Home› Broadcasting

So SKY didn't want to show the inoguration?

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,482
Forum Member
✭✭✭
in Broadcasting #1
They were there ...live....then they cut off...same feed as BBC....even had mr edwards coming up on the commentary now and again.


Anyway,

Sky's "feed" went down....BBC still on air.

Sky apologised for the loss of video etc..

Then as BBC were still showing live...Sky went on to other stuff until rejoining about 180 minutes later.

Did Sky just not wanna show it?

Comments

  • Ramsay LaddersRamsay Ladders Posts: 3,017
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #2
    Eh?:confused:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,482
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #3
    Ramsay Ladders wrote: »
    Eh?:confused:

    The archbishop?
  • Ramsay LaddersRamsay Ladders Posts: 3,017
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #4
    MMMojo1960 wrote: »
    The archbishop?

    Ah, ok, not seen the national news today and have no interest in religion whatsoever so that one went past me.:)
  • mogzyboymogzyboy Posts: 6,426
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #5
    I'm guessing you mean 'Inauguration'?
  • gs1gs1 Posts: 8,392
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #6
    If I've got this right, Sky suffered a technical issue whilst "dipping in" to a live feed of the inauguration, but nevertheless, they chose not to broadcast in full, something that was available in full on another channel?

    In other words, commercial news channel makes editorial decision, to attract alternative audience to those wanting something that was available elsewhere..;)
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #7
    gs1 wrote: »
    If I've got this right, Sky suffered a technical issue whilst "dipping in" to a live feed of the inauguration, but nevertheless, they chose not to broadcast in full, something that was available in full on another channel?

    In other words, commercial news channel makes editorial decision, to attract alternative audience to those wanting something that was available elsewhere..;)

    The Budget was available on several other channels but Sky still showed it !
  • gs1gs1 Posts: 8,392
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #8
    I think there will always be events- the Budget being one- that a news channel feels that it must cover (with its own editorial values) for its credibility as a news outlet; and because its regular audience would expect it to be covered; and for which there is a comparitively large potential audience for them to take a share of.

    The Archbishop of Canterbury's inauguration doesn't fit in to that category, in my view, and the point I'm trying to get across is that we should appreciate having alternatives, rather than as often happens on DS, BBC/BBC News & Sky News get criticised when they don't deliver identical coverage.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 717
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #9
    Isn't the point of multi-channel television that viewers get a choice? If any channel is going to show this it should be state broadcaster the BBC. But let's be honest, the inauguration of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury is not a major event. It is an orderly handover from one incumbent to another following a shortish period in office when retirement calls. The Arch-Bishop is not a figurehead in the same way that the Coptic Pope or Roman one.
  • lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #10
    Cyclist wrote: »
    Isn't the point of multi-channel television that viewers get a choice? If any channel is going to show this it should be state broadcaster the BBC. But let's be honest, the inauguration of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury is not a major event. It is an orderly handover from one incumbent to another following a shortish period in office when retirement calls. The Arch-Bishop is not a figurehead in the same way that the Coptic Pope or Roman one.

    But it is going to bring comments from non-Catholics that hours of coverage was given to the election and inauguration of the leader of a foreign church but less to the Church of England which is still the Established Church in England.
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #11
    It was actually the enthronement not the inauguration. There was some comment earlier in the week that while the Pope got a good slot on BBC1 the Archbishop was relegated to BBC2 (although in HD on the BBC HD channel, soon to become BBC2 HD).

    Incidentally, do Sky pay the BBC when they access their feed ?
  • gs1gs1 Posts: 8,392
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #12
    ftv wrote: »
    It was actually the enthronement not the inauguration.
    I'm not sure I understand the difference, so I looked it up.
    The Archbishop of Canterbury's official site states that:
    Writing in the Canterbury Times on the day of his inauguration
    http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5029/archbishop-justin-on-canterburys-unique-and-special-journey
    The modern term would be inauguration, but 'enthronement' remains appropriate
    http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5036/what-happens-when-an-archbishop-is-enthroned
    I still don't understand the difference. Are we not talking about 2 valid descriptions of the same thing?
  • technologisttechnologist Posts: 13,370
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #13
    The Inauguration was held at St Pauls on 4th February - (I was there!)
    This was a very legal event - described the the Dean of St Paul's as "Evensong meets Iolanthe"

    Its purpose was to establish that all the due process had been carried out in the selection of the Arch Bishop
    and that the person in front of them was the selected candidate!
    - and then he took the oath and signed documents.


    What happened yesterday was that Justin Welby was installed in his cathedral....
  • gs1gs1 Posts: 8,392
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #14
    Cyclist wrote: »
    Isn't the point of multi-channel television that viewers get a choice? If any channel is going to show this it should be state broadcaster the BBC.
    Exactly- Sky News, especially, is scorned upon by some posters on DS, as if it has a special duty to deliver a worthy agenda.

    In reality, it's a commercial tv channel and like any other in a multi-channel environment, its existence is dependent on providing an alternative choice, which it can't do by mirroring everything the BBC chooses to do.
  • big_hard_ladbig_hard_lad Posts: 4,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #15
    Do people really not use browsers with spellcheckers these days? Isn't it 2013? I genuinely had to really think what "inoguration" was.
  • gs1gs1 Posts: 8,392
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #16
    technologist wrote: »
    The Inauguration was held at St Pauls on 4th February - (I was there!)
    This was a very legal event - described the the Dean of St Paul's as "Evensong meets Iolanthe" .....

    ...What happened yesterday was that Justin Welby was installed in his cathedral....
    Thanks for the explanation, technologist.

    I guess that the term "inauguration" has come to be used as a simplified explanation for a wider audience (?), given that the Archbishop of Canterbury's official site states that:
    This latter enthronement has also come to respresent the Archbishop's inauguration as the spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
    http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5036/what-happens-when-an-archbishop-is-enthroned

    Anyhow, it's caused me to read the website for the first time, so I'm fractionally more informed.:)
Sign In or Register to comment.