Which is the best News Channel ?

It just seems to me this topic was made to cause an arguement : )))

OK - i've been away for a couple of days but I really need to put in here.

News 24 seems to be a rolling edition of the 6 oclock news - they give the news over and over again with business and sport breaking up the real news from the funnier stuff.

That is the idea of a news channel.

I have always noticed that Sky tend to stay with a story longer than News 24 - and although it can be annoying you can always turn over to Sky if you're really interested but remember they are likely to be going on about it for the next three hours whereas News 24 will tell you everything else that's been going on that day as well.

Usually when news 24 are only showing a bit of something it is because it is on one of the other BBC channels - if you have News 24 you are likely to have parliament and will have one and two any way.

News 24 show a blend of the news rather than sky who wait for something to happen and report on it like mad for ages until something else happens. Look at the archer thing - Sky stayed on it for 3 hours someone said - BBC did about 30 mins an hour and did other things as well.

Forgetting all bias - when I turn on Sky and sit there I just cannot be engrossed by it - i very quickly switch off. News 24 can keep me interested - most of the time anyway.

I agree

At night if there is nothing else to watch while Im on the computer I put on BBC News 24 from after 10 till about half twelve and it is interesting to watch and it keeps you company!

I'm sorry but you are totally wrong.
As an ex-employee of CNN I can tell you that when CNN set about making a 24 hour news channel their main aim was not to provide a constant CBS Evening News.
They are the Crisis News Network and that is what news channels should be about. The bigger picture not just the sound bite culture which has captured the short bulletins.
An hour long bulletin does give you the flexibility to cover important events and cover them without only picking up on the main points.
News channels are all about what is going on here and now. My most hated phrase is 'Today's News' or 'Tonight's News' as if the news should be presented to us in some sort of package.
The banter on News 24 is not in the same league as the type you find on Sky News and the presenters are so uncertain of themselves and cannot laugh off mistakes.
The idea of this silly 'But now at half past X a summary of the day's news' is just stupid, it prevents them from getting through any serious news and instead they have to normally cope with recording press conferences, breaking news after rivals and using sound bites.
News 24 is jut boring, I think the BBC have even said this themselves, when they tried to spruce up the channel. There has already been a recognition by the BBC that the channel does not cover enough breaking news.

The Archer Trial could not be summed up in 1 hour, it took over an hour for him to be sentanced, it deserved well over an hour and Sky gave it that.
And don't forget, Sky acts as a press agency for the rest of the news media, the print journalists especially.
ITN even had a group of journos standing around a big screen with Sky News on in their report on the Archer trial.

Giving us a quick package of news and then sport, then business then weather should not be what a news channel is all about.
It should not be a constant appoitment to view bulletin it should allow people to see events as they happen and when they happen and News 24 fails to do this in every respect.
They even follow schedules during breaking news, instead of sticking with a story they will nip over to the weather for 3 mins and then take a business update and then the sports headlines and then the main news headlines and then they will go back to the now not breaking news 30 mins later and consequently miss everything.
I do not want to sit through constantly boring news, I do want a bit of banter to break it up and through my eyes Sky is possibly the only channel in the world that has managed to do it and do it well.



(Edited by cheshirec at 7:02 pm on July 22, 2001)

Well look at the top of the thread, the poll doesn't lie.

Yes it does.
Polls regarding the BBC and Sky situation in here are always going to favour the BBC, because this forum is dominated by BBC groupies.
LOOK AT THE RATINGS! Sky gets more than double the figures of News 24 on a bad day, despite being available to less people.

Yes but amongst people who understand presentation and news delivery the verdict is the other way around. Also, just because they get bigger ratings doesn't make them the best, or do you think that ITV actually is the best TV channel in the country ?

Presentation yes, Sky's presentation is currently awful, although the music is excellent and I quite like the ident.
I doubt that very many of the people in this forum actually have a clue about news delivery and news content, the bias issue is a clear reflection of this.
I would say that as a general channel for the masses ITV is the best channel in the country, yes. It provides decent news, good entertainment and I watch it a hell of a lot more than I watch BBC One, Two or Channel 4 and 5 for that matter.
As I have said in my previous post, the vast majority of journalists use Sky News as an agency, just like small tv outlets around the world use CNN International.
I would say journalists are best qualified to talk about news delivery and considering Sky News is on a huge screen in both the ITN news room and the BBC News Centre that is a pretty obvious verdict.
Also, in the offices of every single national paper Sky News is on a big screen in their newsrooms.
The vast majority of regular posters in this forum are 15 or under and have no or very little experience of Tv outlets and how they operate so to say people in here understand news delivery is way out i'm afraid.
Presentation yes, news delivery no.
I doubt that most of the regular posters in here have ever touched a broadsheet and wouldn't recognise even Radio 4's Today programme as excellent journalism, more to point I doubt many in here have ever listened to Radio 4!

The masses generally get it right with news. The BBC are top of the appointment to view bulletins at the moment, because the 6 is a hell of a lot better than ITV's Evening News.
Channel 4 should be top but sadly C4 is shown at a bad time and most average people will not sit through 1 hour of news.

Most newsrooms (print & broadcast media) in the country [b:0301937347] & throughout the world[/b:0301937347] have Sky News on in their offices. I've never come across one that doesn't have Sky News -the prescense of News 24  in offices is a different matter though.

Look how many times grabs off Sky News have been used in print, even when the BBC had the same pics. That's because the newspaper offices & their picture desks have it on. And, the powerful Sky News logo stands out clearly in print. Even if a News 24 grab was used, the logo wouldn't stand out. Earlier in the year, the Telegraph used a 6 col grab off Sky News on its front page, you can't buy that sort of publicity. The Sky News logo (& website address) itself filled about 1.5 legs.

