Sky News


And not coming from the new Canberra set. That must have been his punishment do your show from the broom closet.


I wonder why he’s on the old set… not a good look for the PML brand.
There must be a problem with the new studio.


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 good old days.


Indeed, the good old days. I used to watch a lot of Sky News back when I lived in New Zealand, mainly because back then it showed a lot of Sky News UK, so for us it was a way of knowing what was happening ‘back home’. I quite liked it, TBH - while it was very basic compared to the big boys over in London (and the NZ bulletins were even more basic), at least you knew that if you turned to Sky, 9 times out of 10 you’d get the news. Though does anyone else remember how John Mangos and Jacinta Tynan on (I think) the evening shift seemingly hated each other? :grimacing:

Anyway, at least it was watchable back then. From what little I’ve seen of the channel nowadays, it may as well not even be a news channel. I had hoped that Sky News being bought out by News Corp would have improved the channel somewhat, but it seems not.


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.


I like Sky News UK especially in primetime.



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.


Not a fan of Rowan Dean but he is right about Sleeping Giants. They accuse companies who advertise on Sky News (or on other TV Networks that are airing something they don’t like) of supporting "racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia or xenophobia assuming that these companies know the material that goes to air. They go on and on about people who are Right-Wing and what outrageous thing they said but stay dead silent when someone on the Left says something ridiculous.

Fair enough if you don’t like the commentators on Sky but do they really need to go to the point or bullying and harassing companies that just want to advertise their products and have nothing to do with the programmes.


If they’re advertising on the programs then they’re supporting them and funding the production of those shows and the views they push.


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.


double nothing is still nothing and they’ve lost revenue from sponsors dropping out.


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.