I would love to know what it would get without being in the middle of Corrie.

LOL @ Sky News, Kay Burley live at Westminster only to become the subject of a passing protester:

"I hate murdoch"
"Sack Kay Burley"
"Kay Burley's a disgrace"
"Sack Kay Burley - watch BBC"
"Sky News is shit"

etc. etc.

I hope this ends up on YouTube.

as do I, well done that man.

Sounds like a clip for Have I Got News For You. Or possibly Russell Howard's Good News. Or probably both.

Anyone know why BBC1's prime time programming is starting so early tonight.

The all-important news bulletin and the regional news and sport has all been and gone before 5pm!

there is simply too much on, on Saturday nights. Doctor Who starts at 6pm this week, and viewers will have to wait for Doctor Who Confidential, its ridiculous.

[quote=rzt;40142865]Dickinson's figures actually aren't too bad for what is a cheap daytime show drafted into primetime due to a cost-cutting exercise by ITV. It's only 0.1m down from Tonight's rating for the equivalent night last year. Of course it's not primetime material but ITV need to make some budget cuts somewhere and they've obviously looked at that slot.

QUOTE]

Thing is, though, Tonight was often capable of getting 3.5 - 4m in that slot, depending on the subject matter. It had the added advantage of bringing some credible journalism to the channel and therefore a attracting few hundred thousand more soap-avoiding ABC1 viewers. ITV have ditched it for a re-edited piece of cheap daytime tat which reduces both their audience and their reputation. And, unlike Tonight, the Dickinson show will have exactly the same content every week, so there's no chance of the figures getting any better.

Their factual offerings have become a joke, merely serving as ultra-cheap schedule fillers. The only exceptions are the celeb-driven travelogues which - with the exception of Joanna Lumley's Nile - are all flopping now (see Greatest Cities and Holden's cringe-making efforts....I bet the upcoming 'All At Sea' bombs, too).

Over the Rainbow has an elimination tonight I think, so it's extended - hence everything being moved back to fit it in.

Good nught for BBC1, and it just shows that Have I Got News For You can work in a pre-watershed slot; it hurt Coronation Street but the show didn't suffer in terms of quality. BBC1 certainly have better filler programming than ITV1, A Question of Sport did ok too.

After celebrating that Hollyoaks got over 1m on Thursday it hit the ground again yesterday!

oh yes, that should totally happen. How I would laugh if I saw Kyle in primetime, worth it for that reason alone IMO


and yes ouch for Hollyoaks

Its not as though they have axed Tonight. It simply airs the day before at 7.30pm, against Eastenders- so everything you say about ABC1 viewers still applies. It is permanently fronted by Julie Etchingham who is easily ITV's best journalist and gives it a consistent identity.

I agree about other 'factual' though. They try and target their own core audience and it is an audience not interested in documentaries. Just because it is fronted by Amanda Holden doesn't mean people will watch. Joanna Lumley is someone who is popular amongst an ABC1 audience and hers is the first documentary series in a long line to be successful. The writing is on the wall for ITV, yet they still can't figure it out.

Didn't they used to have two episodes a week, though? The Monday one has been cut.

Tonight is now on all year round though, previously it took long breaks at holiday times and across the Summer, so it isn't as if 52 editions have been axed.

It also means less of the filler editions where Martin Lewis talks about credit cards for the 100th time.

The quality of the 'new' series is a lot better though so I'm guessing per half hour it is more expensive than before. Now they try and tackle actual issues rather than stories local newspapers run like why the bin men only visit certain places once a fortnight. As already said, it now also runs all year round with other ITV News presenters providing cover rather than someone noone has ever seen or heard of before.

Ladies and Gentleman, we have a video of Kay Burley's interesting afternoon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFySBDHA2DU

a better version here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSlt-vedyL8

Thanks. Glad to see the protesters were so eager for Proportional Representation that they could spend time hurling abuse at journalists.

But some so called "journalists" do deserve it!!!

Actually I do realise I just called Sky News people 'journalists'. I do apologise for that.

I think you cant take a few minutes out from one protest when a gift opportunity like this comes up.

Im only saw it didnt get louder, and become a bigger news story.

Yes, what a hero that complete and utter moron was.

I'm no Burley fan, but I'm sick and tired of Sky News bashing from people that barely if ever watch it. It's suddenly become 'cool' not to like Sky News.

As someone who watches daily, I can assure you that it is NOT biased. As a keen Labour supporter, presumably I'd be among the first to notice if it was anti-Labour in some way and I would jump ship immediately.

But I haven't seen any evidence of that. There have been one or two moments over the course of the campaign where I have felt uncomfortable. One involving Burley, and another Jeff Randall. But that's been in it during the entire election coverage. I'm sure in both cases you could find similar examples of BBC presenters overstepping the mark, it does not mean the whole channel is biased.

Likewise I don't like the fact they give screentime to the likes of Kelvin MacKenzie, but the BBC also give him a platform from time to time on shows like Newsnight.

Boulton said in a recent interview he has only been in the same room as Murdoch about half a dozen times in the 20 years he's been at Sky. He's married to one of Tony Blair's former advisors. There is clearly no agenda there whatsoever.

End of rant.

I wonder if the newspapers would acknowledge such a demonstration, i.e. The Sun/NOTW? I bet if it happened on the BBC and they were insulting them it would be, but as its Sky the papers will probably exclude it. They were right in what they were saying.

What an insulting remark. Just because you don't approve of who they work for?

I suggest you apologise to the hundreds of high quality journalists that have produced excellent work for Sky over the years.

If the guy with the loud speaker hadn't sworn I think they would've tried to continue with the report and it may have swelled. As soon as a swear word got through, the report was cut.

I'm kidding, jeez, don't get so defensive. Hence the '' rather than ''. I've said insulting things about all the channels before, most of it is tongue in cheek.

For the record - yes, good journalists work for Sky and put forward good reporting.

Anyway, sorry if I upset anyone about that.