(Edited by SkyNews at 6:56 pm on July 22, 2001)

Even though I don't watch it, Sky News is the most established in its field, even more than CNN International.

OK, seeing as I started the latest round of 'fighting' i'd better answer.

Before I start I will just state that i'm 16 and am not connected to any TV service or comapny. My only bias is that News 24 is the only News channel that keeps me interested and that I will watch. I have nothing against Sky and if they interested me I would watch them.


In your eyes yes. Let's not get into another arguement on this forum.


That's CNN not Sky or BBC . More on this point later.


News: New or interesting information about recent events (Oxford English Minidictionary Revised Third Edition 1994)
Well done - you got that right! That's the whole point of news programmes and channels.




Why? If I want to know the latest news I look to a news channel where someone will tell me it. I don't look at teletext or the web for news very often unless I want breif headlines because I 'get lost' in the links and usually end up knowing everything about one story and nothing about another. When someone tells me it I can look it up if I want - or I just hear what they have to say and that's that. I don't want to hear the same story for three hours unless I'm really interested. I want to hear other things as well. I like the fact that I can turn on at 00 or 30 and hear all the news for the day or turn on at 27 and 57 and someone will let me know whether I need to take an umberella or wear a sun hat. I like the fact that - short of a breakdown - they will let me what I want to know when I want it.


and

So! It keeps me and many on this forum interested. It is too distracting if they keep talking to each other. Watch QVC. One of them - the dark skinned one IIRC it's Julian or something - keeps talking to the director (in the gallery) or one of the cameramen - the floor manager - anyone except the viewer. I don't like that - it seems as though he doesn't want to be there and wants to talk to his colleagues rather than me. It's distracting and unfriendly.


Someone had to


Why? We watch the news and it is the viewers that matter - not journalists. Sky News may be good for journalists who need all the details about a particular topic bt I don't and nor do many others. I want to know what I need to know and if I want more I'll make the effort to find it.


The younger of us may have less experience but we know how we like news told to us and we know when it is told well. There is again a difference about how journalists like their news and how the general public do.

**End**

Phew.

Please reply while I'm getting by breath and the use of my hands (yes I did copy and paste) back.

Edit: I can't see why its all indented so you'll have to put up with it like that - sorry!

(Edited by kingrikk at 7:57 pm on July 22, 2001)

Look, regardless of what you think you know, news channels have always been designed to cover breaking news and carry uncut pictures and report the news in an 'As it happens' approach.
They are NOT supposed to feature what is called 'Appointment to view' programming, which News 24 seems to continually show whilst marketing it as a 24 hour *rolling* news service. It is clearly not.

CNN were the brainchild behind 24 hour news, yes there were news channels before CNN but they were not 24 hours and certainly haven't been as successful.
There can be no doubt that CNN has spawned many followed, Sky News being one of them.
CNN was designed to show live coverage of breaking news as well as being accesible to viewers who needed news coverage and business reporting.
Sky had exactly the same approach and even branded itself this way at launch, telling European viewers it was a more relevant service to them.
You seem to have such a mistaken view about news, and it would appear that you would adore to be given endless sound bites and 3 min reports.
News 24 marketed itself as 'The whole picture', it clearly cannot be providing the entire picture if it is only giving 30 minutes of news coverage and then going to sport and business and weather all of the time.
News channels have, or are supposed to, follow a totally different agenda to ATV bulletins, they should be breaking away from regular schedules to cover breaking stories and events.
And this is just the problem, you are telling me that if you want the latest news you will look to a news channel, fine, so would I.
But I would also turn to the news channel providing coverage of the latest news, News 24 does not cover the latest news it covers today's news.
Sky has bulletins set apart to cover the entire day, Sky News at Ten for example.
But it also has constant rolling new which can avoid the sound bite culture and it uses that talent well, News 24 does not.
Stories that are covered for 3 hours + are clearly of great importance, indeed the story you are talking about even caused the BBC to do a news report on BBC One.
I do not want breaking news being stuck in a corner so that the channel I am watching can come back to it when it has finished rounding up the rest of the news, that's pointless.
With regards to the presenters. News is a depressing thing in itself, as one other pointed out the BBC does present coverage in a 'Watch and Cry' way, a very good description I think.
Sky managed to break down the depression with a bit of banter along the way. It makes watching the channel more enjoyable and keeps people interested.
Every day I see a News 24 presenter make a mistake, fine that's bound to happen in a 3 or 4 hour shift, but instead of laughing it off they take it very seriously.
For example, Valerie Sanderson became very confused at one point and just started straight into the camera, her autocue had obviously bust. I've seen the autocue go down on Sky and if they can carry on with the story they will but occasionally they will switch to the shot of two presenters and let them have a laugh about it until the thing is working again. I've seen Simon McCoy breaking off to say 'Right, i'm going to kill the people in the graphics dept. now'. It's funny and helps to gloss over the mistakes that they make.

Your arguement was that Sky was a worse service, generally, then News 24.
I said to you that the people most likelyto understand and judge how good a news service is would be the journalists themselves. They obviously have a better understanding than anyone about news otherwise they wouldn't be in the profession.
As Sky News is the favoured channel amongsts journalists and companies then I think that would conclude for us that Sky News is the higher quality service.
Take this as another way of looking at it. If you were an artist you would want to find the best quality brush you could, not the poor quality one that's been pulled apart. See what I mean?

The point of news channels is to get away from this short sharp sound bite culture and to cover every angle of a story. News 24 isn't doing that, and until it does I will not respect it one bit.