Just to throw a random comment into *N24 v Sky News: The Rematch*, I've actually taken a liking to the ITV News channel since the Iraq war, and it's my second choice to watch after Sky News. If ITV invested in it properly, I think that it would become quite a nifty little operation.
The Breaking News thingy is now transparent and looks much nicer. The colours are not as garish anymore - methinks it might have been designed to be transparent and that is why it looked so bad last night,
Is the black 'non breaking news' aston translucent now too?
I still can't see where they're going to put the ticker - and aren't convinced there's going to be one. On my widescreen telly the N24 clock is right at the bottom of the screen, anything under that I wouldn't see!
Yes it is. There is still a gap between it and the bottom of the screen though.
I can't see where this ticker is meant to be going either unles it goes out of the safe zone for letterbox viewers.
Two other things I've noticed. The location thing can go onto two lines and that foul location bar on the plasmas has been dispensed with.
I hope this ticker doesn't come and they just make the graphics smaller and a bit nicer looking - but that is never going to happen is it.
This is hilarious. You really think 80 million people watch Sky News! Don't forget News24 has far far more viewers than Sky, because it has the advantage of being put on BBC1 in this country and BBC World around the Globe.
During the war up to 10 Million were watching the News24 specials in this country alone.
And don't forget the global; reach of BBC World Service radio, and the BBC News website
No, dear, I think you might've misunderstood. Let me explain again.
1) I didn't even bring the WS into the equation - you did. I think the World Service is absolutely wonderful, and one of the few things at the moment that the BBC can be truly proud of. By equal measure, Five Live is excellent, although in fairness has no real competition.
2) I did not say that 80 million viewers watched Sky News, I just gave a figure with no comment on it whatsoever. More people watch Sky News as a 24 hour news channel than BBC News 24. Don't give me the sh-te about it being on BBC World; people in Singapore, South Africa and Switzerland tune in to watch BBC World, not BBC News 24, the same is applicable to its simulcast on BBC One.
You distortion of the figures, Marcus, is what's amusing, not my comments. BBC ONE and BBC WORLD have far, far more viewers than Sky News... BBC NEWS 24 as a single standing entity does not.
It is dull, lifeless and dreary. What I find so disturbing Marcus is that an employee doesn't recognise that - with your attitude (seemingly thinking there's nothing wrong with it) it is never going to make the sort of progress the BBC so desperately want.
Actually Dear, let me quote your actual words, which you decided not to include
Quote:
Sky is getting many, many times more viewers than News 24 in total - 80 million viewers
which means you think sky gets 80 million viewers. Which is wrong. Perhaps you should be more careful with english in future.
I don't think I have every made any comments on the style of news presentation on News24 and I certainly don't think that News24 is faultless. I think it's news agenda is far to tabloid at times and I hate the way it trys to ape Sky in grabbing ratings. One example is the Holly and Jessica story which was hyped out of all proportion last year and only because it boasted the viewing figures. That is the actions of a cheap tabloid not a public service news channel. I also have reservation about the amount of text on the screen which I find distracting. So to say that I think it is faultess is far from the truth.
With regard to the viewing figures all you have to do is count those people watching the output of the News24 studio and the News24 presenters. This includes those watching on BBC1 and on BBC World whether you like it or not. It's an advantage the BBC have and they would be stupid not to use it.
News24 has many problems, but is far from the dreadful picture you, the sky press office, Gerald Kaufman and the Daily Mail try to make out. It is not always first with Breaking News but then neither is sky. They have been many times when it has beaten them. And it is a lot more careful than sky about checking stories and thus makes far far fewer mistakes. You are wrong when you say it never breaks it's schedule. I have been in the gallery and seen the wrath of the Weather team when they have been dropped for the 10th time so that they can cover some live event. They also crash out of promos etc to cover live events. Sky has often missed the start of live event s because it is stuck in a commercial break.
I wish they would get rid of that awful font on the top of the breaking news astons, looks really bad. Maybe thay could change in with the BBC WORLD one.
To be quite honest I think this whole thread has been blown wildely out of context and the realms of normality.
To be honest all I want to do is watch News which is of a quality that deserves to be seen. I don't care who's stolen pres from who, who breaks news first, or how much internal and cross company bickering there is.
I think we as the public deserve to see News which is factually correct, so therefore I'd rather wait for the broadcasters to verify the information and make sure it's correct before broadcasting.
Therefore I watch BBC News 24. I can be safe in the knowledge when I watch them that the news they are broadcasting is correct, and not some we-heard-this-of-some-bloke-just-so-we-could-beat-the-BBC rubbish that can occasionally be sprouted from the Sky Machine.
The BBC can't win at the mo - if there viewing figures are lower than the competition (BBC4, BBC3 or News 24) then they are ridiculed by the Press (Daily Mail or any Murdoch Owned Press) but if the are higher than the competition (BBC1, BBC2 or CBeebies) then they are slagged off for being to commerical and taking advantage of their situation.
Sky need the BBC as much as the BBC need Sky. It's called competition, and what keeps channels from being a total waste of space...
Given that the inquiry has yet to consider any evidence, yet alone apportion any blame in the Kelly affair, it's a bit early to make judgements like this. Do the poll after the inquiry has published