CA
Obviously it was to do with them being part of News Corp, Sky are NOT owned by Murdoch, he simply owns PART of them.
Fox and Sky have a deal allowing them to use each others coverage and correspondents.
Sky took Fox News' coverage during that Elian saga, its nothing new and I cannot see what is wrong with that at all.
Sky were, from what I have heard, providing the best coverage, why wouldn't Fox want to use it?
If you don't like Sky then just say so instead of nipping attacks in at the them whenever you find the chance.
Fox and Sky have a deal allowing them to use each others coverage and correspondents.
Sky took Fox News' coverage during that Elian saga, its nothing new and I cannot see what is wrong with that at all.
Sky were, from what I have heard, providing the best coverage, why wouldn't Fox want to use it?
If you don't like Sky then just say so instead of nipping attacks in at the them whenever you find the chance.
SN
Steve Naylor
Just to let you know - I did vote for Sky News. I have been watching it for a few weeks now (no, not constantly) and find it more interesting if nothing else than News24!
MA
Sky and Fox are both owned by the same people, so of course they would alwayd take each others coverage. It's nothing to do with which channel was providing the best service.
The BBC has a deal with ABC in america, so the BBC sometimes takes reports from ABC news and visa versa.
The one thing Sky can not get over is the fact is is owned by a powerful media company and this inevitably colour its reports.
Remember when News Corp were banned from taking over Man Utd. Coverage on Sky News was almost non existant
Marcus
Founding member
cheshirec posted:
Obviously it was to do with them being part of News Corp, Sky are NOT owned by Murdoch, he simply owns PART of them.
Fox and Sky have a deal allowing them to use each others coverage and correspondents.
Sky took Fox News' coverage during that Elian saga, its nothing new and I cannot see what is wrong with that at all.
Sky were, from what I have heard, providing the best coverage, why wouldn't Fox want to use it?
If you don't like Sky then just say so instead of nipping attacks in at the them whenever you find the chance.
Fox and Sky have a deal allowing them to use each others coverage and correspondents.
Sky took Fox News' coverage during that Elian saga, its nothing new and I cannot see what is wrong with that at all.
Sky were, from what I have heard, providing the best coverage, why wouldn't Fox want to use it?
If you don't like Sky then just say so instead of nipping attacks in at the them whenever you find the chance.
Sky and Fox are both owned by the same people, so of course they would alwayd take each others coverage. It's nothing to do with which channel was providing the best service.
The BBC has a deal with ABC in america, so the BBC sometimes takes reports from ABC news and visa versa.
The one thing Sky can not get over is the fact is is owned by a powerful media company and this inevitably colour its reports.
Remember when News Corp were banned from taking over Man Utd. Coverage on Sky News was almost non existant
CA
Why would they cover it? They are a news channel not a business channel.
The BBC would cover it just to get a dig in at Sky News, they love doing that and have done since launch, regardless of the fact that the majority of BBC correspondent give high respect to Sky News.
The BBC is controlled by the government, this obviously has caused its new coverage to be tinted in Labour Red.
As I have said time and time again Sky was found, by independent studies, to be the most 'balanced' in its news reporting of the 1997 election.
From the 2001 election I would say that Sky won it again because of their split screen coverage.
Many times I have seen the BUSINESS department at Sky News leading on the story of BSkyB losing money etc etc and they always add in 'BSkyB is the owner of Sky News'.
When was the last time you heard the BBC talking about how much money it wastes each year?
Sky was providing the best service today, if you don't like that then tough!
You're obviously one of these BBC groupies who hates the idea of Sky being anything other than tabloid trash you can spit at, well get this. It aint trash and it certain aint tabloid, today's reporting was something the BBC could only get once in a blue moon and then it would show off until it found something else to plug.
When Sky won News Channel of the Year for about the 10th time did you see them sticking 'We're better than you' on their idents? No, of course you didn't.
Yet because the BBC are more concerned about getting people to like them than what sort of service they actually provide they plaster idents with how many awards they have won, even though they deserved neither of them.
Fox does not take Sky's coverage if it can provide its own, it certainly does not take Sky's coverage if there isn't a very major news event occuring, that Sky is covering well.
Regardless of what you think, Sky News has provided some of the best breaking news coverage of recent times, and whether you like it or not that is how it is going to carry on, and Fox News can opt in and out whenever they have enough time in between telling CNN how crap they are.
The BBC would cover it just to get a dig in at Sky News, they love doing that and have done since launch, regardless of the fact that the majority of BBC correspondent give high respect to Sky News.
The BBC is controlled by the government, this obviously has caused its new coverage to be tinted in Labour Red.
As I have said time and time again Sky was found, by independent studies, to be the most 'balanced' in its news reporting of the 1997 election.
From the 2001 election I would say that Sky won it again because of their split screen coverage.
Many times I have seen the BUSINESS department at Sky News leading on the story of BSkyB losing money etc etc and they always add in 'BSkyB is the owner of Sky News'.
When was the last time you heard the BBC talking about how much money it wastes each year?
Sky was providing the best service today, if you don't like that then tough!
You're obviously one of these BBC groupies who hates the idea of Sky being anything other than tabloid trash you can spit at, well get this. It aint trash and it certain aint tabloid, today's reporting was something the BBC could only get once in a blue moon and then it would show off until it found something else to plug.
When Sky won News Channel of the Year for about the 10th time did you see them sticking 'We're better than you' on their idents? No, of course you didn't.
Yet because the BBC are more concerned about getting people to like them than what sort of service they actually provide they plaster idents with how many awards they have won, even though they deserved neither of them.
Fox does not take Sky's coverage if it can provide its own, it certainly does not take Sky's coverage if there isn't a very major news event occuring, that Sky is covering well.
Regardless of what you think, Sky News has provided some of the best breaking news coverage of recent times, and whether you like it or not that is how it is going to carry on, and Fox News can opt in and out whenever they have enough time in between telling CNN how crap they are.