Talk:Sky News/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hmmmm, are you sure that Murdoch hasn't written this article. It looks far too like a giant ad for the channel.

"The station has not been without controversy. Whilst it has avoided accusations of bias unlike its sister network Fox News, the appointment of Kelvin Mackenzie, former editor of the Sun newspaper, in the early 1990s, caused the station to take its news values downmarket and concentrate on stories that would be more familiar to tabloid newspapers than its rivals at the BBC and ITN. Whilst the station has undoubtedly got past this in its news coverage, to the point of being nominated for International Emmy Awards, the public perception of downmarket coverage remained with the channel for a very long time."

Does this paragraph conform to NPOV? Unless the assertion that their values went downmarket can be substantiated it seems to me that's at least debatable, but I'm relatively new to Wikipedia so what does everyone else think?

--Matthew Humphreys 21:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why did the rise of Fox News popularity kill the Sky News US plan? Sky News wouldn't canabilise Fox News ratings, it would compete against CNN, MSNBC and BBC World. matturn 00:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

isleworth/Osterly

The section on the move of the channels Studios makes it seem like thay have change location, when actually they have just moved across the road from the old studios- still in the Sky Complex.

Osterly/Isleworth is a common problem with Sky's HQ as its close to both these places.

Schedule - Unencyclopedic

As I had to bring to the attention of a few radio articles for BBC radio stations, according to section 1.7.7 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Rather than delete the whole lot, would it be better to readjust the schedule and morph it into a list of specific programmes that appear on Sky News, like done on the ITV Play article? Sonic 18:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I see what you mean. I will try to adjust. Flymeoutofhere 09:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the unencyclopedic tag now (without inadvertently having my browser blank the page this time!). Thank you for adjusting the section. Sonic 17:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What integrity?

Integrity of a news channel lies in its unbiased stance to issues unfolding in the world. How can a Sky News have integrity if it finds it justifiable to take sides in international affairs? --Navtaz 19:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the perception bit include the controversy over the fake submarine story by James Forlong? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_scandals#James_Forlong.2C_Sky_News_.282003.29 --62.49.116.50 11:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Perception: NPOV?

The sections begins with: "Today Sky News continues to maintain an impressive standard of journalism in the face of tough competition."

Now I don't get Sky News so I only see a clip here and there and so won't edit it but of all the things I've heard, 'impressive standard of journalism' was not one of them. And even if this were true, I believe that the section would either have to be reworded or a source would need to be cited.

To me, parts of it do stink of POV. I think the perception section should stay, but I will add a template requesting clean-up. --tgheretford (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (formerly Sonic)

I cleaned up the first paragraph of the section, so maybe a different template is needed now. Flymeoutofhere 08:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, looks a lot better in my view. Thanks. --tgheretford (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Reason for editorial line

Would it be fair to say that the reason for Sky News' relatively neutral editorial line is due to the precedent already set in UK news broadcasting by the BBC and ITN? What I mean is, with the BBC and ITN already in place, British viewers came to expect a relatively neutral stance from news broadcasters, so when Sky News came in it had to be neutral as well, instead of being like, say, Fox News. This is just my own observation of course so I guess it's original research, but I think if enough people agree and a proper source can be found that backs this idea up, it would be an important point to include to explain the reason for the style of Sky's reporting. Abc30 14:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

SKYThis user watches Sky News,
first for Breaking News.

-- While I could find a userbox for BBC News 24, I couldn't find one for Sky News, so I made one. You are welcome to put it on your user page: {{User:Lee_Stanley/Userbox/Sky_News}}

- Lee Stanley 00:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction...

Now TV is not a cable-tv in HK. it is a Satellite TV.

Eve215454 01:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I've never used it, but the Now TV article indicates that the service is received via bradband. Whilst not a traditional cable tv service, it at least seems to be closer to a cable system than a satellite tv system such as Sky Digital or DirecTV. But perhaps we should have another category for broadband tv? -- Matthew Humphreys 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral POV???

This page reads like a Sky News fan website, especially the "Related Channels" bit. The "Perception" bit fails to notice that there is a law in the UK that requires impartiality from TV News. ••Briantist•• talk 23:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Also the "Programming" section breaks WP:NOT#DIR ••Briantist•• talk 00:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not: TV/Radio Guides ... an article on a ... station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable.

••Briantist•• talk 00:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Is 'Fox News' a 'sister station'?

The phrase 'sister station' is used but I can see no proof for it. As far as I can see Sky News are financially, editorially and regulatory independent of each other. Sky News is run by British Sky Broadcasting, which has News Corp as a PARTIAL investor. The 'sister' language is sloppy and not supported by fact. ••Briantist•• talk 11:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with what you're saying, there is a strong relationship with the two channels sharing facilities, reports and footage, with Fox News taking Sky News coverage of events in the UK and vice-versa. But then, I suppose you could say the same of CNN & ITN, or BBC & ABC. But one thing in support of the term being used is that on-air they often refer to each other as "our sister station". Bluejam 16:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I was after Wikipedia-usable proof, ideally. ••Briantist•• talk 16:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the proof that Sky News has been the "sister channel" of Fox News is an interview of Eamonn Holmes (of Sunrise) on the PressCon of The Rich List (shown on FOX Website), he stated that Fox News' sister channel is Sky News...

