Do News 24 pay their presenters on an a salary? If so it must be these salaries that are too high. Put them all on performance related pay totally, and most of them will be living in a shack in an underground station
You cannot be making that as a serious suggestion, surely! How on earth would that work? Oh, if you get more viewers you'll get paid more? What about thos eon the night shift?
Do News 24 pay their presenters on an a salary? If so it must be these salaries that are too high. Put them all on performance related pay totally, and most of them will be living in a shack in an underground station
You cannot be making that as a serious suggestion, surely! How on earth would that work? Oh, if you get more viewers you'll get paid more? What about thos eon the night shift?
No, performance is equal to quality of their newscasting skills and ability to cope, not their viewers, that would obviously not work!!! Alistair Yates goes international remember so if this was the case, he'd be a winner.
Andrew Simmons & Actor Kahn (whathaveyou) would get very little in terms of pay. Chris Lowe, Jane Hill, Phillip Hayton would get more.
Obviously its not practical or ideal, but nor is simulcasting Breakfast!
[No, performance is equal to quality of their newscasting skills and ability to cope, not their viewers, that would obviously not work!!!
I can't believe I'm getting into a discussion about this, but how on earth do you think anyone is going to measure the 'quality' of their newscasting skils!!!
Will a panel sit there with number cards and hold up a 5.9 or 6.0 if they've given flawless quality?
Please tell me you are joking...
EDIT:
Missed this:
Quote:
Obviously its not practical or ideal, but nor is simulcasting Breakfast!
I must read the whole post before replying...
I must read the whole post before replying...
I must read the whole post before replying...
I must read the whole post before replying...
I must read the whole post before replying...
I must...
Weekend 24 broadcast untill 10am on BBC2 today... was it jon and sian all the way or did it change ant 9?
They've had a normal News 24 hour of dullness going for little while whenever they don't have a good show to put on instead. It's on for the next two weeks at least. I wish BBC2 would sort themselves out. Their morning timings now are dreadful -" Weekend" was something half decent but that had a really small run.
I don't understand how with all the crap-ness, simulcasting & trollop News 24 turns out it costs THREE times more than Sky News. That figure has been tossed around numerous times, and I can't believe that its true.
Do News 24 pay their presenters on an a salary? If so it must be these salaries that are too high. Put them all on performance related pay totally, and most of them will be living in a shack in an underground station - Joanna Gosling, Liz Pike, Matthew Amroliwala, Phillipa Thomas, Louise Munching etc.
Are more experienced presenters paid more - e.g. Phillip Hayton compared to Chris Eakin?
It doesn't cost three times as much. That is Murdoch propaganda.
As for presenters, I can assure you they are all on different salarys depending on their percieved value to the channel. And most of them are all on short term contracts, so if they fall out of favour with management then they soon find themselves out of work.
I don't understand how with all the crap-ness, simulcasting & trollop News 24 turns out it costs THREE times more than Sky News.
It doesn't cost three times as much. That is Murdoch propaganda.
Would that be the same propaganda that said at a source that I read that I now can't find that said that Sky News has an annual budget of £35m compared to News 24's £50m?
I don't understand how with all the crap-ness, simulcasting & trollop News 24 turns out it costs THREE times more than Sky News.
It doesn't cost three times as much. That is Murdoch propaganda.
Would that be the same propaganda that said at a source that I read that I now can't find that said that Sky News has an annual budget of £35m compared to News 24's £50m?
That figure is often quoted - though neither figure has been clearly substantiated and broken down? Does Sky's include payment to BSkyB for accommodation, power, canteen facilties/subsidy, car parking etc. Does it include transmission costs, uplink costs, payments to show Fox News material etc.?
Does the BBCs costing for News 24 include money from BBC Worldwide/International for provision of an overnight service? Does it include a percentage of costs for the BBC Newsgathering operation nationally, regionally and internationally? Does it include the costs I mention above for Sky?
Unless you know what both figures are based on a comparison is pretty much impossible surely...
I don't understand how with all the crap-ness, simulcasting & trollop News 24 turns out it costs THREE times more than Sky News.
It doesn't cost three times as much. That is Murdoch propaganda.
Would that be the same propaganda that said at a source that I read that I now can't find that said that Sky News has an annual budget of £35m compared to News 24's £50m?
That figure is often quoted - though neither figure has been clearly substantiated and broken down? Does Sky's include payment to BSkyB for accommodation, power, canteen facilties/subsidy, car parking etc. Does it include transmission costs, uplink costs, payments to show Fox News material etc.?
It is known that Sky News runs at a loss and probably has done since it started in 1989. Although I suppose they can afford to run at a loss when they've got what is effectively a bottomless pit of dosh behind them. Just did a quick calculation, that's like about £90k a day for Sky News on the above necessities which also includes pay for everybody - sound about right?
I don't think it's what's spent on the channel, it's HOW it's spent - and as it is, it isn't being spent particularly well.
American networks spend lots of time on lots of appointment programming - so you watch Brit Hume, Keith Olberman, Larry King, Paula Zahn (or not, in the case of the latter), rather than the British approach of watching BBC News or Sky News no matter who's presenting it... you're watching for the news, not the personality.
But these programmes actually don't cost that much. Once you've established a production team, etc. they are pretty cheap. Larry King and Brit Hume take up all or most of their programmes with cheap (free) talk-radio-news segments; and even the proper news programmes like Olberman and Zahn's are no more expensive than any other block of news... they just look nicer.
They are crap, because all you ever get it a one hour block of news presented in a slightly different way by a slightly different person every hour on the hour, meaning issues are never properly discussed, but they get the viewers.
I think perhaps that if News 24 looked and sounded a little better - I mean sharper and witty, rather than it's music - then it'd do well. As it is, it's a cross between a BBC News training exercise, focus group and graveyard.
I think perhaps that if News 24 looked and sounded a little better - I mean sharper and witty, rather than it's music - then it'd do well. As it is, it's a cross between a BBC News training exercise, focus group and graveyard.
So more Bill and Sian then? None of the couples really work together anymore. Bill and Sian work, Bill and Jules work (just) and Sophie and Jeremy used to work but apart from that there are no real couples. I still don't think Sophie and George work well together and as for Dermot and Natasha...