[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.