every now and then, and there's a fair amount of Sky content that shows up on Fox NewsEdge (though it's still far from being the majority). But even then, it's not exclusive. Sky video can show up elsewhere too.

As for CNN, they have tried in more recent years to make themselves a more self-sufficient wire service without the AP and only limited access to Reuters. Most international stuff on CNN NewSource will be from CNN. CNN also has a ton of access to all kinds of networks around the world, but they'll usually just take the full feed with all the graphics instead of trying to get the raw video.
Last edited by Charles on 10 November 2016 9:08am
IS
Inspector Sands
In my opinion, the reach of these these kinds of consumer brand partnerships is a little overstated around these parts. If you're a producer and you need video from some far flung place, you'll go through your own network's wire (ABC, CBS, FOX, BBC, etc.) and other wire services that are a little more behind the scenes (AP, AFP, ITN, CNN) if you have access to them. If you're a producer for an ABC affiliate in the US, 90% of the video on the international tab on NewsOne is going to come from the AP. The rest comes from whatever small amount of international stuff ABC produces itself, and then the remainder from random primary sources or other networks. A BBC newsfeed editor might see some amazing video of, say, protests in downtown Los Angeles and call up ABC to say "hey, can you send that video over to us?" But I don't think their arrangement is much more than that.

In terms of quick turnaround footage thats mosgly true, but there is a big difference between getting footage via an agreement like the ABC/BBC one and via the agency services. An agency deal might not include archive rights or have other restrictions, whereas a sharing agreement like theirs doesn't. Also they'd get it a lot quicker and raw material too


Something like Newsnight won't want poor quality, watermarked footage of Trump obtained from a 3 minute agency wrap, they'll want a choice of decent quality rushes

There's also facilities sharing. For example if BBC News wanted a down the line with someone in, say, Boston, or a feed point in the US they have access to ABC and its affiliates.


Incidently, I believe that the BBC are replacing ITN as UK provider to Reuters some time soon, so a lot more broadcasters will be using BBC footage for their UK stories
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 10 November 2016 5:43pm
Charles and Footballer gave kudos
JA
JAS84
Out of any of them, Sky and Fox are probably the closest. They actually are (or at least were) owned by the same company, Sky reporters show up on Fox every now and then, and there's a fair amount of Sky content that shows up on Fox NewsEdge (though it's still far from being the majority). But even then, it's not exclusive. Sky video can show up elsewhere too.

Sky News and Fox News still are ultimately owned by the same company. All TV (along with the movie studio) fell on the 21st Century Fox side of the split.
CO
Connews
JAS84 posted:
Out of any of them, Sky and Fox are probably the closest. They actually are (or at least were) owned by the same company, Sky reporters show up on Fox every now and then, and there's a fair amount of Sky content that shows up on Fox NewsEdge (though it's still far from being the majority). But even then, it's not exclusive. Sky video can show up elsewhere too.

Sky News and Fox News still are ultimately owned by the same company. All TV (along with the movie studio) fell on the 21st Century Fox side of the split.


'Fraid not. Although the largest shareholder, Murdoch and 21st Century Fox only owns a 39.1% stake in Sky, the owner of Sky News.
DE
derek500
JAS84 posted:
Out of any of them, Sky and Fox are probably the closest. They actually are (or at least were) owned by the same company, Sky reporters show up on Fox every now and then, and there's a fair amount of Sky content that shows up on Fox NewsEdge (though it's still far from being the majority). But even then, it's not exclusive. Sky video can show up elsewhere too.

Sky News and Fox News still are ultimately owned by the same company. All TV (along with the movie studio) fell on the 21st Century Fox side of the split.


Hasn't been since 1990 when Sky merged with BSB. Fox are shareholders of Sky plc (39%) they don't 'own' it or run it.
LU
Luke
but a significant stake which has been instrumental in getting James Murdoch back as chairman of Sky.
RD
rdd Founding member
It's been observed that while Fox don't control Sky per se, they have often acted as if it were a wholly owned subsidiary and other shareholders have been happy for them to do so - most of the time.

Incidentally for reasons I'm unsure of, the old News Corporation's television assets in Australia ended up with News Corp rather than 21st Century Fox, though they still use the Fox/FOXTEL brand.
LL
London Lite Founding member
Luke posted:
but a significant stake which has been instrumental in getting James Murdoch back as chairman of Sky.


21st Century Fox own 39% of Sky as reported in Private Eye which got them James Murdoch back as Chairman. This is despite 50% of independent shareholders voting against him.

Newer posts