TV Home Forum

Sky News

(July 2001)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
IS
Isonstine Founding member
There's no problem promoting SNA but it could be done in better ways.

An advert in the commerical break would do fine or even a note in the EPG info thats says 'Press red for active.'

Other channels have interactive services and they don't promote them every 10 minutes but viewers still manage to be able to find them. How many people couldn't work out what the red icon on screen meant? If they want to make in clearer than put some text there saying 'Press Red.'

I feel that would work just as well.

Oh and BTW, Chesh would be proud. If only he could be here! Smile
IA
Ian
Big Phil posted:
The ratings of the two channels say it all- News 24 is available in more homes in the UK, yet Sky still beats it hands down.


So just because something gets higher ratings it must be better? In which case ITV must be the source of the finest intelligent programming....... Shocked
BP
Big Phil
Erm, yes. If a program (or indeed channel) gets more ratings, then that means more people are watching it. Its quite simple really.
PE
Pete Founding member
Well, if they were newspapers, Sky News would be The Sun, no not that low, maybe The Mirror or Mail.

If N24 were a newspaper, it would be, I dunno, The Telegraph.

The Sun is of course, a much bigger paper in terms of sales, but that doesn't make it better.

Oh, and SN does have an active DOG......
RD
rdd Founding member
Channel 5 would be the Sun, from what I've seen of it. Sky News would probably be the Times (of course). Channel 4 the Guardian, ITV the Mail, and BBC, the Telegraph, although it isn't that right wing I suppose.
PE
Pete Founding member
Does anyone know - cos this has bugged me since it started - why are all the reports so low quality on active???
HA
harshy Founding member
Big Phil posted:
Oh come on, how can anyone seriously prefer dull and unoriginal News 24 to the fast-moving, friendly and professional Sky News? The ratings of the two channels say it all- News 24 is available in more homes in the UK, yet Sky still beats it hands down.

I'm sure we've had this debate before, but anyway, I feel like contributing. Sky have got some of the best presenters on TV. Sure, some of them are not quite as good as the others, but if I (and in fact most people) were to think of some good and popular presenters, there would simply be none from News 24 mentioned. My Dad, for example, loves Sky News. He knows nothing about presentation and all that, but only yesterday he was saying how horrible and dull News 24 looks. His favourite news presenter is Kay Burleigh, and I'm telling you, he's definitely not one to remember the names of most newsreaders.

And so we move on to Sky News Active. Why on Earth shouldn't they promote it? God knows what News 24 would be like if they had an interactive service. They'd probably stick a big DOG in the corner of the screen or something. And don't you think that the millions of people who don't have digital in this country get fed up with the constant promotion of News 24 on the BBC One news? Of course, this cross-promotion gives the BBC another unfair advantage. Sky have had to build up their audiences over the year, whereas the BBC can simply direct viewers to News 24. Interestingly though, this still doesn't seem to be working.

Well I don't like News 24 anyway. Cheshirec, you must be proud of me.


With Telewest Digital Cable, there dosen't seem to be Sky News at all, only BBC Crap 24, that's not far!!!
TP
Techy Peep Founding member
square eyes posted:
Oh and another thing that annoys me about Sky News, the constant flogging of the active service, somebody should tell them to put that flippin remote control away.  

Maybe Sky have shares with Duracell, which is why they want you to keep pressing that big red button!! Very Happy
IA
Ian
Big Phil posted:
Erm, yes. If a program (or indeed channel) gets more ratings, then that means more people are watching it. Its quite simple really.


With respect, I think not (but I agree that it means more people watching!).  However, just because something is popular doesn't make it good.  Although it may appeal to the masses, it doesn't mean that a certain thing is the best available.  Hearsay are popular; it doesn't make them the philosophers of pop.  Should we ditch everything that doesn't get the best ratings?  Goodbye to BBC2, Channel 4, [.tv] (although it's going anyway!), BBC Knowledge, Paramount Comedy, etc..

Let's not stop there.  I'm sure there's some rock bands that aren't making millions of pounds out of media hype.  This, it seems, means that they're no good, so we must get rid of those.

I could go on.  My point is this: I don't think that just because something appeals to the masses means that it is the best and that less popular things are not good.  Does anyone agree?

(Edited by Ian at 6:55 pm on July 13, 2001)
BP
Big Phil
That is true, but don't forget that we are comparing two things which are very similar. Everyone who watches Sky News now has the option to turn to BBC News 24 (I believe that News 24 is now on all of the platforms on which Sky News is available), but in terms of ratings, we can't compare [.tv] to ITV simply because they have different audiences, whereas Sky and News24 generally appeal to the same people.
RD
rdd Founding member
Big Phil posted:
That is true, . Everyone who watches Sky News now has the option to turn to BBC News 24 (I believe that News 24 is now on all of the platforms on which Sky News is available.


Not in ROI it isn't, except as an overnight news service on BBC ONE. On cable, we have Sky News and only Sky News...

Newer posts