[DTV]

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.

You can't accuse me of going on a pompous rant and then write a screed ending 'well done to them' that complains about something I didn't say. Where did I say that presentation doesn't matter? I was mainly trying to counter the idea that the BBC and Sky have 'given up' on TV news and ceded any meaningful ground to two non-news channels.

The only time I mentioned presentation was in reference to the ill-conceived notion that Sky's (in your view) bland presentation is going to have a noticeable impact on viewership levels. It just won't/hasn't. The average viewer does not think like members of this forum - they don't make viewing decisions based on who has got the best idents or graphics. The reality of good presentation is that it has no real impact on viewership - the sole goal is not to look awful because that can drive viewers away.

And I wouldn't say that Sky's current presentation is awful. Sparse maybe, but it delivers the news in a clear and engaging way, which, as a news viewer, is what I actually want. To be quite honest, their presentation from 10/15 years ago was something I found very alienating - the constant whoosy wipes, the needlessly effect-laden graphics, the overly-sized screens were all more distracting than helpful. I'd pick the Sky News of today over the Sky News of the past any day.

[Skygeek]

The only time I mentioned presentation was in reference to the ill-conceived notion that Sky's (in your view) bland presentation is going to have a noticeable impact on viewership levels. It just won't/hasn't. The average viewer does not think like members of this forum - they don't make viewing decisions based on who has got the best idents or graphics. The reality of good presentation is that it has no real impact on viewership - the sole goal is not to look awful because that can drive viewers away.

Amen to this!

[Kojak]

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.

You can't accuse me of going on a pompous rant and then write a screed ending 'well done to them' that complains about something I didn't say. Where did I say that presentation doesn't matter? I was mainly trying to counter the idea that the BBC and Sky have 'given up' on TV news and ceded any meaningful ground to two non-news channels.

The only time I mentioned presentation was in reference to the ill-conceived notion that Sky's (in your view) bland presentation is going to have a noticeable impact on viewership levels. It just won't/hasn't. The average viewer does not think like members of this forum - they don't make viewing decisions based on who has got the best idents or graphics. The reality of good presentation is that it has no real impact on viewership - the sole goal is not to look awful because that can drive viewers away.

And I wouldn't say that Sky's current presentation is awful. Sparse maybe, but it delivers the news in a clear and engaging way, which, as a news viewer, is what I actually want. To be quite honest, their presentation from 10/15 years ago was something I found very alienating - the constant whoosy wipes, the needlessly effect-laden graphics, the overly-sized screens were all more distracting than helpful. I'd pick the Sky News of today over the Sky News of the past any day.

Look, presentation obviously does have some impact, otherwise networks would just put out any old crap (and even then, many do do just that). It's not a conscious impact, no, but it does have at least a small effect on a channel's perception. Hence why Sky News was (wrongly IMO) perceived as tabloid 20 years ago, because of their big whooshing graphics and the big red 'BREAKING NEWS' screen that appeared behind the presenters every time a cat broke wind.

Skygeek is right - the journalism now is better than ever, and that is rightly and overwhelmingly the most important thing. All I'm saying is that I find the presentation now too sparse. I think there can be a happy medium between the current sparse style and the over-the-top massive screens and graphics of 15-20 years ago.

[Gibsy]

Does anyone know when the announcement of the new boss is likely?

[DTV]

Look, presentation obviously does have some impact, otherwise networks would just put out any old crap (and even then, many do do just that). It's not a conscious impact, no, but it does have at least a small effect on a channel's perception. Hence why Sky News was (wrongly IMO) perceived as tabloid 20 years ago, because of their big whooshing graphics and the big red 'BREAKING NEWS' screen that appeared behind the presenters every time a cat broke wind.

Well, as I said, the goal of presentation is to avoid bad presentation because that does have an impact. And you are right that the impact of bad presentation is often subconscious - e.g., graphics are updated when they become outdated not because of active viewer demand but because you don't want them to perceive you as being old-fashioned or behind the times. But, if you look at the figures from even radical changes in style, such as the 1999 BBC News overhaul, the impact in viewership is relatively small, even if viewers did respond better to the editorial and presentation changes. And I suspect that any changes are likely to be less keenly felt at the news channel level as those are channels that people have to 'seek out' rather than merely flick between.

I would disagree, though, that the change in perception of Sky News is solely because of a change in presentation style, though ditching the OTT graphics and a certain style of presenter has helped. There has certainly been an editorial shift away from being as sensationalist as they were during the 2000s and there are quite a few areas where I'd say their journalism is on a par with (and some where they are better than) that of the BBC now, which I wouldn't've said 15 years ago.

[Kojak]

Look, presentation obviously does have some impact, otherwise networks would just put out any old crap (and even then, many do do just that). It's not a conscious impact, no, but it does have at least a small effect on a channel's perception. Hence why Sky News was (wrongly IMO) perceived as tabloid 20 years ago, because of their big whooshing graphics and the big red 'BREAKING NEWS' screen that appeared behind the presenters every time a cat broke wind.

Well, as I said, the goal of presentation is to avoid bad presentation because that does have an impact. And you are right that the impact of bad presentation is often subconscious - e.g., graphics are updated when they become outdated not because of active viewer demand but because you don't want them to perceive you as being old-fashioned or behind the times. But, if you look at the figures from even radical changes in style, such as the 1999 BBC News overhaul, the impact in viewership is relatively small, even if viewers did respond better to the editorial and presentation changes. And I suspect that any changes are likely to be less keenly felt at the news channel level as those are channels that people have to 'seek out' rather than merely flick between.

