• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

Sky News hopefully gone soon.

in-exile said:
Click to expand...

Dan Wotton sums it up well, 'since its left wing turn'.....because I remember Sky News early on and it most definitely isn't the news station of the last decade politically.

Go woke, go broke isn't as true as some think (as there is often huge money behind it) but it often does contain a core of truth as the majority of people just don't see the world as the ruling elites would wish us to.....despite the pumping of trillions of currency into trying to convert us.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why anyone wants to own a TV news channel. I said the same about GB News when it launched, this is nothing to do with left or right wing. People are watching less and less TV news because they already have the key points from social media or the internet.

I can honestly say I have not sat down and watched the "news" from any channel in about 20 odd years.

My guess is that the largest group who do are the elderly. It's why the BBC needs to have a re-think about BBC 24 and all the other news shows they spend a fortune on for a dwindling audience.

I don't think I have ever watched Sky News so can't comment on their coverage.

I think the days of 24 hour news are coming to an end. If something is that urgent you can always break into regular broadcasting but mostly they repeat the same stuff every 15 minutes.

The last time I did watch regularly was the first gulf war:

1. Man in studio gives you the headlines
2. Over to our man in the Middle East who is actually hundreds of miles from the war (like saying over to Paris for the update on London). Man then repeats what the studio man has already said.
3. Now over to our reporter who is embedded with the troops so he can repeat what the other 2 have already told you.

Zzzzzzz
 
Badger11 said:
I don't understand why anyone wants to own a TV news channel. I said the same about GB News when it launched, this is nothing to do with left or right wing. People are watching less and less TV news because they already have the key points from social media or the internet.

I can honestly say I have not sat down and watched the "news" from any channel in about 20 odd years.

My guess is that the largest group who do are the elderly. It's why the BBC needs to have a re-think about BBC 24 and all the other news shows they spend a fortune on for a dwindling audience.

I don't think I have ever watched Sky News so can't comment on their coverage.

I think the days of 24 hour news are coming to an end. If something is that urgent you can always break into regular broadcasting but mostly they repeat the same stuff every 15 minutes.

The last time I did watch regularly was the first gulf war:

1. Man in studio gives you the headlines
2. Over to our man in the Middle East who is actually hundreds of miles from the war (like saying over to Paris for the update on London). Man then repeats what the studio man has already said.
3. Now over to our reporter who is embedded with the troops so he can repeat what the other 2 have already told you.

Zzzzzzz
Click to expand...
You haven’t watched the news in 20 years? Blimey.

You forgot the reporters always have helmets and bulletproof vests on while being many many miles away, but otherwise funnily spot on.
 
This seems to be what it is actually about.

British broadcaster Sky has said it could shut down Sky News if its ownership of the channel proves to be an obstruction to the company’s $15.4 billion takeover by Rupert Murdoch’s Twenty-First Century Fox.

I don't find it biased and don't think there is any benefit in reducing news channels, you don't have to watch them.

😎
 
steeleye20 said:
This seems to be what it is actually about.

British broadcaster Sky has said it could shut down Sky News if its ownership of the channel proves to be an obstruction to the company’s $15.4 billion takeover by Rupert Murdoch’s Twenty-First Century Fox.

I don't find it biased and don't think there is any benefit in reducing news channels, you don't have to watch them.

😎
Click to expand...
That's because you're on the left! 😀
 
People have woken up and have turned to places like X for reliable, unfiltered and unbiased news stories.
 
steeleye20 said:
This seems to be what it is actually about.

British broadcaster Sky has said it could shut down Sky News if its ownership of the channel proves to be an obstruction to the company’s $15.4 billion takeover by Rupert Murdoch’s Twenty-First Century Fox.

I don't find it biased and don't think there is any benefit in reducing news channels, you don't have to watch them.

😎
Click to expand...
Isn't this more to do with cost saving?
 
steeleye20 said:
This seems to be what it is actually about.

British broadcaster Sky has said it could shut down Sky News if its ownership of the channel proves to be an obstruction to the company’s $15.4 billion takeover by Rupert Murdoch’s Twenty-First Century Fox.

I don't find it biased and don't think there is any benefit in reducing news channels, you don't have to watch them.

😎
Click to expand...
It's obviously biased to the left.....However, I do agree with the point that this isn't a reason to shut it down.

If the west is to stand up for the values it was founded on then closing down media organisations because their politics doesn't fit goes against them.

As far as I'm aware all news broadcast channels lose money.
 
Stirlingsays said:
It's obviously biased to the left.....However, I do agree with the point that this isn't a reason to shut it down.

If the west is to stand up for the values it was founded on then closing down media organisations because their politics doesn't fit goes against them.

As far as I'm aware all news broadcast channels lose money.
Click to expand...
It's bias is losing it audience hence the reason to close it, hopefully. Less audience less ad revenue
 
Sky News......its little more than BBC Lite. And not propped up by the license fee. Politician-traitors in Ireland are looking to use the license fee to prop up all their journalistic minions in private tv stations and the print media.

Pedalling the sort of guff that nobody would actually want to pay for.

you can expect the same in the UK. fairly soon.
 
HKOwen said:
It's bias is losing it audience hence the reason to close it, hopefully. Less audience less ad revenue
Click to expand...
At least it isn't because of leftist activists and the OffCommunists attacking its income streams anyway they can, unlike they do with GB News.
 
PalazioVecchio said:
Sky News......its little more than BBC Lite. And not propped up by the license fee. Politician-traitors in Ireland are looking to use the license fee to prop up all their journalistic minions in private tv stations and the print media.

Pedalling the sort of guff that nobody would actually want to pay for.

you can expect the same in the UK. fairly soon.
Click to expand...
Their problem is that Starmer is now in power and is proving to be very unpopular. Sky News were very very obvious in their cheerleading and as disillusionment for Labour continues the picture for Sky will only worsen.

All news channels lose money....but how much matters and unless you have a very rich activist investor, as GB News does, then you won't be around long.

Personally, I never really understood why a private news broadcaster would move away from small 'c' kind of politics.....which was what Sky News was originally. As that is going to be the political position of most cable (well satellite in this case) subscribers. I mean its shifted a little but not much beyond Blairite stuff.

But Sky News's movers and shakers decided that the Guardian was a good look and essentially you only have to look at the regular begging that the Guardian does to see that it wasn't the most sensible economic shift.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top