Sky News - Printable Version

+- Pres Café (https://pres.cafe)
+-- Forum: Pres Café TV and Radio Forums (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: News and Sport Presentation (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Sky News (/showthread.php?tid=73)

---

RE: Sky News - Craigwills - 01-09-2023

(01-09-2023, 06:35 PM)Andy Wrote:  There always seems to be a lot of hatred for Sara-Jane Mee on here - as if she’s the person who decided to call her strand The Sarah-Jane Mee Show.

Almost certainly wasn’t her decision (presenters don’t get to decide that sort of thing, and she was following on from The Kay Burley Show), and she’s a damn good presenter to be honest.

Here, here. Sarah-Jane is very good and I can’t help but feel Kamali isn’t a great fit for the slot, I think he’s better doing a more straight up News bulletin type programme. I’m also not a huge Wilfred Frost fan either so I think I’ll find myself watching less Sky News from next week.

---

RE: Sky News - Newsroom - 03-09-2023

Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips got off to a cracking start!

Great interesting panel made up of Alastair Campbell, Rachel Johnson and Craig Oliver.

Really enjoyed the entire programme. Sky got it right, 10/10.

---

RE: Sky News - rw96 - 03-09-2023

Some caps from Trevor Philips' new show...

Studio panels lit in blue and orange to match logo


Side panel on headlines...


... Which are framed as questions


Panel of commentators after each interview


Titles
https://up.metropol247.co.uk/rw96/screen-20230903-094400~2.mp4 

New background for interviews


And finally, split screens!

(Which Trevor managed to lean himself out of quite a few times at the beginning of his first interview)

Style-wise, seems very similar to his time covering Sophy Ridge. I do wish they'd have kept the analysis with political correspondent, rather than the same commentators everyone uses every 5 minutes, but it's not a surprise.

---

RE: Sky News - Andrew - 03-09-2023

Every programme has a panel of 3 ‘rent a gob’ commentators with loud firmly rooted opinions. Sky have Alastair Campbell who I guess went off on a rant, BBC LauraK has Piers Morgan who has predictably tried to take over

---

RE: Sky News - Humphrey Hacker - 03-09-2023

(03-09-2023, 09:31 AM)Andrew Wrote:  Every programme has a panel of 3 ‘rent a gob’ commentators with loud firmly rooted opinions. Sky have Alastair Campbell who I guess went off on a rant, BBC LauraK has Piers Morgan who has predictably tried to take over

And who has just plugged his show on Talk TV.

---

RE: Sky News - AaronTV - 03-09-2023

Have they added an additional extension at the ‘top’ of the desk as well as to the side? Looks like it’s to accommodate having three people on the contributor side of the desk.

The graphics look really nice IMO, just a shame they couldn’t dust off something to give the program its own music.

Trevor Phillips is not necessarily the smoothest on autocue delivery, but maybe that’s less important for a hour long program that’s designed to try and set the news agenda and get social media hits.

That Westminster backdrop still looks absolutely dreadful (more so in the close shots), I’m amazed it’s lasted quite so long without being updated. It makes perfect sense from the wide shots, but up close you end up with a blurry low quality section of Parliament behind the anchor, with some indistinguishable trees or lampposts behind the guests/correspondents.

---

RE: Sky News - DTV - 03-09-2023

(03-09-2023, 09:31 AM)Andrew Wrote:  Every programme has a panel of 3 ‘rent a gob’ commentators with loud firmly rooted opinions. Sky have Alastair Campbell who I guess went off on a rant, BBC LauraK has Piers Morgan who has predictably tried to take over

Sadly, these pundit panels have basically become the building blocks of every political programme in the country precisely because such tw*ts will go on a rant that the producers can clip for social media. Some people clearly get them, but, to me, they're all basically the presenter going 'what do you think of what you've just heard/this issue' and the reply is always 'exactly what you'd thought I'd say, because I've been booked for my predicatable opinions rather than any actual insight'. 

From Question Time to Politics Live to the Sunday politicals, it's all basically the same dirge with the same too small group of opinion columnists, ex-politicians, relatives of a former prime minister and members of dodgy think tanks (with the latter actually raising serious questions about journalistic integrity).

---

RE: Sky News - Richard H - 03-09-2023

Probably an unpopular opinion but I think the branding for Sunday morning with Trevor Phillips looks awful

The promo shot used during breakfast had so many different colours, font sizes, random shapes sliced off with another block of random shapes it just looks so busy and messy

What is with all the random shapes and colours in particular the random red block in the middle of the straps? It does not look sky newsy at all. The title sequence is bland and we have yet another programme using the same old sky news music instead of something different to make it stand out

Some previously suggested the part circle in the graphics may look like a sun but then on the panels during the headlines its upside down

The shot of the 3 panelists during the introduction was rather odd too. it seemed to be a paused shot. I was looking at Rachel thinking she hasen't moved and neither did the other 2 then after the intro it became clear why as Trevor was sat at the desk alone

Do we really need or want a panel of people giving us their opinion after every interview. We know they will hate whatever the government is doing and will end up arguing with each other. Don't we already have enough of that everyday as it is

---

RE: Sky News - AaronTV - 03-09-2023

(03-09-2023, 10:21 AM)DTV Wrote:  Sadly, these pundit panels have basically become the building blocks of every political programme in the country precisely because such tw*ts will go on a rant that the producers can clip for social media. Some people clearly get them, but, to me, they're all basically the presenter going 'what do you think of what you've just heard/this issue' and the reply is always 'exactly what you'd thought I'd say, because I've been booked for my predicatable opinions rather than any actual insight'. 

From Question Time to Politics Live to the Sunday politicals, it's all basically the same dirge with the same too small group of opinion columnists, ex-politicians, relatives of a former prime minister and members of dodgy think tanks (with the latter actually raising serious questions about journalistic integrity).

The ‘relative of a former Prime Minister’ is a successful broadcaster in her own right who has been a journalist for 30 years, and ‘dodgy think tanks’ is certainly a case of citation needed… 

I suspect ‘dodgy’ does not go beyond them simply producing material and ideas you disagree with.

---

RE: Sky News - DTV - 03-09-2023

(03-09-2023, 10:54 AM)AaronTV Wrote:  The ‘relative of a former Prime Minister’ is a successful broadcaster in her own right who has been a journalist for 30 years, and ‘dodgy think tanks’ is certainly a case of citation needed… 

I suspect ‘dodgy’ does not go beyond them simply producing material and ideas you disagree with.

Johnson might have a journalistic career in her own right, but that was not substantively in the realms of politics and it is very noticeable how she only started getting booked to appear on such shows (with a very high frequency) after her brother became prime minister. To pretend those two facts aren't connected is wilful ignorance.

As for dodgy think tanks, I'm mainly referring to those that are incredibly publicly opaque about their funding, but whom it is well known within Westminster receive significant amounts of money on the behalf of certain industries to produce research that is in line with their preferences. Despite this, they are presented by broadcasters as dispassionate parties whose contribution to the debate is in the public interest, rather than being a front. The Institute for Economic Affairs, for instance, is heavily financially tied to the oil and tobacco industries and has coincidentally produced multiples reports critical of government attempts to tackle climate change or smoking. They are then invited to appear on panel debates as merely 'critical' voices on such matters, without the provenance of their funding being explained to viewers. I would regard that as a lapse in journalistic integrity as the broadcaster is effectively laundering the views of the oil or tobacco industry through a neutral sounding third party that would require advanced audience knowledge of to know was tied to said industry.

---