A little context on the terrorist comment… I think (happy to be corrected) that Paul was using a term that has been used in recent days by “left wingers” to describe their friends on the right.
I’m not making a case justifying its use. If both sides are using it then a pox on both their houses… it’s grandstanding designed to attract attention.
Paul has a tendency to indulge in hyperbole and to be long winded at the same time… it’s not a good look and worse it’s not effective.
The panel tonight was pretty awful… 3 crazies and Paul… ok 4 crazies…
But an earlier comment, since deleted was actually spot on… there are crazies on both sides of politics with the vast majority of Australian stuck in the centre, looking on somewhat bemused.
Ya know back in the day we used to moan about sky news being boring and repetitive. I don’t watch the channel haven’t in around 5 years, but boy would I love to see it return to its old ways.
Celina, terry, Michael, John and John, Brooke, Vanessa, Nicole, Sharon, Leigh, Susanne, Nina, Bridie, Kieran and David. Take us back.
The neanderthal will now be calling all properties formerly known as Fairfax Media, “The Channel 9 Press”. He really is a pathetic individual in the use of the lexicon to try and belittle organisations that do not fit his world view.
And he was particularly aggressive towards them as was Chris Kenny. Those two right wing morons do not allow for considered debate when their side is losing.
Hindsight is everything, but I’d have thought that News Corp. would’ve gone Fox instead of Sky UK soon than they have given the state of TV regulation in Australia being more like America.
While I don’t necessarily agree with the way Sky is doing it, the introduction of opionated talk and comment in prime time is a worldwide trend.
Straight headline news is a non starter these days with the vast majority of viewers now aware of the basic facts from a variety of platforms.
Prime time content must add value and content to attract audience. There are various ways of doing that, there’s the Sky/Fox way, there’s the CNN/MSNBC way and there’s the ABC way with Matter of Fact, The Drum, The Business and The World.
The UK is a little different because of its regulatory environment which puts the brakes on some talk formats.
It’s also a case of freedom of speech and freedom of association.
I’m relaxed about their stand against Dean and Sky provided they’re accurately relaying their views. I draw the line at manipulation and lies on either side.
If a group wants to tell the public how to make their views known then so be it… NewsCorp is constantly telling their readers and viewers how to react.
There is an increasing trend where people’s tolerance towards views that don’t match their own is diminishing rapidly and groups like sleeping Giants are gaining support for activities that could almost border on slacktivism to attract attention to their cause.
By all means hold people to account for what they say (and there has been some pretty reprehensible shit come out of the mouths of some of their presenters and former presenters)
There is obviously a market for the kind of content that Sky produce after dark - their ratings show thats the case. It’s not content that im interested in, so I simply don’t watch
Another aspect of the point you’re making is the misunderstanding, deliberate or otherwise, of the term “biased”
A lot of people seem to think that any presentation of a view contrary to their own is biased.
The reality is if a program, broadcast or indeed person is “unbiased” then about 50% of what is broadcast, published or said is not going to conform with your world view.
Two words: Sky Views. That’s all they need. Replace one of the extra channels.
I know the Murdochs aren’t of my mind on this, but if Sky News aren’t putting up a spirited battle with ABC News’s late lineup, they’re working with content that loses them money as easily as it can be won - both in ads and Canberra influence. Yes, even late into the night.
I don’t understand the point you’re making… Sky News makes money and the opinion line up at night is a very effective audience driver.
Since it was introduced primetime ratings have doubled for better or worse.
The problem Sky has is market penetration. Foxtel reaches less than 30% of homes whereas the ABC is FTA. The launch of Sky News on WIN has gone some way evening the score but Sky needs to be FTA in metro areas to compete effectively.
The lost revenue was short term and while I’m sure they would have preferred it not to have happened it’s had no lasting impact.
Spots are sold on the basis of a platform buy through MCN, very few advertisers specifically pullout and when they do the ads are just rearranged across other channels and others slotted in.
I’m not saying it doesn’t have an impact but it’s not nearly as severe as some would have you believe.
As for audience, it’s not nothing, it’s better in percentage terms than most other news channels worldwide. The variable is Foxtel’s penetration which is certainly low when compared globally.
> double nothing is still nothing and they’ve lost revenue from sponsors dropping out.
Uneducated basic response. Sky’s ratings are not “nothing” - they are one of the Top 5 cable networks now. And they have doubled if not more so over the last few years. It’s all relative.
Compare Sky News and Nine, it’s nothing.
Compare a Sydney rating to a Adelaide rating, its nothing.
Compare a national US rating to a national Australian rating, it’s nothing.
Pay TV other than sport does not pull huge numbers. Never has never will. In it’s relative field - Sky does incredibly well.