03-04-2023, 07:12 PM
So why is studio E being used and why are the titles the old ones ? I thought studio E was meant to be out of action.
(03-04-2023, 06:56 PM)newsjunkie Wrote:The Sky presenter and reporter were much more across the story in question. The BBC opt seemed so befuddled. Probably the worst scenario for them really- a rolling story which wasn’t rolling, and they couldn’t leave it in case it did(03-04-2023, 06:49 PM)leewilliams Wrote: Stepping back to look at editorial again for a moment, the UK optout this afternoon was excruciating - my understanding the 1400 start was to “prove a point” rather than for journalistic reasons, which is why you had poor old Sandford and Easton repeating themselves over and over again before anything actually happened at court. There was other stuff going on domestically that could have been used as an opportunity to break away - I’m not sure we ever saw Rishi Sunak launching his grooming gang task force outside the 1, and the teacher strike announcement vanished by the time we passed lunchtime. Clips and packages that had already run once could have been repeated to break up the monotony, but those choices weren’t made.Starting at 2pm definitely wasn't 'to prove a point.' The sentencing hearing was due to start then, but was delayed because Cashman refused to attend the sentencing and so the whole thing got delayed.
If you had switched over to Sky you would have seen they were in a very similar position (though they only began at 2 after an advert break). I'm not sure they would have done anything different if they had been two split channels. It was painful to watch at times but that happens when covering live events which don't always go exactly as planned.
(03-04-2023, 06:26 PM)Chud Wrote: If this is the new schedule then we will get used to it, but it would be nice if they could increase the head count by 1 so we get the 9-12 shift filled with a presenter rather than the phone in. Or just air world feed.
(03-04-2023, 07:05 PM)leewilliams Wrote:I'm sure it was preplanned. If it wasn't I'd be very worried as it has been in diary since the guilty verdict last week. But it was the kind of event that warrants an opt out. I was merely questioning your use of 'prove a point'. I think if it was merely to prove a point it would be a far less important story. That story has led most domestic news bulletins today.(03-04-2023, 06:56 PM)newsjunkie Wrote: Starting at 2pm definitely wasn't 'to prove a point.'It was, I can assure you - the 1400 optout today has been the talk of that newsroom for days to prove how “dynamic” and “agile” the new operation can be.