03-02-2023, 02:18 PM
(03-02-2023, 02:04 PM)DTV Wrote:(03-02-2023, 01:34 PM)Kojak Wrote: 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you are right that the impact of bad presentation is often subconscious - e.g., graphics are updated when they become outdated not because of active viewer demand but because you don't want them to perceive you as being old-fashioned or behind the times.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.