CA
Well, OK - they didn't break off for coverage of the Heathrow BA strikes talks, when the union leaders were leaving Amicus; they are still frequently slow in reporting court cases; they regularly missed news conferences on the murdered girl in Scotland...
Like I said, you're just another one of these Independent (oh, look at the poor, aren't they sweet) types, who hasn't got a clue what he's going on about.
Sky News and CNN were NEVER crap at live events, actually. Sky always had excellent coverage of pressas - to the extent at which it forced the BBC to cover certain events too. You can't tell me CNN were crap when the Iranian hostage crisis ended - that was within the "first few years" boundary you talk of.
As it stands, its content is still very poor and just not suited to a 24 hour news channel. It is just a Six O'clock News with press conferences (when they can be bothered). The BBC simply cannot do rolling, lively, engaging news - it doesn't matter whether it's tabloid or not, the presenters seem so bored by what they're reading that even the most Martin Bell-esq of viewers would slip into a coma.
A Major Setup posted:
One example:
5pm earlier the White House news conference began with Bush and Sharon.
I was watching News 24 at the time, where they broke off a trailer which was going to preceed the countdown, to go live to the conference.
Sky News however were still in their ad breaks, and even played the full intro and headline sequences at 5pm, with no mention of the news conference for a good few minutes.
You seem to be speaking in a past tense, Cat. News 24 has been rather wrapped up in schedules, poor content etc. in the past, but it is slowly but very surely finding it's feet when it comes to broadcasting breaking news and live events.
Admitedly it has taken 6 years to start to make headway, but all news channels have difficult times in years proceeding their launch.
Sky News IMO is far too tabloid. You can tell it's connected to The Sun newspaper. One thing in Sky's favour is that it isn't scared to be inovative. Yes, it could be a hell of a lot more inovative, but ultimately it all comes down to costs. Sky News is run on a shoestring compared to the BBC, and that is why the BBC dosen't really have any vaid excuses to why it cannot excel itself when it comes to being inovative with news presentation and coverage.
5pm earlier the White House news conference began with Bush and Sharon.
I was watching News 24 at the time, where they broke off a trailer which was going to preceed the countdown, to go live to the conference.
Sky News however were still in their ad breaks, and even played the full intro and headline sequences at 5pm, with no mention of the news conference for a good few minutes.
You seem to be speaking in a past tense, Cat. News 24 has been rather wrapped up in schedules, poor content etc. in the past, but it is slowly but very surely finding it's feet when it comes to broadcasting breaking news and live events.
Admitedly it has taken 6 years to start to make headway, but all news channels have difficult times in years proceeding their launch.
Sky News IMO is far too tabloid. You can tell it's connected to The Sun newspaper. One thing in Sky's favour is that it isn't scared to be inovative. Yes, it could be a hell of a lot more inovative, but ultimately it all comes down to costs. Sky News is run on a shoestring compared to the BBC, and that is why the BBC dosen't really have any vaid excuses to why it cannot excel itself when it comes to being inovative with news presentation and coverage.
Well, OK - they didn't break off for coverage of the Heathrow BA strikes talks, when the union leaders were leaving Amicus; they are still frequently slow in reporting court cases; they regularly missed news conferences on the murdered girl in Scotland...
Like I said, you're just another one of these Independent (oh, look at the poor, aren't they sweet) types, who hasn't got a clue what he's going on about.
Sky News and CNN were NEVER crap at live events, actually. Sky always had excellent coverage of pressas - to the extent at which it forced the BBC to cover certain events too. You can't tell me CNN were crap when the Iranian hostage crisis ended - that was within the "first few years" boundary you talk of.
As it stands, its content is still very poor and just not suited to a 24 hour news channel. It is just a Six O'clock News with press conferences (when they can be bothered). The BBC simply cannot do rolling, lively, engaging news - it doesn't matter whether it's tabloid or not, the presenters seem so bored by what they're reading that even the most Martin Bell-esq of viewers would slip into a coma.
RE
In terms of speed in reacting to events, News 24 seems to be able to do it just as fast as Sky News does when they know that breaking news is expected. for example, court cases, union talks, political press releases. however,
it has to be said
that when the breaking news is something completely unexpected, say a bomb went off, hostage taking, train crashes etc, sky news has the edge.
