Home› Broadcasting
Options

24 Years of Sky News

JordyDJordyD Posts: 4,007
Forum Member
✭✭✭
in Broadcasting #1
Tomorrow marks the 24th Anniversary of Sky News. All seemed to be going well until 2005, when BBC overtaken them in ratings.

What do people think of the channel now compared to the past? For me, it's lost it's friendliness it had, mostly due to single headed programming, and its hard to watch now, with continuous breaking news straps, and they over do it with sport. Too much emphasis on star names presenting, and dreary music.

BBC News is a much better alternative these days.
«13

Comments

  • Options
    GeorgeSGeorgeS Posts: 20,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #2
    Quite the opposite. It's news coverage has never been stronger. excellent correspondents such as Alex Crawford, Mark Kleinnman, Stuart Ramsay and others are what news is about. Presenters are generally great also, especially Anna Botting, mark Longhurst and Dermot Murnaghan.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,391
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #3
    The BBC News Channel is old and past it, even though its younger than Sky News. How people can watch it over Sky I will never know. We will have to see what its like after the re-brand next month.
  • Options
    DejaVoodooDejaVoodoo Posts: 5,764
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #4
    Personally, I think both channels could take a leaf out of Al Jazerra's book.
  • Options
    JimothyDJimothyD Posts: 8,868
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #5
    I used to have Sky News on all the time, but I hardly ever watch it now. Its graphics are repulsive, their obsession with breaking news is silly - especially when they STILL have a story tagged as 'breaking news' when it happened 10 hours ago. Its deceiving.

    The style and look was so much better in the 90s. It still felt like an authoritative, premium channel because of the quality blue graphics, great choice of music and friendly presenters. Eammon Holmes isn't friendly, every 15 minutes is exactly the same. Its dull. Programmed back in the day like Your Call made the channel a lot more watchable.
  • Options
    livininadavelivininadave Posts: 143
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #6
    GeorgeS wrote: »
    excellent correspondents such as Alex Crawford, Mark Kleinnman, Stuart Ramsay and others are what news is about.
    really? i thought the news was about what was going on, not who is telling you about it
  • Options
    Mockney-RebelMockney-Rebel Posts: 204
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #7
    I gave up with Sky News a few years back, much prefer BBC News.
  • Options
    realwalesrealwales Posts: 3,110
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #8
    I find Sky News is light years ahead of the BBC News channel in many respects.

    Their correspondents are top notch, Sunrise is the strongest breakfast programme on British TV, and Jeff Randall live is one of my favourite programmes, not just on Sky News, but on TV in general.

    However, there are things I'd change:

    - Kay Burley has been hideous for a long time now. It's time she was got rid of.
    - Save 'Breaking News' for genuine breaking news stories, not just any old thing.
    - There is too much emphasis on sport. I, personally, DO take an interest in sport, but quite a lot of people out there have little or no interest, and therefore large chunks of Sky News's output will be of little interest to them.
    - In the old days, Sky News had programmes like The Frank Bough Interview and Target, with Norman Tebbit and Austin Mitchell. I wish they'd do more of that kind of thing.
    - I've never rated Adam Boulton as a political journalist or a broadcaster. I'd pension him off and give his job to the far better, clearer and more comfortable in front of the camera Jon Craig.
  • Options
    lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #9
    tothegrand wrote: »
    The BBC News Channel is old and past it, even though its younger than Sky News. How people can watch it over Sky I will never know. We will have to see what its like after the re-brand next month.

    It's all a matter of personal opinion. I don't have Sky but whenever I have had access to Sky News I have never lasted more than a few seconds before changing channel or switching off.
  • Options
    GeorgeSGeorgeS Posts: 20,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #10
    livininadave wrote: »
    really? i thought the news was about what was going on, not who is telling you about it

    some are better at finding the news than others. Some journalists couldnt find a story if it bit them on the backside
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,027
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #11
    I am sure that Sky News could be a good, great or even excellent news channel.... if it wasn't so boringly amateurish.
  • Options
    ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #12
    I've noticed the places I go where they have a TV on (bank,pub,doctor's etc) they all have BBC News on.
  • Options
    GeorgeSGeorgeS Posts: 20,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #13
    ftv wrote: »
    I've noticed the places I go where they have a TV on (bank,pub,doctor's etc) they all have BBC News on.