I would disagree, though, that the change in perception of Sky News is solely because of a change in presentation style, though ditching the OTT graphics and a certain style of presenter has helped. There has certainly been an editorial shift away from being as sensationalist as they were during the 2000s and there are quite a few areas where I'd say their journalism is on a par with (and some where they are better than) that of the BBC now, which I wouldn't've said 15 years ago.

I think the journalism is certainly the best it's ever been - you're right there. I don't know if it's necessarily that they have surpassed the BBC, or that the BBC's standards have slipped slightly due to less money/resources - probably a bit of both.

Look, I certainly don't think Sky News is bad, editorially or presentationally. As bland as I personally find it now, they do still innovate a lot, like with the daily Ukraine explainers at the big screen. It is much more substance over style now, which is obviously correct. Despite my earlier messianic rants (which I apologise for!) there's actually not a lot wrong with Sky News. It's just that some of their presentation is not to my taste. But they have a style and are sticking to it, which is good, I guess.

[DTV]

I think the journalism is certainly the best it's ever been - you're right there. I don't know if it's necessarily that they have surpassed the BBC, or that the BBC's standards have slipped slightly due to less money/resources - probably a bit of both.

I think you are right about it being a bit of both - in terms of human interest, they've both converged near a similar point having once been toward either end of the 'news you need to know' vs 'news you want to know' spectrum (though there is still a bit of difference). In political reporting, the BBC is so anodyne these days that it'd've been hard for Sky not to take advantage - but they're quite good for policy these days and have certainly shook off the image of presenters getting into arguments with guests, which was a bit of an issue a while back.

There are certainly areas where it'd be hard to overtake the BBC - I don't think any British news outlet is comparable on Asian or African stories. But there are areas which the BBC has seemingly vacated that nobody has taken advantage of - the BBC gave up on European politics about 20 years ago and nobody has since filled that void - even on slow news days, general elections in even quite reasonably sized countries like the Netherlands struggle to get on the running order across the board.

[matthieu1221]

I think the pacing in particular is quite off. It's one thing to be sensationalist, another one to be engaging. Clearly there has been a massive success in Sky's non-television formats, notably TikTok, so clearly they are doing something right there which is encouraging a lot of younger audiences to the news. Social media and television, are very well two different target audiences and mediums, but clearly something in their social media input is catching eyes and may well be replicable to some extent on TV?

As a former international viewer from outside the UK, I've always found Sky to be very strong with international stories, even pre-Ukraine, a big advantage when many domestic news channels don't usually have the same amount of resources. The HK coverage on Hotspots in particular was great. Personally, I think that's where Sky really shines. It's engaging, interesting, and you really learn something from it.

The everyday news coverage is dull but editorially, pretty much beyond reproach. If it works for them, so be it, but I do think it could be made more lively (I'm a big fan of duos on TV!) without compromising on quality journalism.

[Pips2022]

Well, as I said, the goal of presentation is to avoid bad presentation because that does have an impact. And you are right that the impact of bad presentation is often subconscious - e.g., graphics are updated when they become outdated not because of active viewer demand but because you don't want them to perceive you as being old-fashioned or behind the times. But, if you look at the figures from even radical changes in style, such as the 1999 BBC News overhaul, the impact in viewership is relatively small, even if viewers did respond better to the editorial and presentation changes. And I suspect that any changes are likely to be less keenly felt at the news channel level as those are channels that people have to 'seek out' rather than merely flick between.

I would disagree, though, that the change in perception of Sky News is solely because of a change in presentation style, though ditching the OTT graphics and a certain style of presenter has helped. There has certainly been an editorial shift away from being as sensationalist as they were during the 2000s and there are quite a few areas where I'd say their journalism is on a par with (and some where they are better than) that of the BBC now, which I wouldn't've said 15 years ago.

I think the journalism is certainly the best it's ever been - you're right there. I don't know if it's necessarily that they have surpassed the BBC, or that the BBC's standards have slipped slightly due to less money/resources - probably a bit of both.

Look, I certainly don't think Sky News is bad, editorially or presentationally. As bland as I personally find it now, they do still innovate a lot, like with the daily Ukraine explainers at the big screen. It is much more substance over style now, which is obviously correct. Despite my earlier messianic rants (which I apologise for!) there's actually not a lot wrong with Sky News. It's just that some of their presentation is not to my taste. But they have a style and are sticking to it, which is good, I guess.

Bland is a very appropriate word for the Sky News of 2023. Very good for politics or when Alex Crawford or Stuart Ramsay in on screen, but just rather beige otherwise in their onscreen look, most of the presentation and their insipid, uninspired paper review slot.

[Kojak]

I think the pacing in particular is quite off. It's one thing to be sensationalist, another one to be engaging. Clearly there has been a massive success in Sky's non-television formats, notably TikTok, so clearly they are doing something right there which is encouraging a lot of younger audiences to the news. Social media and television, are very well two different target audiences and mediums, but clearly something in their social media input is catching eyes and may well be replicable to some extent on TV?

As a former international viewer from outside the UK, I've always found Sky to be very strong with international stories, even pre-Ukraine, a big advantage when many domestic news channels don't usually have the same amount of resources. The HK coverage on Hotspots in particular was great. Personally, I think that's where Sky really shines. It's engaging, interesting, and you really learn something from it.

The everyday news coverage is dull but editorially, pretty much beyond reproach. If it works for them, so be it, but I do think it could be made more lively (I'm a big fan of duos on TV!) without compromising on quality journalism.

Inspired by something I mentioned on the BBC thread - I think something like this is what I'd like to see return:

www.youtube.com 

I'm certainly not saying copy that shot-for-shot - what I am saying is take some inspiration from that style and bring it into now. I know in 2023, brash and bold is out, and sober and 'grown-up' is in, so you'd have to adapt it to current norms and tastes. Look at the BBC and their gorgeous new studio B for inspiration (not something I ever thought I'd say!).