Eve215454 09:28, 30 January 2007 (PHIL)

Lovely, can you post a URL please? ••Briantist•• talk 10:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize but i cannot. Because FOX had deleted the Rich List webpage after the show had been cancelled.

Eve215454 01:03, 03 February 2007 (PHIL)

OK, I'll delete the phrase from the page. ••Briantist•• talk 17:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

From a report [1] on FOXNews.com: "The video taken by a commuter first aired on Britain's Sky News, a Fox sister station." Would you be happy for the phrase to be reinserted into this article now Braintist, citing the above source if you like? --Matthew Humphreys 09:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How odd, he didn't put it back. Redxiv 16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

They must have got board with it.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

new graphics

does anyone have images of the new graphics?Flymeoutofhere 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"The new graphics were slammed by viewers and critics alike as big,ugly and poorly executed.It is hoped by many that a change will be made to the graphics although this seems unlikely." this is entirel pov thus im removing it.

removal of channel from Freeview

Until someone can show me that OfCom have approved Sky's reported plans, I will revert edits that show it is to leave the platform. - Lee Stanley 18:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

international edition

I have gone to continental Europe recently and got a chance to view SkyNews in Greece. I noticed that the ticker and timepiece was present and so were ads from the UK. Is this the case in the rest of Europe? You may want to look into this. --58.69.5.161 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Reporters and Correspondents

Should we include these lists? Redvers deleted them last week and I had no response to the message I posted on his userpage. Are these lists useful? Flymeoutofhere 18:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

bias

does sky news not have ANY biases even in the past? Its owned by murdocks i mean hello , fox news people, that has a far right agenda, has sky excaped these clutches?Realist2 (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New Schedule

I removed the following section because it appears to be pure speculation.

With the return of Andrew Wilson to Sky Centre, it is rumoured that a new schedule will be devised, taking effect around mi-August when it's expected that several staff including Lorna Dunkley (weekend presenter) will go off on maternity leave.

06.00 - Sunrise with Eamonn Holmes

09.00 - Sky News Today with Martin Stanford and Julie Etchingham

12.00 - Lunchtime Live with Kay Burley

14.00 - TBA with Andrew Wilson and Anna Jones

17.00 - Live at 5 with Jeremy Thompson and Anna Botting

20.00 - TBA with Adam Boulton

21.00 - Sky News Tonight with Colin Brazier and TBA

00.00 - Sky News with Lukwesa Burak ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 18:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Scheudles ARE NOT ALLOWED, please see WP:NOT  BRIANTIST  (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Could we please also make sure that we get simple details correct; the channel started on the 5th of February.User:Sn2005 (talk)

Updates and reformat

I've done lots of reworking of the article, which has included providing references for the claims and adding a few more quotes from Rupert and the like, and I hope it's more neutral now. I have removed most of the 'guesswork' which comprised this article before.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

However, I haven't got anything to support the Awards section, please add these if you have them!  BRIANTIST  (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC) -> if you're looking for a list of awards, try http://www.skypressoffice.co.uk/SkyNews/AboutUs/awards.asp though I don't know if that counts as a good source. ~Griffindd

Also, I have moved the rather indiscriminate list of presenters and correspondents to a separate page.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work - looks fantastic. TBH I dont think its far off of GA status now - if we are going to submit it two things which will certainly come up are the lead see WP:Lead which is much too short, and the lack of references in the article. There isnt much work to do though I dont think, and in my experience, we should be there quite soon.--Flymeoutofhere 07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've sorted almost all the references now. I'll have a look at the intro.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the intro now works for WP:Lead  BRIANTIST  (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The section headings used level 1 (=) -- I've corrected the, Also, it should not pass GA with the Logos gallery: far too many non-free images without critical context. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

OK-Great - we need to try to find citations where the citation needed tags are...and probably therefore get some licenses on those logos--Flymeoutofhere 19:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this enough commentary?  BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me...lets see what happens with the GA.--Flymeoutofhere 09:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 2, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Fail Several {{fact}} templates throughout

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Fail I've removed a fair use gallery (see WP:FAIR) and several images do not have fair use rationales (Template:Fair use rationale is useful).

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. Kindest Regards
The Sunshine Man 18:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reception

I just wanted to check something here. The article says that it cannot be made available in America as Sky does not own the international rights for the programming, especially sports programming. I find this a bit odd as Sky News does not generally show sports events except within regular new bulletins and if they didn't own the "international rights," how would they be able to show it in other countries, as they are not American rights but international rights. Also, they occasionally show Sky News at Ten in America on cable. --Sebastian Cartwright 01:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sky News New Colourscheme.jpg

Image:Sky News New Colourscheme.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sky News Business Channel

Having followed the cited link for this section and examined the source it appears to be an article relating to Sky News Australia, can I suggest that the section either receive the correct citation, or be deleted. Thanks 195.144.135.189 (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)dmc5007