News - and how its protrayed

azezil

This has been nagging me for some time, since the sky news presenters got an award for their coverage of September 11th to be precise.

I watched their coverage, and though it very unprofessional, thus was shocked to see them receive a reward.

IMO news should be presented without bias, without analysis, all the facts and unedited. Discussions and debates, thoughts on the issues should be restricted to chat shows and current events programs, there’s enough of them anyway.

ozpass

Sky News seems to concentrate on compacting world news into bitesized pieces, with occasional over-indulgent and repetitive blanket coverage of more sensational events.

I prefer Channel 4 news, myself.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

azezil

don't think they're biased, just crap

Dustaz

Would you like to back that up az?

Sky deserved that award. For the first 6 hours or so of 9/11 they had the best coverage bar none. It was only when news effectivly stopped 'happening' that the less tabloid-y stations became a much better option (CH4 and the Beeb being notably good)

azezil

yes they're coverage was very good, but the presenters were all emotional, stuck for words, imo presenters should remain objective.

Dustaz

Originally posted by azezil
yes they're coverage was very good, but the presenters were all emotional, stuck for words, imo presenters should remain objective.

Yes maybe they should have rehearsed for the day that 3 planes were hijacked and flown into 3 of the worlds most recognisble buildings, resulting in the utter destruction of 2 and the deaths of thousands.

Damn inconsiderate of them not to have considered the possibility.

Lex_Diamonds

Yeah i feel sick whenever I hear that Sky have won another award.
Sky News follow the modus operandi of channels such as Fox News which means sensationalist coverage with giant flashing writing and sirens that go "awooga" in order to get the message across.

I also wish Sky News would get up off their arses and do a bit of investigative journalism. You never hear the phrase, "sky news has uncovered...". Its always up to the other channels. Then again, those prissy, preening excuses for journalists couldnt investigate a snot hanging from their noses...

BBC News and Channel 4 are the ones to watch imo.

The Gopher

Apparently a quote from sky news presenter on September 11th

"If you`re just joining us.........the entire East cosat of the United States has been decimated in a terrorist attack".

Despite this momentary lapse I thought they did a good job on September 11th.They were the first station in the UK,and most probably Europe to break news of the attack.

One thing that has always bugged me is that they never showed a clip of the vocal reactions of reporters,on any station,when they watched the second plane hit.
I didnt see it live(I was told about the first plane hitting but seeing as I was nowhere near a TV I didnt see it-I wasnt even too bothered as I assumed it was a light aircraft which would cause little damage as I knew jumbo jets wouldnt be allowed anywhere near central Manhattan at low altitude).But it would have been interesting to see the reactions of those who actually witnessed it.
I did see a BBC coverage online of what happened-because of their camera angle or something the second impact wasnt extremely visible and so the newsreader made no immeadiate reaction.

Sorry if this sounds in any way voyeuristic BTW:) But you have to hand it to sky news-they do nearly always get the news first.Theyre alot quicker than the more renowned news breaker CNN-I remember when that plane crashed over Germany CNN took 15-30 minutes after sky to break the news.They were even behind the old ITN News channel,which all but shut down at night.

mike65

Originally posted by Lex_Diamonds
another award.
Sky News follow the modus operandi of channels such as Fox News which means sensationalist coverage with giant flashing writing and sirens that go "awooga" in order to get the message across.

BBC News and Channel 4 are the ones to watch imo.

Has anyone else noticed that BBC News has started using graphic
"flashes" indicating what story the newsreader is relating? Its a slippery slope...

As for news, well its now just another branch of entertainment nothing new in this of course witness the ITN "...and finally" funnies.

I'm waiting for the day that a producer decides that some background music would be nice as a way of conveying the nature of a story.

Mike.

aidan_dunne

Originally posted by The Gopher
Apparently a quote from sky news presenter on September 11th

"If you`re just joining us.........the entire East cosat of the United States has been decimated in a terrorist attack".

