I think you mean that other posters are NOT ALLOWED to challenge your opinions with facts.:)
challenge yes, on what grounds did you challenge my posts? as far as i can tell from
Can i just say that "slow motion" and "Lawtrence's" comments on this are so far wide off the mark they're bordering on farcical.
you did not offer any alternative view point and simply claimed tried to trash my credibility without backing up your claim, so not really challenging my opinions, were you.
Why use sky NEWS for there news, It is one of the best thats why.
i wanted to know why milkw had claimed that sky had somehow engineered their dominace of the commercial radio news marketplace - but as you say maybe they are simply the best services available for the right money?
i wanted to know why milkw had claimed that sky had somehow engineered their dominace of the commercial radio news marketplace - but as you say maybe they are simply the best services available for the right money?
Actually, there's another reason for this Lawrence :
And BSkyB launched Sky News Radio in June 1999 as a rival to the ITN-operated IRN service. It initially provided bulletins to talkSPORT and subsequently around 80 radio stations before taking over the IRN contract in March 2009.
challenge yes, on what grounds did you challenge my posts? as far as i can tell from
you did not offer any alternative view point and simply claimed tried to trash my credibility without backing up your claim, so not really challenging my opinions, were you.
Every time you come on here with some elaborate one-sided theory it's shot down in flames, perhaps there's a reason for this?
Actually, there's another reason for this Lawrence :
Got it now?
no i totally dont get how that backs up your claim that sky have a monoploy of commercial radio news! are you suggested that sky secured the IRN customers by some kind of underhand means? in order to create a monoploy?
are yoiu going to explain your statement or not? there is little point in continuing this if you are not going to explain your statements, that being that sky have a monoploy of commercial radio news, in the context of sky should be broken up because...?
no i totally dont get how that backs up your claim that sky have a monoploy of commercial radio news! are you suggested that sky secured the IRN customers by some kind of underhand means? in order to create a monoploy?
are yoiu going to explain your statement or not? there is little point in continuing this if you are not going to explain your statements, that being that sky have a monoploy of commercial radio news, in the context of sky should be broken up because...?
They brought out their rival to create the dominance.
Every time you come on here with some elaborate one-sided theory it's shot down in flames, perhaps there's a reason for this?
hang on you have not "challenged" what i said - you have just said it is wrong... please go ahead and shoot what i have said down. i am very interested to see what you have.
you persist on following me around these boards trying to discredit everything i say, without backing it up with any substance. why?
hang on you have not "challenged" what i said - you have just said it is wrong... please go ahead and shoot what i have said down. i am very interested to see what you have.
you persist on following me around these boards trying to discredit everything i say, without backing it up with any substance. why?
I mentioned the dominance in commercial radio news because no-one had mentioned it yet in this thread, focussing instead on newspapers and TV.
You then questioned it.
I then provided a link to prove what i said, and ANOTHER one to tell you how they had - literally- brought this dominance.
I mentioned the dominance in commercial radio news because no-one had mentioned it yet in this thread, focussing instead on newspapers and TV.
You then questioned it.
I then provided a link to prove what i said, and ANOTHER one to tell you how they had - literally- brought this dominance.
Is that not "substance"??!!
Tell me why it's not.
Independent Radio News' long-running contract for the provision of news with ITN came to an end in 2009, and IRN then chose to sign a three year deal for the provision of news from Sky.
That's not exactly buying dominance, at least not in my book. Maybe they offered IRN a better deal than did ITN, but there's nothing wrong with a little economic competition, is there?
Independent Radio News' long-running contract for the provision of news with ITN came to an end in 2009, and IRN then chose to sign a three year deal for the provision of news from Sky.
That's not exactly buying dominance, at least not in my book. Maybe they offered IRN a better deal than did ITN, but there's nothing wrong with a little economic competition, is there?
Read this
Sky News Radio is the biggest news supplier to UK commerical radio and provides the Independent Radio News (IRN) service
Independent Radio News' long-running contract for the provision of news with ITN came to an end in 2009, and IRN then chose to sign a three year deal for the provision of news from Sky.
That's not exactly buying dominance, at least not in my book. Maybe they offered IRN a better deal than did ITN, but there's nothing wrong with a little economic competition, is there?
so if i understand you correctly, sky did not buy their market share they won a contract from IRN.....interesting..
how will this sit with milkw's claim of buying market share in order to create a monopoly?
Quote:
Sky News Radio is the biggest news supplier to UK commerical radio and provides the Independent Radio News (IRN) service
Are you suggesting that Sky pay IRN for the right to supply them the news content? I'd have thought it would be the other way around. And I'd also have thought that an organisation calling themselves Independent Radio News were satisfied that the content provided to them by Sky wasn't biased one way or the other. Is there any evidence in the past 18 months of any news story as supplied and interpreted by Sky that IRN need have been concerned about?
Are you suggesting that Sky pay IRN for the right to supply them the news content? I'd have thought it would be the other way around. And I'd also have thought that an organisation calling themselves Independent Radio News were satisfied that the content provided to them by Sky wasn't biased one way or the other. Is there any evidence in the past 18 months of any news story as supplied and interpreted by Sky that IRN need have been concerned about?
