[Kojak]

Sorry to sound pessimistic, but organisations tend to up their game in the face of stronger rather than weaker opposition. Sky can reap the benefits of the de facto closure of the BBC News Channel without having to do anything.

I suspect you're right, sadly. I had thought that the closure of News 24 might lead to more viewers and thus more money for Sky News, though. I am sure they're rubbing their hands in glee at Osterley right now. But hey - John Ryley's replacement will no doubt want to make their own mark on the channel, so here's hoping...

[Spencer]

Sorry to sound pessimistic, but organisations tend to up their game in the face of stronger rather than weaker opposition. Sky can reap the benefits of the de facto closure of the BBC News Channel without having to do anything.

I suspect you're right, sadly. I had thought that the closure of News 24 might lead to more viewers and thus more money for Sky News, though. I am sure they're rubbing their hands in glee at Osterley right now.

As I understand it, Sky News has always been loss making, so I doubt they’ll suddenly find they’ve got a lot of extra money available.

I’m sure though that they’ll benefit in terms of viewers. I certainly find myself watching Sky a lot more these days when the news channel is simulcasting with World News.

I’d like to think though, that those who work at Sky News won’t be doing cartwheels at the prospect of fewer opportunities in the industry and people many of them will certainly know losing their jobs.

[ginnyfan]

I feel like Joanna Gosling would be perfect for a new afternoon slot, where she could bring a bit of magazine style format as well, like she used to do on Victoria's show. Just my 2 cents....

[Kojak]

I feel like Joanna Gosling would be perfect for a new afternoon slot, where she could bring a bit of magazine style format as well, like she used to do on Victoria's show. Just my 2 cents....

Yes, that would be good. Sarah Jane is all right, and I'm sure she's a lovely person, but as a presenter she's never quite cut it for me.

[jaycee331]

With BBC News 24 effectively closing down, and new management for Sky News incoming, would it be too much to ask for some life to be added to the channel? There is a real window of opportunity for Sky here to really refresh Sky News and cement its place as the UK's premier news channel. I apologise to anyone reading this who works there, but at the moment it's about as visually engaging as watching paint dry. I know the orthodoxy there is 'no glamour, just the news', - but TV is a visual medium. It should at least be more than the wallpaper on a screen that it is now. 

I'm not saying go back to 2005 and have three presenters strutting around an aircraft hangar-turned-newsroom - god, no, that was totally the wrong approach, even if we here all loved it - but please just make it look good.

It really is a strange time for TV news. We're in an era of two new challengers in the market and instead of standing on their strengths, BBC News and Sky News just seem to have given up.

I noticeably miss the intimacy of that old shoebox set Adam Boulton would cram two guests into for a spirited argument. These new big bright open spaces remind me of the waiting area in a car showroom, and instead of being impressed by their cutting edge CGI integration, slapping a video wall on every side just comes across incredibly lazy. Maybe it's not the walls per-se but their graphics, because sometimes they use images on Sophie Ridge that look nice from a long shot, but on close-ups look like a child has a vomited crayons.

And what's happened after midnight? We've gone from a varied rota of presenters in the glass box to the same one or two faces on perma-night shifts, delivered with a static head and shoulders shot over several hours of the same endless garish plain blue CG background that is slightly too bright for my after midnight eyes.

Many of you will remember how much stick the glass box received when it first launched with dodgy audio and dreadful robocam angles, but eventually it got smoothed out and it's the only studio I enjoy seeing now because it has some physicality to it and isn't wrapped in CGI. It seems very under utilized nowadays?

Also can someone please tell Sky that the pandemic is over, and it's OK to turn off the zoom calls and bring guests back into the studio for round table debates again? I literally can't watch Press Preview anymore because they never returned to studio guests, which I am sure is comfier and cheaper for everyone, but a lot of the social dynamics and interplay is lost behind jittery, robotic sounding webcams with obvious time delays that lead to unnatural pauses and laughing/talking over one another. But it's not just the press show, it's like this across the schedule now, along with the too familiar "oh I'm sorry we seem to be having some difficulties with the connection".

[Kojak]

I’m not a fan of ANY of their studios, tbqh. I think the post-breakfast Westminster set is the best of a bad bunch currently. The glass box would look much better IMO if they went back to using different camera angles. It looked really fresh when it was first opened but now they just use that same side angle all the time, it just looks so stale and dull.

I do think it could be salvaged, though - a much darker, glossier floor, a new news wall, fresh lighting and VARIED camera angles - and it would look half-decent.

Or they could just build a set in the newsroom.

[DTV]

It really is a strange time for TV news.  We're in an era of two new challengers in the market and instead of standing on their strengths, BBC News and Sky News just seem to have given up.

Not really though. I mean both of their strengths are that they are news outlets, which their 'challengers' aren't - they both know that people who want to see the news are going to watch them (though the two rant channels might do well in certain slots, I've seen no evidence that this is actually taking from the news channel audiences). And this isn't just a value judgement on the types of channels, neither GBN or Talk have the resources to actually cover breaking news properly - that's just a fact.

