Sky news' "coverage"

Barry Aldwell · 02-02-2003 1:25am #1

Watching the space shuttle disaster on sky news today I saw Sky News using their (literally) award winning formula, which consisted of:
1:Showing their affiliate, Fox News, who in turn were showing their Texas affiliate.

2:Showing the same 3 minutes of footage over and over again.

The exact same formula won them an award for September 11th. They're better than most (RTE news can't seem to tell the difference between a light grey radar plane, complete with a radar dome on top, and a camouflaged high flying spyplane), but their formula doesn't deserve an award.

daveirl · 02-02-2003 11:25am

This post has been deleted.

Drunk pirate · 02-02-2003 11:57am

Tuché

mike65 · 02-02-2003 12:16pm

Barry I was using NTL digital service and flicking between CNN, ITN, SKY, BBC World, CNBC and Bloomberg. Phew!

They were all basicly the same, not enough info, not enough pictures and a tonne of airtime to fill.

Objectivly its proberly best to switch off like I did (and watch Munster play rugby) and then return a few hours later when they may have something
resembling information/insight to broadcast.

Mike.

The Gopher · 02-02-2003 2:34pm

What do you expect?It isnt as if Fox News,Sky News and all the rest could rush their own camera crews down from New York and London to rural Texas within minutes of the accident is it?They have to rely on local sources.
Think about it-if a plane was to crash in Galway RTE,TV3 Sky News and all the rest would most probably recieve their first live pictures from TG4 News,as they would be the nearest camera crew to the area.
Whereas we would have to wait for hours more to see pictures if they refused to air these pictures because they came from a diffo tv station and instead decided to wait until their own camera crews arrived from Dublin and London.

When you wtch a live speech from the likes of the white house or the UN,or even a football match you will notice that you are watching normally from the exact same camera,as if you are watching the speech on sky news chances are i will be the same camera that is broadcasting to the other channels.One tv station has the right to film the proceedings and all the others pay for rights to show it live.

Although TV3 was slightly useless on september 11th-rather than their own commentary on events they just handed over to CNN,which sort of defeated the purpose of the coverage being directly from TV3,if you get my drift.

DeadBankClerk · 02-02-2003 2:44pm

Originally posted by Drunk pirate
Tuché

Touché

Barry Aldwell · 02-02-2003 3:17pm

Originally posted by The Gopher
Although TV3 was slightly useless on september 11th-rather than their own commentary on events they just handed over to CNN,which sort of defeated the purpose of the coverage being directly from TV3,if you get my drift.

That's the problem I have with Sky. They just hand over to Fox News, maybe occasionally having one of their reporters butt in to remind people that it's Sky News.

goo · 02-02-2003 3:47pm

Y'all aren't getting the point. When something big happens not everybody is going to have the time to sit down for hours watching detailed reports waiting for a summary of what happened. The channels are much better off showing a fairly short (as you said 3 minutes) summary of the big events. Give it a couple of days and you'll be able to see the 90 minute long conversations the last launch of the shuttle you so obviously long for.

daveirl · 02-02-2003 5:14pm

This post has been deleted.

seamus · 02-02-2003 5:42pm

The main gripe I have about Sky News is the way the present their news - similar to how the Sun or the Mirror present their news, and the importance they give to some events over others.

For example, today as I was leaving for work, they had been talking about the shuttle disaster for about 15 minutes, and then afterwards, "and 50 people have been massacred in.......", a 30 second piece. I was a bit stunned - where were there priorities?

It still shows that they're just rating whores like all the rest. The news isn't important, it's what news they show.

Dustaz · 02-02-2003 7:25pm

I dont think sky claim to not be populist news.

The simple fact of the matter is that 99.9999% of people turning on sky news were turning on for one simple reason: To see what was goin on with the shuttle. Sky provided that in spades. They were the first with the news, they were the first to provide a feed from a local affiliate. This is why they are the best live news channel around. BBC and Ch4 are certainly much more authoritative and balanced sources, but if you want the news as it happens then sky are the bidniss.

irishgeo · 03-02-2003 10:08am

If the BBC or C4 had a US affilate i am sure they would have used that.

What bugs me about Sky News is the experts they get on who would look like they were dragged from thier by men in black suits and didnt have to time to prep anything.

The guy who said it was probarly a tile failure (related to the foam flying off) not 6 hours after the accident got up my nose. He was sitting in england and basing his theory on news reports.

But i did turn over to cnn and others but they all had the same thing and were trying to pad out the time until their reporters got on the scene.

Dustaz · 03-02-2003 3:06pm

Originally posted by irishgeo
If the BBC or C4 had a US affilate i am sure they would have used that.

BUT THEY DONT. SKY DO.

jesus, this is not rocket science.

99% of the people who give out about sky were watching it the other day. Does this tell you anything?

Big Chief · 03-02-2003 3:46pm

dunno if its been mentioned but in the morning the same coverage is usually shown because people get up at different times for work etc..

(i.e if they had shown the coverage they had at 6:30am i wouldnt have seen it and alot of others would before they left for work.., and i woulda seen the same coverage when i got up at 7:10 am )

least thats always been the reason i thought they and alot of other news channels did this

irishgeo · 03-02-2003 4:29pm

anybody ever try watching sky for like 2 hours in a row on a slow news day.Its a repeat plain and simple.

Most peole watch it for say an hour to catch the headlines.

But when there is breaking news most people switch over to Sky News becuase they usually know sky are ggod like this and wont even mention other headlines just stick to getting the facts.

Bard · 03-02-2003 4:34pm

Originally posted by DeadBankClerk

quote:
Originally posted by Drunk pirate
Tuché

Touché

Ah don't mind him, - he's drunk, after all...

Originally posted by irishgeo
anybody ever try watching sky for like 2 hours in a row on a slow news day.Its a repeat plain and simple.

It's a news channel. On a slow news day, what do you expect? Should they show cartoons to fill the space? Show news from last year? Make news up? :rolleyes: Of course they repeat stuff!

irishgeo · 03-02-2003 4:52pm

i how about some technology news. Finaicial News etc. Like it was before. I mean whats half an hour and if anything did break they can always cut out of it.

There is loads of news that they can use but they dont show any of it.

DMC · 03-02-2003 5:09pm

Originally posted by Dustaz
BUT THEY DONT. SKY DO.

Not quite, indirectly they do.

The BBC has an co-operation agreement with ABC, and ITV (ITN) with NBC. But unlike Sky News, who take a dirty feed off FOX News, with their astons and dogs, the arrangements with BBC/ABC and ITN/NBC means that they get a clean feed of any pictures that come in.

If anyone watches ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, on BBC News 24, you'll see that a lot of foreign reports are done by BBC journos. Also a lot of BBC news reports from the US use ABC camera crews, etc.

Sky news' "coverage"

Comments