Yes, we have established that. Is that because IRN chose Sky as their supplier and awarded them a three year contract for which IRN pays Sky, or does Sky pay IRN for the right to supply the news to them? You appear to be claiming it is the latter, which if correct seems very surprising to me. I'd have though IRN pays Sky for the news service it provides.
Is than not a monopoly? At the very least it's approaching one.
Put it together with the the TV and Newspapers.
Can you not see this is getting very large?
sky is large i would not describe sky as dominant and nowhere near a monoploy on TV / radio or newspapers, and you stated they sky monoploies the radio news services....are you now changing that position when faced with the facts?
Are you suggesting that Sky pay IRN for the right to supply them the news content? I'd have thought it would be the other way around. And I'd also have thought that an organisation calling themselves Independent Radio News were satisfied that the content provided to them by Sky wasn't biased one way or the other. Is there any evidence in the past 18 months of any news story as supplied and interpreted by Sky that IRN need have been concerned about?
unless i have mis-interpeted your post (it has been known to happen) you are saying that sky provide news services (conent?) for IRN...is that right? and that IRn had the choice of getting those services from either Sky or ITN..and IRn choose sky over ITN ...or am i going mad?
Comments
Fill your boots :
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Radio-Alphabetical-List-Of-All-Stations-Served-After-IRN-Deal/Article/200902415231020?lpos=Home_Second_Article_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15231020_Sky_News_Radio%3A_Alphabetical_List_Of_All_Stations_Served_After_IRN_Deal
I think you mean that other posters are NOT ALLOWED to challenge your opinions with facts.:)
i am no radio expert but does that list include every single uk commercial radio station?
why do they elect to take their news from sky? i guess other news providers are available?
challenge yes, on what grounds did you challenge my posts? as far as i can tell from
you did not offer any alternative view point and simply claimed tried to trash my credibility without backing up your claim, so not really challenging my opinions, were you.
Why use sky NEWS for there news, It is one of the best thats why.
i wanted to know why milkw had claimed that sky had somehow engineered their dominace of the commercial radio news marketplace - but as you say maybe they are simply the best services available for the right money?
Actually, there's another reason for this Lawrence :
Got it now?
Every time you come on here with some elaborate one-sided theory it's shot down in flames, perhaps there's a reason for this?
no i totally dont get how that backs up your claim that sky have a monoploy of commercial radio news! are you suggested that sky secured the IRN customers by some kind of underhand means? in order to create a monoploy?
are yoiu going to explain your statement or not? there is little point in continuing this if you are not going to explain your statements, that being that sky have a monoploy of commercial radio news, in the context of sky should be broken up because...?
They brought out their rival to create the dominance.
hang on you have not "challenged" what i said - you have just said it is wrong... please go ahead and shoot what i have said down. i am very interested to see what you have.
you persist on following me around these boards trying to discredit everything i say, without backing it up with any substance. why?
I mentioned the dominance in commercial radio news because no-one had mentioned it yet in this thread, focussing instead on newspapers and TV.
You then questioned it.
I then provided a link to prove what i said, and ANOTHER one to tell you how they had - literally- brought this dominance.
Is that not "substance"??!!
Tell me why it's not.
Independent Radio News' long-running contract for the provision of news with ITN came to an end in 2009, and IRN then chose to sign a three year deal for the provision of news from Sky.
That's not exactly buying dominance, at least not in my book. Maybe they offered IRN a better deal than did ITN, but there's nothing wrong with a little economic competition, is there?
so not a monoploy then? just a dominant market share.... you i guess other companies were free to purchase the rival?
you did not say dominance, you said monoploy...
so if i understand you correctly, sky did not buy their market share they won a contract from IRN.....interesting..
how will this sit with milkw's claim of buying market share in order to create a monopoly?
Are you suggesting that Sky pay IRN for the right to supply them the news content? I'd have thought it would be the other way around. And I'd also have thought that an organisation calling themselves Independent Radio News were satisfied that the content provided to them by Sky wasn't biased one way or the other. Is there any evidence in the past 18 months of any news story as supplied and interpreted by Sky that IRN need have been concerned about?
Is than not a monopoly? At the very least it's approaching one.
Put it together with the the TV and Newspapers.
Can you not see this is getting very large?
Sky provide IRN news.
I never said that, not exactly.
But Sky provide IRN.
So a monopoly? Quite possibly.
Yes, we have established that. Is that because IRN chose Sky as their supplier and awarded them a three year contract for which IRN pays Sky, or does Sky pay IRN for the right to supply the news to them? You appear to be claiming it is the latter, which if correct seems very surprising to me. I'd have though IRN pays Sky for the news service it provides.
sky is large i would not describe sky as dominant and nowhere near a monoploy on TV / radio or newspapers, and you stated they sky monoploies the radio news services....are you now changing that position when faced with the facts?
unless i have mis-interpeted your post (it has been known to happen) you are saying that sky provide news services (conent?) for IRN...is that right? and that IRn had the choice of getting those services from either Sky or ITN..and IRn choose sky over ITN ...or am i going mad?
you said...
[QThey brought out their rival to create the dominance. UOTE][/QUOTE]