If Sky are leading with American stories then there must still be a large amount of viewers still interested in hearing them as they poll on that sort of thing to report to their advertisers. But you can't please everyone.. some want US election and storm coverage, others Savile coverage, there may even be some poor sod who wants lots of reports on the EU
No - none of that! There must be some good news stories so why are they always overlooked or only given short slots when they are reported.
It's almost as the news is being used to influence people's mindsets isn't it ...
No - none of that! There must be some good news stories so why are they always overlooked or only given short slots when they are reported.
It's almost as the news is being used to influence people's mindsets isn't it ...
Murdoch trying to shape public opinion!?!? Surely not!
But the point is that Sky is still a commercial channel... sure it has news coverage obligations that comes with its broadcast license but it can decide the order of their items and the length of their reports. It won't screen lengthy coverage of news items if the audience switches off and they lose advertising due to low viewing figures. They're not going to have long reports on stories unless they have good reason to believe a large section of their viewers are interested in it
Murdoch trying to shape public opinion!?!? Surely not!
But the point is that Sky is still a commercial channel... sure it has news coverage obligations that comes with its broadcast license but it can decide the order of their items and the length of their reports. It won't screen lengthy coverage of news items if the audience switches off and they lose advertising due to low viewing figures. They're not going to have long reports on stories unless they have good reason to believe a large section of their viewers are interested in it
Thats TRUE but its hard to believe the majority want constant American news.
anyone else sick of american news? is there nothing happening in this part of the world? sky is the worst.i dont care whats going on there.am i alone?
It does pee me off that hurricane Sandy devastated Cuba in places, but that doesn't even get a look in, and they have precious little money there for a rebuilding programme
Thats TRUE but its hard to believe the majority want constant American news.
In comparison to other regions news stories or local stories, it seems that more do than don't. If Sky news saw a significant drop in viewers from their average they'd quickly shorten the US stories and make other items the priority.
It does pee me off that hurricane Sandy devastated Cuba in places, but that doesn't even get a look in, and they have precious little money there for a rebuilding programme
As I said, its driven by the audience demand. You cant blame Sky for reporting on the stories people are interested in. You can't force people to be interested in Cuba's situation... if they were then you'd get the coverage. The media's only giving the public what they want... unfortuantely this also means endless reality TV shows, soaps and Ant & Dec
It does pee me off that hurricane Sandy devastated Cuba in places, but that doesn't even get a look in, and they have precious little money there for a rebuilding programme
According to the other thread, some think (not me!) that countries who don't make preparation for these natural disasters, bring it on themselves. Seeing as the US controls the most watched news channels, it's inevitable we will be force fed this constant reminder that their citizens are suffering.
Of course we don't have to watch, but that still doesn't excuse the non-coverage of other even worse natural disasters.
Pakistan has just suffered more devastating flooding, Hundreds dead, hundreds of thousands displaced. Not a single mention on the main news.
Whilst I understand US channels will prioritize US events, it does make me wonder if these news channels are trying to shape public opinion. Why show scenes of a country suffering when military action probably isn't far away. They don't want the public feeling sorry for them, but will have main headline news as soon as something 'terror' related happens. Might as well force feed your own population on constant reminders that Americans are the real ones suffering.
According to the other thread, some think (not me!) that countries who don't make preparation for these natural disasters, bring it on themselves. Seeing as the US controls the most watched news channels, it's inevitable we will be force fed this constant reminder that their citizens are suffering.
Of course we don't have to watch, but that still doesn't excuse the non-coverage of other even worse natural disasters.
Pakistan has just suffered more devastating flooding, Hundreds dead, hundreds of thousands displaced. Not a single mention on the main news.
Whilst I understand US channels will prioritize US events, it does make me wonder if these news channels are trying to shape public opinion. Why show scenes of a country suffering when military action probably isn't far away. They don't want the public feeling sorry for them, but will have main headline news as soon as something 'terror' related happens. Might as well force feed your own population on constant reminders that Americans are the real ones suffering.
