thanks, I hear what you're saying. I forget that many posters here may love to have a job in TV, whereas I'm trying to get out of it.
As for avago, qvc etc, I go through phases where I 'latch onto' them, mainly to see how they and the crew cope with such a tedious working environment. I find it twistedly comical and entertaining.
I'm currently doing this with, yes I'll admit it, Friendly TV's 'Morning Chat' -
I watch it for hours, barely believing that such output is on air and people ACTUALLY WANT to work on it.
The girls are very personable though.
- Oh how boring of you, Martin. From the initial post in this thread, it is obvious that the poster does not wish to give any more information. -
I'd imagine the poster has no idea of what any changes will be, along with everyone else. True to form, after much ambiguous discussion, the staff will find out through osmosis and meagre communication about 2 days beforehand. Trust me - that's how it works.
Can I ask politely, maybe I have the different perspective of someone who works there, but what is the fascination with Sky News?
What do you find so jaw-dropping about repetitive and largely functional rolling news coverage? I'm really at a loss.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but do you have equal awe at other rolling fomat channels, like QVC, Avago, etc?
I have an interest in graphic design, and news channels rely on their graphics, so they are an integral part of the channel. Sky News IMHO does this best, so it is interesting in how they use graphic design.
thread on the CNN US revamp, you'll see how much effort CNN (and other US channels) puts into creating a varied, dynamic schedule. Sky News just doesn't bother with this and, as a result, I think it lacks the stature of a big-player in the tv news market. Some of the journalism may be great, but it's wasted on a 24-hour rolling newscast IMHO
Crap.
Having just spent a week being subjected to CNN US programming and nothing else, Mark, I can say quite categorically that it is not a patch on the sort of news you get over here.
Let's examine the schedule, shall we.
American Morning - OK, prepared to say that this isn't too bad, Soledad O'Brien certainly keeps the show going. Christ only knows what it was like with the useless Paula -my strength is live interviews- Zahn.
CNN Live Today - Just about the only thing to come out of Atlanta anymore... er, sorry their "World Headquarters" in Atlanta. Pretty basic, standard fare of heavy emphasis on perhaps three or four stories for a few hours, very little else. Seriously lacking in any substance.
Inside Politics - Now only 30 minutes, without Bernard Shaw, and so interminably dull (esp. with John King, who actually has to thank the audience for "putting up with me today" because he is so disastrously awful) that it's enough to send even the most avid of politicos into a coma. Presented by Judy Woodruff - without a doubt one of the most partisan of newsreaders; remember she cried on-air when G. W. Bush won.
Crossfire - Again, 30 minutes lost. The original format has changed from a "let's interview a guest and try to get them on our side" to "let's all sit around this very small table and talk pointlessly about nothing whilst we get the audience to do entirely unscientific polls we can claim are the exact opposite". What is the point of Crossfire? What do you learn from it? Nothing. It's just entertainment value news, that's all. There's nothing deeply insighful about two/four people sitting around arguing with each other.
I can't recall what's at 5pm. Er... must be another one of those memorable CNN productions. Oh! Wolf Blitzer! Dear God, how that man got on TV remains one of the greatest mysteries of our times. He is DREADFUL. It's like watching baking parchment.
At 6 it's Moneyline, oh, sorry, it's Lou Dobbs Moneyline, no, that's not it, it's Lou Dobbs Tonight, that's the one. Lou Dobbs being the same man who only a few years ago walked out of CNN because it turned into an ego-fest, his being too large for the building, one presumes. It's marketed as "to the point" and "witty" and "smart" and "so on.." er, and so on, but it's not. It's pretty dull, actually. It's just another hour of news presented from a different studio.
Then I think we have LIVE FROM THE HEADLINES! Which, curiously enough, has a rather scewed view of exactly what constitutes a good headline - and consequentally a good programme. Yet another New York production, and fronted by the abysmal Paula Zahn.
Larry King Live. This will be axed next year. It's got too bad to watch. Once upon a time Larry King ran a brilliantly successful radio show, and once upon a time he made the transition to CNN and launched a brilliantly successful TV show. The sparkle has gone, tragically. He is now spending evenings musing over the death of (zzzz) Laci Peterson and talking to "stars" from 1970s "hit TV shows". Heh, great.