NE
newsjunkie
Founding member
I seem to remember when the new BBCi was being launched they said that it would be possible to load different tickers, ie like SKYnews active. Whats happened to this idea.
MB
I for one think News 24 is not nearly as bad as many people are claiming it to be on here, although I do think the rigid schedule does not suit the nature of the channel.
Also, they could take a leaf out of ITVNC's book and include more regional reports to break up the monotony. It gets dreary when you get the same headline(s) repeated 4 times an hour, only to be punctuated by World Business Report and Simpson's World.
There are, however, excellent programmes that are scheduled and have had me gripped from beginning to end when all I did was tune in for the headlines - such as Reporters and FaceToFace. However these aren't trailed nearly enough, because most trailers are for the generic schedule patterns (the "News, whenever it breaks" one, which I think is tasteless because it always intercuts the most recent tragic news stories with the countdown music, turning people's deaths into marketing gimmicks).
On the graphics side, there's far too much screen clutter and I think it IS important that a news channel doesn't clutter up too much of the screen - very often you see footage of breaking news through what looks like somebody's letterbox - and I don't mean 16:9 widescreen - it's more like 24:9 with another 24:9 triple-layer of headline caption, précis caption, 'phone correspondent name' caption and what apparently will now be a ticker added to the whole lot.
The TV image will end up looking more like BBCi if this carries on, and you'll get more of a picture if you go to one of the interactive streams!
Also, they could take a leaf out of ITVNC's book and include more regional reports to break up the monotony. It gets dreary when you get the same headline(s) repeated 4 times an hour, only to be punctuated by World Business Report and Simpson's World.
There are, however, excellent programmes that are scheduled and have had me gripped from beginning to end when all I did was tune in for the headlines - such as Reporters and FaceToFace. However these aren't trailed nearly enough, because most trailers are for the generic schedule patterns (the "News, whenever it breaks" one, which I think is tasteless because it always intercuts the most recent tragic news stories with the countdown music, turning people's deaths into marketing gimmicks).
On the graphics side, there's far too much screen clutter and I think it IS important that a news channel doesn't clutter up too much of the screen - very often you see footage of breaking news through what looks like somebody's letterbox - and I don't mean 16:9 widescreen - it's more like 24:9 with another 24:9 triple-layer of headline caption, précis caption, 'phone correspondent name' caption and what apparently will now be a ticker added to the whole lot.
The TV image will end up looking more like BBCi if this carries on, and you'll get more of a picture if you go to one of the interactive streams!
HA
You're right, Neil. I too pointed this out on page 1, but nobody listens.
As I have said before, I hope to god that 95% of those reading this forum don't get into broadcasting, because frankly most have no idea what they're talking about.
The reason News 24 does so terribly, is not because it's supers are too big, or its clock the wrong colour, but because it has an unappealing agenda, a dreary style of news delivery, and a interminably stuffy atmosphere.
It's great for the central London types, the Independent readers, and you can claim it's better than Sky News all you want - but there's an entire industry out there that disagrees with you.
I agree with all your points c@t, and we are not implying that News 24 is sh*t because they can't decide on the clock etc, but we should be aloud to comment on such things, as it does provide an image of the channel, otherwise they wouldn't be any need for graphics!
I hope you understand what you mean, and I appreciate what you are saying.
harshy
Founding member
c@t posted:
Neil Green posted:
Three pages of discussion about something that may or may not happen, including some people picking on the astons and music, when (one would assume) news is actually the most important element of a rolling news channel. Why am I not surprised?
And now someone will respond with 'but this is a TV presentation site'
And now someone will respond with 'but this is a TV presentation site'
You're right, Neil. I too pointed this out on page 1, but nobody listens.
As I have said before, I hope to god that 95% of those reading this forum don't get into broadcasting, because frankly most have no idea what they're talking about.
The reason News 24 does so terribly, is not because it's supers are too big, or its clock the wrong colour, but because it has an unappealing agenda, a dreary style of news delivery, and a interminably stuffy atmosphere.
It's great for the central London types, the Independent readers, and you can claim it's better than Sky News all you want - but there's an entire industry out there that disagrees with you.