The election will decide the most important political ally our country has, so it is rather important. Likewise, NYC is one of the most popular destinations for Brits on holiday and for work, so its understandable we get a lot of coverage of an event like Sandy.
Has there been any news in the UK that has been overlooked because of it?
Almost every american i know went ape shit due to the "limey jubilee crap" taking up their news for ONE DAY when all that was going on. So yes, i have to agree, i'm sick of seeing NY on the bloody news!
As I said, its driven by the audience demand. You cant blame Sky for reporting on the stories people are interested in. You can't force people to be interested in Cuba's situation... if they were then you'd get the coverage. The media's only giving the public what they want... unfortuantely this also means endless reality TV shows, soaps and Ant & Dec
There are plenty of people who would care about the Cuba situation, but unless it has been reported on right in front of them they may not know about it, they may only have access to a limited amount of resources, so of course they are going to be quite blinkered. I think a lot of our news reporting is very US centred, but with the internet it is quite easy to get news from all over the place. If I don't like what is being reported i will just switch of, or go and read something else.
There are plenty of people who would care about the Cuba situation, but unless it has been reported on right in front of them they may not know about it, they may only have access to a limited amount of resources, so of course they are going to be quite blinkered. I think a lot of our news reporting is very US centred, but with the internet it is quite easy to get news from all over the place. If I don't like what is being reported i will just switch of, or go and read something else.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who would want to see Cuba better reported but not enough to cause Sky to shift their priorities. It's a good point that awareness is an issue and that the media can influence the public's opinions on what are the interesting stories, although theres enough media out there to get the news on just about any region... ultimately though, the viewers have the power... stop watching Sky and they'll quickly change their priorities
The US produces lots of news. It's available rather cheaply to other countries. Companies are always looking for ways to save money. We, therefore, get more US news.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who would want to see Cuba better reported but not enough to cause Sky to shift their priorities. It's a good point that awareness is an issue and that the media can influence the public's opinions on what are the interesting stories, although theres enough media out there to get the news on just about any region... ultimately though, the viewers have the power... stop watching Sky and they'll quickly change their priorities
I wonder how many people realise the obvious biased in things like Sky news. Can you really expect someone to turn off without them seeing the faults in the first place? I think a lot of people are becoming much more savy on the way the media works since the internet came about, but does the average person see this? I don't think Sky will ever shift its priorities, as long as people keep watching it will stay as it is. If we are not careful I see British TV news reporting becoming much more like the way it is in the states, with obvious political bias influencing the way news is reported.
I wonder how many people realise the obvious biased in things like Sky news. Can you really expect someone to turn off without them seeing the faults in the first place? I think a lot of people are becoming much more savy on the way the media works since the internet came about, but does the average person see this? I don't think Sky will ever shift its priorities, as long as people keep watching it will stay as it is. If we are not careful I see British TV news reporting becoming much more like the way it is in the states, with obvious political bias influencing the way news is reported.
You're always going to get biased reporting... impossible to escape - the BBC is biased, as is ITN as are practically all our mainstream papers. But I;m not expecting the viewer to turn off because of journalistic flaws.. he should turn off because he has no interest... or switch over to a less US based show,, enough do it and the drop in viewing figures would be enough to cause Sky to reassess their reporting
You're always going to get biased reporting... impossible to escape - the BBC is biased, as is ITN as are practically all our mainstream papers. But I;m not expecting the viewer to turn off because of journalistic flaws.. he should turn off because he has no interest... or switch over to a less US based show,, enough do it and the drop in viewing figures would be enough to cause Sky to reassess their reporting
I wonder to what extent people can really fight against something that they are not aware of. But yes, it would be brilliant if everyone switched off and people looked beyond what Rupert Murdoch tells them. It is upsetting when we have access to so much information, more then any generation before us, and yet so many seem to be happy just believe what they read, or get 100% of their new from TV or one newspaper. Though I would love to watch the news and see a much more balanced, global reporting.
Comments
No - none of that! There must be some good news stories so why are they always overlooked or only given short slots when they are reported.
It's almost as the news is being used to influence people's mindsets isn't it ...
yes I agree,I really do not know what their agenda is in forcing America down our throats.i am sick of it.