Yeah, makes it sound like there were terrorist nuclear bombs going off all over the place or something, doesn't it? Though, in the heat of the moment, you can understand them getting a bit overdramatic, I suppose.

Originally posted by The Gopher
One thing that has always bugged me is that they never showed a clip of the vocal reactions of reporters,on any station,when they watched the second plane hit.
I didnt see it live(I was told about the first plane hitting but seeing as I was nowhere near a TV I didnt see it-I wasnt even too bothered as I assumed it was a light aircraft which would cause little damage as I knew jumbo jets wouldnt be allowed anywhere near central Manhattan at low altitude).But it would have been interesting to see the reactions of those who actually witnessed it.
I did see a BBC coverage online of what happened-because of their camera angle or something the second impact wasnt extremely visible and so the newsreader made no immeadiate reaction.

I did see it live and the reaction of the Sky News reporters was almost calm, in a funny sort of way, when the second plane hit. As I watched it I saw the second plane come into the shot from the right and I expected it to fly past behind the buildings but then saw the explosion. Straight away I thought, "Oh Christ, that's another one," but it actually took the reporters about 20 seconds, I reckon, to realise a second plane had hit. Maybe they weren't looking at the screen, I don't know, but then it was kind of, "Apparantly a second plane has crashed into the World Trade Centre. Yes, it has. Well, surely now this can't be an accident and we must assume that this is a possible deliberate terrorist attack," delivered in a pretty calm voice by Kay Burley.

Victor

Originally posted by Lex_Diamonds
Sky News follow the modus operandi of channels such as Fox News .

Aren't they both arms of the Murdoch empire?

Originally posted by The Gopher
"If you`re just joining us.........the entire East cosat of the United States has been decimated in a terrorist attack".

Possibly understandable as there were also reports of car bombs on the day. Effectively 4 places were effected (Boston, New York, Washington & Ohio(?)), plus the other reports. Apparently Columbia (the country?) was destroyed on Saturday.

DMC

Sky News is impartial, there are no two ways about it. They cant be otherwise, all news stations and bulletins in the UK are monitored closely by the Independent Television Commission.

But the recent addition of Richard Littlejohn twice weekly on Sky News does worry me. I must check that out to make a conscious decision.

Its main problem is in the psyche of the viewer. Its owned by Murdoch, and he owns The Sun and the Screws of the World, so it must be tabloidy ****e. :rolleyes:

Its not, but I prefer BBC News, and BBC News 24 in particular. But that is personal preference, more to do with style, presentation and content. And as the beeb has been around since time immemorial, I trust it.

Something to chew on. More people complain about bias on BBC News than Sky News.

yellum

Euronews has some good news bits. Seem less biased on most matters. I like their "no comment" bits where they show the clip with no commentary. They just give the location and thats it I think. Wondeful idea that.

Sky is like Nutrasweet News now. Protecting you from what else is happening in the world...

Dustaz

Originally posted by yellum
I like their "no comment" bits where they show the clip with no commentary. They just give the location and thats it I think. Wondeful idea that.

If you ever saw news being edited, youd realise what a **** idea that is

Dustaz

Originally posted by The Gopher
Apparently a quote from sky news presenter on September 11th

Apparently Elvis is alive too.

irishgeo

Tru you never get Sky News has uncovered.... but you do get a Sky News lots of Sky News Exclusives.

Also anybody see thier coverage of the tube train crash. They had alittle or no information and just keep telling you the same thing over and over again.


But despite being flawed they are still the best.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

yellum

Originally posted by Dustaz
If you ever saw news being edited, youd realise what a **** idea that is

Can you leave us in on that little secret as to why that is so then, besides leaving it as something only those in the know can agree with.

Dustaz

News items are put together in roughly the time it takes to record a vo and the running time of the shots chosen.

The editor usually cuts the pictures around the journalists voiceover. Without it, they tend to be meaningless sequences of images. They are also driven by the journos opinion if you know what i mean.

yellum

*enlightened*

But these are mainly unedited video sequences, no shot changes or anything. So no real media twists in it. I enjoy them anyway.