    most places I go to have Sky News on. Must be my more glamorous life :D
  • Options
    ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #14
    Wasn't it in 2005 that Sky revamped their output and more or less abandoned breaking news in favour of personality-led shows with the likes of James Rubin. It was clear viewers preferred news not waffle and the BBC took advantage.BBC News now averages double the audience of Sky.
  • Options
    JustinThePubJustinThePub Posts: 3,522
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #15
    lundavra wrote: »
    It's all a matter of personal opinion. I don't have Sky but whenever I have had access to Sky News I have never lasted more than a few seconds before changing channel or switching off.

    So you don't have freeview, cable, or freesat?
  • Options
    GeorgeSGeorgeS Posts: 20,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #16
    ftv wrote: »
    Wasn't it in 2005 that Sky revamped their output and more or less abandoned breaking news in favour of personality-led shows with the likes of James Rubin. It was clear viewers preferred news not waffle and the BBC took advantage.BBC News now averages double the audience of Sky.

    it was freeviews growth and all the old dears and grandads who dont have Sky but who have bugger all else to do but watch a repeating loop of news that lead to BBC News share growth.
  • Options
    ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #17
    GeorgeS wrote: »
    it was freeviews growth and all the old dears and grandads who dont have Sky but who have bugger all else to do but watch a repeating loop of news that lead to BBC News share growth.

    So you are not disputing the figures George ?
  • Options
    GeorgeSGeorgeS Posts: 20,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #18
    ftv wrote: »
    So you are not disputing the figures George ?

    no. But BBC News growth was mainly because of Freeview expansion. It plays well to an older audience and older people watch more tv.
  • Options
    howard hhoward h Posts: 23,369
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #19
    JimothyD wrote: »
    I used to have Sky News on all the time, but I hardly ever watch it now. Its graphics are repulsive,

    Totally agree.

    Whooosh bang lights moving graphics bang lights graphics moving whoosh bang whoosh.... unwatchable.

    Which is a shame because they do some good stuff, particulary "human event" stuff like the floods, snow and so on. But only take about a minute of their ridiculous graphics whoosh.
  • Options
    lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #20
    kmusgrave wrote: »
    So you don't have freeview, cable, or freesat?

    Freeview
  • Options
    Cymon HCymon H Posts: 767
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #21
    lundavra wrote: »
    Freeview

    So you do have Sky News then :rolleyes: Channel 82
  • Options
    mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,308
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #22
    GeorgeS wrote: »
    it was freeviews growth and all the old dears and grandads who dont have Sky but who have bugger all else to do but watch a repeating loop of news that lead to BBC News share growth.

    And Sky News does not have a repeating news loop too?

    Any these "old dears and grandads" (how condescending of you) only have the ability to key in "80" rather than "82" on the remote?
  • Options
    mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,308
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #23
    GeorgeS wrote: »
    no. But BBC News growth was mainly because of Freeview expansion. It plays well to an older audience and older people watch more tv.
    And there was me thinking that Sky News was on Freeview as well.

    Must be in imposter then on channel 82.
  • Options
    GeorgeSGeorgeS Posts: 20,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #24
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    Any these "old dears and grandads" (how condescending of you) only have the ability to key in "80" rather than "82" on the remote?

    They dont like the pace and brashness of Sky News compared to BBC News. Of course there are exceptions - just as there are quite a few young fogeys too.
  • Options
    mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,308
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #25
    GeorgeS wrote: »
    They dont like the pace and brashness of Sky News compared to BBC News.

    Ah, so you have seen the comprehensive survey that was conducted then - any chance of a link please? I would love to see the full list of questions and responses.


    Good to see that you acknowledge that Sky News is brash though:
    Self-assertive in a rude, noisy, or overbearing way.
    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=definition+of+brash&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-beta
  • Options
    GeorgeSGeorgeS Posts: 20,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #26
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    Good to see that you acknowledge that Sky News is brash though:


    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=definition+of+brash&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-beta

    In a comparative versus absolutist sense.
Sign In or Register to comment.