Murdoch trying to shape public opinion!?!? Surely not!
But the point is that Sky is still a commercial channel... sure it has news coverage obligations that comes with its broadcast license but it can decide the order of their items and the length of their reports. It won't screen lengthy coverage of news items if the audience switches off and they lose advertising due to low viewing figures. They're not going to have long reports on stories unless they have good reason to believe a large section of their viewers are interested in it
I wonder whether people object to London being mentioned in the news all the time when there's a whole country to report on.
Perhaps those people ought to stick to the regional pages as if what happens in other cities and countries doesn't affect them.
Thats TRUE but its hard to believe the majority want constant American news.
It does pee me off that hurricane Sandy devastated Cuba in places, but that doesn't even get a look in, and they have precious little money there for a rebuilding programme
In comparison to other regions news stories or local stories, it seems that more do than don't. If Sky news saw a significant drop in viewers from their average they'd quickly shorten the US stories and make other items the priority.
So you love most things American apart from real life?
so biased reporting to add to the insult.
I even like to hear about real life in America occasionally.but this is Ott.
As I said, its driven by the audience demand. You cant blame Sky for reporting on the stories people are interested in. You can't force people to be interested in Cuba's situation... if they were then you'd get the coverage. The media's only giving the public what they want... unfortuantely this also means endless reality TV shows, soaps and Ant & Dec
According to the other thread, some think (not me!) that countries who don't make preparation for these natural disasters, bring it on themselves. Seeing as the US controls the most watched news channels, it's inevitable we will be force fed this constant reminder that their citizens are suffering.
Of course we don't have to watch, but that still doesn't excuse the non-coverage of other even worse natural disasters.
Pakistan has just suffered more devastating flooding, Hundreds dead, hundreds of thousands displaced. Not a single mention on the main news.
Whilst I understand US channels will prioritize US events, it does make me wonder if these news channels are trying to shape public opinion. Why show scenes of a country suffering when military action probably isn't far away. They don't want the public feeling sorry for them, but will have main headline news as soon as something 'terror' related happens. Might as well force feed your own population on constant reminders that Americans are the real ones suffering.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Has there been any news in the UK that has been overlooked because of it?
There are plenty of people who would care about the Cuba situation, but unless it has been reported on right in front of them they may not know about it, they may only have access to a limited amount of resources, so of course they are going to be quite blinkered. I think a lot of our news reporting is very US centred, but with the internet it is quite easy to get news from all over the place. If I don't like what is being reported i will just switch of, or go and read something else.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who would want to see Cuba better reported but not enough to cause Sky to shift their priorities. It's a good point that awareness is an issue and that the media can influence the public's opinions on what are the interesting stories, although theres enough media out there to get the news on just about any region... ultimately though, the viewers have the power... stop watching Sky and they'll quickly change their priorities
I wonder how many people realise the obvious biased in things like Sky news. Can you really expect someone to turn off without them seeing the faults in the first place? I think a lot of people are becoming much more savy on the way the media works since the internet came about, but does the average person see this? I don't think Sky will ever shift its priorities, as long as people keep watching it will stay as it is. If we are not careful I see British TV news reporting becoming much more like the way it is in the states, with obvious political bias influencing the way news is reported.
Barking at us to 'show respect' is probably the least likely thing to make that happen.
You're always going to get biased reporting... impossible to escape - the BBC is biased, as is ITN as are practically all our mainstream papers. But I;m not expecting the viewer to turn off because of journalistic flaws.. he should turn off because he has no interest... or switch over to a less US based show,, enough do it and the drop in viewing figures would be enough to cause Sky to reassess their reporting
I wonder to what extent people can really fight against something that they are not aware of. But yes, it would be brilliant if everyone switched off and people looked beyond what Rupert Murdoch tells them. It is upsetting when we have access to so much information, more then any generation before us, and yet so many seem to be happy just believe what they read, or get 100% of their new from TV or one newspaper. Though I would love to watch the news and see a much more balanced, global reporting.
Oh yeah, greed, whooping, Mickey Mouse.... any other pluses?