I agree with all your points c@t, and we are not implying that News 24 is sh*t because they can't decide on the clock etc, but we should be aloud to comment on such things, as it does provide an image of the channel, otherwise they wouldn't be any need for graphics!
I hope you understand what you mean, and I appreciate what you are saying.
CA
I agree entirely that you should be able to comment on the quality of its presentation, that is what this forum is primarily for.
But to equate poor presentation and low viewing figures/the quality programming is way off the mark, in my book. Some people around here seem to be under the illusion that the general public have watercooler moments concerning News 24's graphics - that most people actually give a sh-t. They don't.
Discuss graphics and presentation, absolutely; discuss viewing figures... but don't attempt to link both of them, because in this instance it really doesn't matter one tiny bit.
As it stands, I think the graphics are sh-t, and the programming is sh-t. But that's the only connection between the two.
Anyway, it's now Thursday and I can't see any tickers.
harshy posted:
I agree with all your points c@t, and we are not implying that News 24 is sh*t because they can't decide on the clock etc, but we should be aloud to comment on such things, as it does provide an image of the channel, otherwise they wouldn't be any need for graphics!
I hope you understand what you mean, and I appreciate what you are saying.
I hope you understand what you mean, and I appreciate what you are saying.
I agree entirely that you should be able to comment on the quality of its presentation, that is what this forum is primarily for.
But to equate poor presentation and low viewing figures/the quality programming is way off the mark, in my book. Some people around here seem to be under the illusion that the general public have watercooler moments concerning News 24's graphics - that most people actually give a sh-t. They don't.
Discuss graphics and presentation, absolutely; discuss viewing figures... but don't attempt to link both of them, because in this instance it really doesn't matter one tiny bit.
As it stands, I think the graphics are sh-t, and the programming is sh-t. But that's the only connection between the two.
Anyway, it's now Thursday and I can't see any tickers.
RE
Ticker Ticker - Come Out, Come Out wherever you are!!
I bet its hiding under the desk
I bet its hiding under the desk
MA
Maybe because th BBC feels the need to check storys before they broadcast them. Was it Sky who last week broke the news that SARS had broken out again in Hong Kong. So it was.
The BBC will wait until a story is confirmed on two sources before broadcasting it. It has a global reputation to defend.
Marcus
Founding member
Re-it-er-ate posted:
In terms of speed in reacting to events, News 24 seems to be able to do it just as fast as Sky News does when they know that breaking news is expected. for example, court cases, union talks, political press releases. however,
it has to be said
that when the breaking news is something completely unexpected, say a bomb went off, hostage taking, train crashes etc, sky news has the edge.
Maybe because th BBC feels the need to check storys before they broadcast them. Was it Sky who last week broke the news that SARS had broken out again in Hong Kong. So it was.
The BBC will wait until a story is confirmed on two sources before broadcasting it. It has a global reputation to defend.
CA
No, that is absolute tripe and you know it, Marcass. Excuse my Freudian slip.
Sky said that there were FEARS of another POSSIBLE Sars outbreak - which there were - which REPORTEDLY was going on in Hong Kong.
They later clarified the issue after health officials came out and said that actually it wasn't Sars but just some sort of bad cough.
It was reported all over the place, not just on Sky. Give it a rest with your standard-bearing, global-repuation droll, will you. In the current climate, the BBC is the last organisation to be lecturing anyone about journalistic standards.
Sky said that there were FEARS of another POSSIBLE Sars outbreak - which there were - which REPORTEDLY was going on in Hong Kong.
They later clarified the issue after health officials came out and said that actually it wasn't Sars but just some sort of bad cough.
It was reported all over the place, not just on Sky. Give it a rest with your standard-bearing, global-repuation droll, will you. In the current climate, the BBC is the last organisation to be lecturing anyone about journalistic standards.
:-(
Hang on... As far as I can rememeber it's a Sky News team that have been suspended for making up a news story on recent days and the BBC thing is yet to be resolved!
A former member
Quote:
the current climate, the BBC is the last organisation to be lecturing anyone about journalistic standards.
Hang on... As far as I can rememeber it's a Sky News team that have been suspended for making up a news story on recent days and the BBC thing is yet to be resolved!