Despite the changes to BBC News, it'll still be covering the kinds of events that lead to a spike in news channel viewing figures as per now. Plus, in terms of relative strengths, the BBC's are a) it is the BBC and b) international news. And I don't really see what ground Sky is supposedly ceding. Sure, it's presentationally not as 'exciting' as it was 10/15 years ago - with its OTT graphics and dark warehouse of translucent plastic. But the channel has a far better reputation now than in the period you lament - it's very successfully ditched its slightly trashy/tabloid reputation to become a very respectable news operation. And surely, if you actually want news, it is content that matters.

Though, of course, for your long list of complaints, few seem to be actually based in news content. You are obviously entitled to an opinion about presentational matters, but it should always be remembered that this has virtually no bearing on the actual performance of either channel as ordinary viewers do not in fact really care. Your other main complaint seems to be a wish for more shouty panel debates - which don't really belong on a news channel and are a niche I'd happily cede to the two 'challengers'. Plus, in terms of the BBC, you have Question Time and Politics Live - which, while they may be utter LCD dross, do still outperform anything on GBN or Talk by healthy margins.

Also, you say it is a strange time for TV news. Fundamentally, news channel viewership is tiny compared to network news bulletins - even low performers like Newsnight get three times more viewers than the better performing BBC News channel hours - the BBC News at Six brings in over 100x more viewers than either the two 'challenger' channels average. That is where TV news actually is.

[Newsroom]

A wonderfully timed interview with Sky News bosses! it really couldn't have come at a more opportune moment given the dire goings-on at BBC News.

A very upbeat and positive outlook for what will undoubtedly be the 'go to' News Channel for many of us looking elsewhere for our news come April.

pressgazette.co.uk 

Sky News investment will lead to more original journalism in 2023
Sky News bosses Cristina Nicolotti Squires and Jonathan Levy reflect on a tumult…
  Source: pressgazette.co.uk

[Kojak]

It really is a strange time for TV news.  We're in an era of two new challengers in the market and instead of standing on their strengths, BBC News and Sky News just seem to have given up.

Not really though. I mean both of their strengths are that they are news outlets, which their 'challengers' aren't - they both know that people who want to see the news are going to watch them (though the two rant channels might do well in certain slots, I've seen no evidence that this is actually taking from the news channel audiences). And this isn't just a value judgement on the types of channels, neither GBN or Talk have the resources to actually cover breaking news properly - that's just a fact.

Despite the changes to BBC News, it'll still be covering the kinds of events that lead to a spike in news channel viewing figures as per now. Plus, in terms of relative strengths, the BBC's are a) it is the BBC and b) international news. And I don't really see what ground Sky is supposedly ceding. Sure, it's presentationally not as 'exciting' as it was 10/15 years ago - with its OTT graphics and dark warehouse of translucent plastic. But the channel has a far better reputation now than in the period you lament - it's very successfully ditched its slightly trashy/tabloid reputation to become a very respectable news operation. And surely, if you actually want news, it is content that matters.

Though, of course, for your long list of complaints, few seem to be actually based in news content. You are obviously entitled to an opinion about presentational matters, but it should always be remembered that this has virtually no bearing on the actual performance of either channel as ordinary viewers do not in fact really care. Your other main complaint seems to be a wish for more shouty panel debates - which don't really belong on a news channel and are a niche I'd happily cede to the two 'challengers'. Plus, in terms of the BBC, you have Question Time and Politics Live - which, while they may be utter LCD dross, do still outperform anything on GBN or Talk by healthy margins.

Also, you say it is a strange time for TV news. Fundamentally, news channel viewership is tiny compared to network news bulletins - even low performers like Newsnight get three times more viewers than the better performing BBC News channel hours - the BBC News at Six brings in over 100x more viewers than either the two 'challenger' channels average. That is where TV news actually is.

Bit of a pompous rant there, no? It seems you're basically saying we're all wrong for wanting some more visual flair as apparently it detracts from the news. Well if that's the case, why did the BBC bother refitting studio B last year? Why not just have Huw read the 10 O'Clock News from the canteen, if 'it is content that matters'?

No one here is asking to go back to 'OTT graphics and [a] dark warehouse of translucent plastic', as you so delightfully put it. What we are asking for is just for a little bit more care and enthusiasm to go into the presentation. They can even keep the damned glass box - just freshen it up a little. If you look at the Sky News of old, the presentation (and I don't mean flying graphics and fancy jib pans - I mean literally the way news was presented) was much more dynamic and engaging than it is now. It says a lot when the BBC, the epitome of fuddy-duddy, is more dynamic than Sky these days. But hey - I don't run Sky News. I'm sure the people who do have a very clear idea of what they want, and by and large they have achieved that. Well done to them.

[Skygeek]

One thing's for sure... Sky's journalism *does* get talked about more - and has more impact - now than in the mid-00s. That's a positive, and one that will always outweigh satisfying pres nerds (of which I consider myself one) in terms of priorities, but that's not to say pres isn't - and won't be - a consideration going forward.