MO
I think the figures would suggest they go to Sky.
No they don't, more watch N24! The multi-service only N24 is lower because its audience is split between N24 and BBC One/Two - they're still watching N24!
CPFC posted:
Altowers posted:
People really don't know where to go for breaking news/big news stories.
I think the figures would suggest they go to Sky.
No they don't, more watch N24! The multi-service only N24 is lower because its audience is split between N24 and BBC One/Two - they're still watching N24!
CA
I'd hazard that very few consciously watch News 24 on BBC One. Most people will likely tune into BBC One/Two with the intention of getting news from BBC One/Two, not BBC News 24.
There are more people tuning into Sky News as a single entity than BBC News 24 as a single entity, Moz.
I think News 24's highest figures were at about 5pm, likewise for Sky. AFAIK at that point the Beeb weren't in a simulcast, and at that point Sky were ahead (in relatively terms) quite substantially.
There are more people tuning into Sky News as a single entity than BBC News 24 as a single entity, Moz.
I think News 24's highest figures were at about 5pm, likewise for Sky. AFAIK at that point the Beeb weren't in a simulcast, and at that point Sky were ahead (in relatively terms) quite substantially.
WI
william
Founding member
This doesn't merit a new thread so I'll ask it here if others permit.. but does anyone know what happened to tonight's 'Judge John Deed' on BBC1?
Pulled apparently at the last minute - given it is still being trailed on the BBC1 website, although the EPGs across all platforms have just been updated.
I assume it was dropped because of the need to fit in the postponed Crimewatch at 9pm (each episode of JJD is 90 mins), rather than necessarily any suggestion it would be insensitive to run it soon after the Soham verdict - however given next Thursday is Christmas Day and the following Thursday New Year's Day I can't see when they are going to show what was presumably the last episode of series 2.
Very high production values and I'd like to see how it ends.
William
Pulled apparently at the last minute - given it is still being trailed on the BBC1 website, although the EPGs across all platforms have just been updated.
I assume it was dropped because of the need to fit in the postponed Crimewatch at 9pm (each episode of JJD is 90 mins), rather than necessarily any suggestion it would be insensitive to run it soon after the Soham verdict - however given next Thursday is Christmas Day and the following Thursday New Year's Day I can't see when they are going to show what was presumably the last episode of series 2.
Very high production values and I'd like to see how it ends.
William
KA
From one disabled person to another, I offer my solidarity and respect to you! Let us unite to fight ignorance about disability wherever it is found.
Katherine
Founding member
CHRISTY THE ALMIGHTY posted:
CPFC, I know it's only 1 troublemaker stirring the pot. But as a disabled person myself, I take this seriously. So that's why, ASAP, I'm going PM our glorious leader (whatever good that does-still waiting for a response from Sunday!) and have, to use diplomatic language "a frank exchange of views"!
From one disabled person to another, I offer my solidarity and respect to you! Let us unite to fight ignorance about disability wherever it is found.
CD
I don't think words can describe how wrong it is of $ky to grab the BBC's EXCLUSIVE footage andbroadcast it with the logo (badly) edited out - if $ky had exclusive footage and the BBC copied it, $ky would make a big deal out of it. And you wonder why they have those huge ugly babyish red-white-blue "Early learning centre" opaque astons to cover up the DOGs of various television networks from which they've stolen material?
-chris
-chris
SE
The footage was police video, not exclusive to the BBC was it ?
Square Eyes
Founding member
cdd posted:
I don't think words can describe how wrong it is of $ky to grab the BBC's EXCLUSIVE footage andbroadcast it with the logo (badly) edited out - if $ky had exclusive footage and the BBC copied it, $ky would make a big deal out of it. And you wonder why they have those huge ugly babyish red-white-blue "Early learning centre" opaque astons to cover up the DOGs of various television networks from which they've stolen material?
-chris
-chris
The footage was police video, not exclusive to the BBC was it ?
CD
The footage was police video, not exclusive to the BBC was it ?
It was provided exclusively TO the BBC BY the police, and I bet $ky didn't ask permission before they ripped the footage off - if they had done then they would have probably been provided with a DOGless version of the footage.
Square Eyes posted:
cdd posted:
I don't think words can describe how wrong it is of $ky to grab the BBC's EXCLUSIVE footage andbroadcast it with the logo (badly) edited out - if $ky had exclusive footage and the BBC copied it, $ky would make a big deal out of it. And you wonder why they have those huge ugly babyish red-white-blue "Early learning centre" opaque astons to cover up the DOGs of various television networks from which they've stolen material?
-chris
-chris
The footage was police video, not exclusive to the BBC was it ?
It was provided exclusively TO the BBC BY the police, and I bet $ky didn't ask permission before they ripped the footage off - if they had done then they would have probably been provided with a DOGless version of the footage.
SE
It was provided exclusively TO the BBC BY the police, and I bet $ky didn't ask permission before they ripped the footage off - if they had done then they would have probably been provided with a DOGless version of the footage.
Why ? The BBC didn't pay for it did they ? It obviously belongs in the public domain as the other broadcasters haven't needed to credit the BBC with the footage.
By the way, your sig is WAY oversized.
Square Eyes
Founding member
cdd posted:
It was provided exclusively TO the BBC BY the police, and I bet $ky didn't ask permission before they ripped the footage off - if they had done then they would have probably been provided with a DOGless version of the footage.
Why ? The BBC didn't pay for it did they ? It obviously belongs in the public domain as the other broadcasters haven't needed to credit the BBC with the footage.
By the way, your sig is WAY oversized.
CD
It was provided exclusively TO the BBC BY the police, and I bet $ky didn't ask permission before they ripped the footage off - if they had done then they would have probably been provided with a DOGless version of the footage.
Why ? The BBC didn't pay for it did they ? It obviously belongs in the public domain as the other broadcasters haven't needed to credit the BBC with the footage
But shouldn't $ky have retrieved it from the "public domain" in that case - not simply steal the BBC's footage? If it is truly public as you say, then surely $ky would have had no problem in obtaining the material - oh no, that would mean $ky would be *even* later than the BBC on the story (as they should be)? Also, if the BBC had ripped a story from $ky (which is incedentially practically impossible because of those huge astons) there'd have been a huge uproar...
Square Eyes posted:
cdd posted:
It was provided exclusively TO the BBC BY the police, and I bet $ky didn't ask permission before they ripped the footage off - if they had done then they would have probably been provided with a DOGless version of the footage.
Why ? The BBC didn't pay for it did they ? It obviously belongs in the public domain as the other broadcasters haven't needed to credit the BBC with the footage
But shouldn't $ky have retrieved it from the "public domain" in that case - not simply steal the BBC's footage? If it is truly public as you say, then surely $ky would have had no problem in obtaining the material - oh no, that would mean $ky would be *even* later than the BBC on the story (as they should be)? Also, if the BBC had ripped a story from $ky (which is incedentially practically impossible because of those huge astons) there'd have been a huge uproar...
DV
Who knows - Sky (it's not $ky, fool) may have asked the BBC for use of the footage - or asked the police if they could use it (where the only immediately available source would be the DOGged BBC broadcast of it). And of course it's not in Sky's interest to show a BBC logo on-screen. If they've asked the relevant copyright holder for permission to use the footage, they are within their rights to blur out the DOG.