More Live from the Little Town Of Nowhereville
Then Newsnight. Borrowed name, borrowed format. It's OK for a wrap up of the evening's events, and looks polished. Aaron Brown does have an intelligent and just generally watchable air about him, he's humble and just a little quirky, which makes a change. Probably the best thing CNN are producing, if it only got rid of the (now trademarked) WHIP (TM), where correspondents are given thirty seconds to make fools of themselves from far flung destinations like LA, Washington and er... LA again, where feeds routinely go down and where line fluffing is now something of a tradition, well, then it would be a little better.
The point is - CNN does not to 24 hour, rolling news. It does 24 hour news, yes, but 24 hour 1 hour news programmes.
many people never believe what they see until it happens lol
Does that explain why you habitually are the first to post a pile of innane sh-i-te whenever someone comes on with a little titbit of gossip.
The point is this: there is going to be an inevitable shift towards the Sky News Today style of programming across the board because - for the first time ever - Sky have found a way of making news programmes genuinely fun and interesting to watch. It means they don't have to spend s hit loads on production teams for 1 hour feature programmes, but instead stick to what they do best.
Today has been without doubt a massive success, the 10-1 slot has gone from being the worst to the best on the schedules. That they would want to copy that to the evenings is surely more common sense.
The music will be more of a distinctive theme, rather than the wishy-washy nothing there is now. It'll be adaptable for mornings, afternoons and nights.
Well, fortunatly, I think Sky News Today is the most successful part of the Sky News operation as a whole. Although i hope it wouldn't just be identical format, ie. Simon & Emma, Martine & Jule, Kay & Mark, Jeremy & Anna, Chris & Lisa all standing in the same spot going "Good Morning / Afternoon / Evening these are the stories we're covering live". But i've got great faith in Sky news these days, unlike BBC OR ITV, so i'm sure the tweaks and refreshes will be stunning!
Martin, good on you for being passionate about something. All the best.
As for the current music, I don't like it, themes or beds. The only 'bit' I think is good is the 'end fanfare' on the titles after the opening headlines on Sky News Today.
As for the news wall, I can understand their will to use it more and more as a visual device, but I personally don't like it. I think it's too big (especially when people are interviewed through it) and I dislike the way it degrades the picture (the adjoining monitor lines and resolution.)
I would just keep it for use in the background of shots, where it can be quite effective and give some perspective.
I feel any effort to spicing up / diversifying the output should be more MONEY and TIME spent on themed shows with headline inserts, such as the likes of Sunday, Littlejohn, etc.
thread on the CNN US revamp, you'll see how much effort CNN (and other US channels) puts into creating a varied, dynamic schedule. Sky News just doesn't bother with this and, as a result, I think it lacks the stature of a big-player in the tv news market. Some of the journalism may be great, but it's wasted on a 24-hour rolling newscast IMHO
Crap.
Having just spent a week being subjected to CNN US programming and nothing else, Mark, I can say quite categorically that it is not a patch on the sort of news you get over here.
Matter of opinion. Personally, I like CNN US's big-budget, glitzy presentation style, but that's just me. But my main point still stands - at least, with CNN US, you know when to tune in if you're looking for something in particular. I'm not saying that Sky should do things exactly how CNN US does. CNN US is far from perfect, as you rightly point out. But with CNN, if I want a political digest, I can tune in to Inside Politics, if I want to see a studio debate on a big issue, I can tune to that particular segment of the Paula Zahn programme. Of course, I can't actually tune to any of that, as I can't get CNN US here. But you know what I mean.
Nevertheless, c@t, an entertaining and witty critique as always - good stuff!
Oh I adore CNN's glitzy presentation and big-budget look, but there really is f-uck all news on there.
Think it's important to remember that CNN US would be very little without CNN International. It wouldn't have half the influence (or profit) it has, although it has to be said that both of those factors are slipping away these days.
I just think that the approach of a one hour, finite news programme should not be the purpose of news channels. Sky News Today gets it right in the sense that it is a three hour rolling show, i.e. what starts (post headline update) at 11am can be a continuation of what was on at 10.56am. You cannot get that with CNN. Look at Today's 10.30 interview - they're always asking people to stay on because they want to talk more and / or have had to break away to cover something else. CNN can't do that, because Aaron Brown, Paula Zahn or Wolf Blitzer are waiting to do "their" show.
