[kookaburra]

It is already getting very obvious now that Sky News Australia is a completely different beast to that of Sky News in the UK.

Why on earth would Rupert Murdoch actually want to keep the Sky News brand going in Australia now when a renowned rival broadcaster from the U.S. officially owns his original incarnation of it that was setup by Murdoch himself in the UK in the later part of the 1980's. If people now are not fully clued into this situation in 2024 and are now starting to face up to the reality that Sky News in the UK is not owned by Rupert Murdoch at this point in time; would they care to actually take any notice of it at this point.

I would doubt that people would understand the differences between them when the brand currently has two very conflicting agenda's at play when providing a news broadcasting service to wider members of the public. One version of this channel, namely Sky News Australia, has a more extreme news agenda after a certain time in the late evening to viewers who live down under. The other, Sky News UK, offers a more balanced & unbiased form of news that is more credible and much more reliable to it's own audience who live in the UK & in the wider EU.

There was some plan proposed a few years ago that Sky News Australia was going to rebrand to Foxtel News Channel. However; that plan never went to fruition.

Would that plan still go ahead with Murdoch if he was happy with permanently divorcing from Sky altogether?

Sky News Australia has a tiny audience in Australia. For a few years its dayside programming was well regarded by political freaks and staffers but it’s after dark programming saw an end to that.

Its main audience now is Americans watching its clips on YouTube. The separation from the Fox brand probably helps them as the conspiracy theorist far right types who lap it up can point to this is another source saying what Fox says.