Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Sky News continuous coverage of MJ's doctors trial

  • 30-09-2011 8:28pm
    #1
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭


    What's going on with Sky News? Every time I flick over to it for the last few days all it's covering is the Jackson trial, are people really that interested? It seems they're giving almost half their daily airtime to the trial.

    I can understand giving blanket coverage to a major world changing event such as Japanese tsunami or the Arab uprisings of which their coverage was very good. I could even understand to some degree if it was a murder trial but a trial of some celebrities doctor who is accused of involuntary manslaughter by over medicating him is not worthy or interesting enough to warrant such.

    I find myself changing the channel immediately in disgust at the prominence they're giving it.


Comments

  • #2
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Sure they do this every time they can - remember the trial of OJ Simpson and Louise Someone or other, the nanny? its very cheap for them to carry, fills the hours and sadly enough idiots will sit there be it for 5 mins or a few hours watching it.

    Worse than SKY doing it is BBC News, they even cut away from Ed Miliband at the Labour conference on Monday


  • #3
    alchemist33
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭alchemist33


    Worse than Sky doing it is the fact that it's televised in the first place.


  • #4
    SuperInfinity
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,449 ✭✭✭SuperInfinity


    Interesting OP, that is weird. Fox News are notorious for giving big media coverage to such cases, but they've been quite restrained in their coverage of the Michael Jackson case, they gave the Amanda Knox case far more time today for example. I find it surprising if Sky News are giving it so much time when it's not even in their country, especially since Fox News and Sky News are "sister networks".


  • #5
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    Interesting OP, that is weird. Fox News are notorious for giving big media coverage to such cases, but they've been quite restrained in their coverage of the Michael Jackson case, they gave the Amanda Knox case far more time today for example. I find it surprising if Sky News are giving it so much time when it's not even in their country, especially since Fox News and Sky News are "sister networks".

    Possibly because Jackson is black.

    I have to agree that the Jackson coverage is annoying. Can they not just report on it?


  • #6
    charlemont
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭charlemont


    Its not even news its just junk.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,169 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Is BBC News Channel devoting as much time to it as Sky News?

    Sky News seem to think people are going to be interested in this...I personally think they are wrong on this one. OJ and Woodward cases were much different.


  • #8
    goose2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    Trials are an easy news source, there's a drip-drip of new facts to report all the time and you don't have to travel around. Much easier than dodging shells in Sirte.


  • #9
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    BrianD wrote: »
    Possibly because Jackson is black.

    Not since the 80's




    (and definately not now)


  • #10
    SuperInfinity
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,449 ✭✭✭SuperInfinity


    Confusion over the judge's announcement meant Sky News and several news websites, including Mail Online, briefly reported incorrectly that Knox had been found guilty.
    This was corrected just over a minute later when it became apparent that he had said she was guilty of slander before going on to say both Knox and Sollecito were innocent of Meredith's murder.
    We apologise for the error and have launched an enquiry to examine our procedures.


    Oh god, such idiots. I bet Sky News were the first and the Mail Online etc. followed suit.

    I was a little confused over what was going on also when the judge said "guilty" first but I was at least waiting to see what he would say!!!
    goose2005 wrote: »
    Trials are an easy news source, there's a drip-drip of new facts to report all the time and you don't have to travel around. Much easier than dodging shells in Sirte.

    But why didn't they cover Amanda Knox's trial in that detail then if that's what they wanted? Even Casey Anthoney's trial would have been more popular. The thing with the Michael Jackson case is that there's no "did he or didn't he", there's "well he kinda did bad behaviour without intent, but we don't know to what extent".Here it's are they bloodthirsty devils from hell (quoting the Foxy Knoxy prosecution!!!) or are they completely innocent angels.

    They have hours and hours, continuous two hour blocks entitled "The Michael Jackson Trial" on it. I hardly ever watch Sky News anymore, it's just not as good as other news channels somehow.


Advertisement