What you would change

Discussion Forums Forums TV Newsroom What you would change

This topic contains 9 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Steven 13 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #17127 Reply

    Newsroom
    Participant
    #17128 Reply

    Newsroom
    Participant

    Hi,

    We all really like Sky News but I would like to here your views as to what you would change if you had the power to.

    For example,moving presenters to different time slots,seeing more of a particular presenter,changing correspondents,moving or changing timing or layout of a particular show,how they conduct interviews or anything else.

    Personally,I would like to see more of the paper reviewers during the day time maybe at 1.45pm,3.45pm,5.45pm,7.45pm and 9.45pm,aswell as the usual early morning and late-night slot.I would like to see more of Topaz Amoore presenting the paper slot.

    What would you change and why?

    Cheers

    #17129 Reply

    AJ
    Participant

    It would be pointless doing newspaper reviews in the afternoon – everybody who wants to see the papers will have seen them by then, and the first editions of the next day’s papers don’t come out until 8, 9 or even 10pm

    #17130 Reply

    Newsroom
    Participant

    well i do think there should be newspaper review before 11.45pm-it is far to late.

    AJ what would you change?

    #17131 Reply

    Johnnie
    Keymaster

    well i do think there should be newspaper review before 11.45pm-it is far to late.

    I would love to see the Newspaper review start about 11.30pm – but the newspapers don’t come into Sky Centre until then.

    I wouldn’t change much. I would like programme ID’s at the top of the hour (“Sunrise with Greg and Lorna” and “Live at Five with Jeremy and Anna” ETC)

    Bring back the Gallery audio feed on active (11pm)

    #17132 Reply

    Steven
    Participant

    Well, I would like to see better specialist programming. Not as in specialist subjects ie Technofile, Book Review etc etc – although I have no objection to these in principle – but specialist news programming.

    Let me explain further: The other evening Sky seemed overally enthusiastic about London making it through to the next stage of the Olympic games. Incidentally, they even reported this, with package, on SNI. Are the people in Ireland really that interested? Back on subject: There was lots of international news – Israel, Sonia Ghandi turning down Indian Prime Ministers role – that I was very interested inand indeed were important stories. The Indian story featured on L@5 45 minutes into the programme. When it did appear Richard Bestic did a live one-to-one that lasted no more than 2 minutes. That was the total of their coverage of that story. On the other hand, there was Channel 4 News, who featured the 2 stories as their leading stories. By the time they had finished with the guests that were interviewed the programme was 25 minutes old. With the resources at Sky News’ disposal they could easily do a programme like this. I’m not suggesting that they would do that every hour. But with little terrestrial competition 8pm would be as good a place as any.

    They also need a documentary/investigative style show. Similar to Panorama, Tonight with Trevor McDonald, Dispatches etc. Recently, Martin Brunt did a special report on how easy it was to buy automatic weapons that were supposed to have been made ‘safe’, complete with parts that enabled them to become fully functional with seconds. This was the lead story on Sunrise. I’m really not sure whether this news, as such. You may remember the Juliet Errington report on how easy it was to smuggle a swiss army penknife onboard an Easy Jet flight.

    With regards to the newspaper review. As has been said it can’t be done in the middle of the day. But perhaps a weekly review on a Saturday would be interesting?

    #17133 Reply

    eagleeye
    Participant

    Steven, lots of us on the old forums had a persistent complaint about the lack of time and depth afforded to international news, no matter how important.

    Sky do ‘breaking news’ very well, but sometimes they neglect the ‘why and hows’ for the ‘whats and whens’. With the correspondents at their disposal it could be done. They always claim no money but how rich is C4? I think they think that Sky viewers are not interested. A business decision.

    Adam Boulton is the only journalist who ever gets ‘proper’ airtime for in depth programmes. They didn’t even do one miserable hour on Iraq post war etc despite it being the biggest story of last year – and this, by the looks of it. I’m going to stop repeating my old complaints now, but that is what I would change – make Sky more in tune with a ‘serious news channel’.

    #17134 Reply

    edofis
    Participant

    I’m quite happy and wouden’t really like to make any major changes to sky. I’d get rid of littlejohn and i’d introduce a goodlooking weatherman for us girlies, you lads get lisa burke and us girls get Francis Wilson, it aint fair. Actually theres lots of goodlooking weather girls and as Francis is the only weatherman at sky he must feel like the luckiest bloke alive working with all those lovely ladies. So, thats about all i’d change really.

    Ed

    #17135 Reply

    Newsroom
    Participant

    I would change the flagship Live @ 5 to Live@9-that would make more sense to me!

    #17136 Reply

    Steven
    Participant

    However, the reason ‘Live’ is in the title isn’t to highlight it as the flag ship programme. It has more to do it’s ability to rhyme with 5, me thinks. But I understand the sentiment.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
Reply To: What you would change
Your information:




Add New Topic Login Register