Sky News: Presenters & Rotas

And what exactly is that meant to mean?

What he said.

Exactly so shouldn't be so rude to people who might know less. To quote "laughable rubbish" and "press fetishism" and talking down to someone because they're not an insider. Not exactly someone who respect's other people's views is it?

I think if you work in the industry, you might not realise that the things obvious to you are not so obvious to those outside the industry, including those who are enthusiast about the subject.

In this case though, the 'theory' was far-fetched to begin with and while I wouldn't have gone so far when responding, I think it's fair to debunk it when there's a lot of ridiculous theories that get posted on here.

I think it's great we have a forum with enthusiasts and those in the industry to provide a balance, and both camps can learn something about how we post or what we assume and whether it's right or wrong, and fix those mistakes in the future.

But it's not even a question about knowing more or less about the inner workings of Sky News (although I do indeed work there)... it's a question of (apparently) not understanding that decisions as to how to indicate seniority in any workplace - broadcast or otherwise - simply aren't taken in that granular a fashion.


If I find it ludicrous that someone would suggest they might be - particularly when speaking about my own employer - I have the right to say so, if for no other reason than to refute any suggestion that my employer might be so petty.

I think it comes down to this.

DS: Unverified outrageous comments about a broadcasting organisation which are not challenged.

TVF: Far-fetched comments which can be challenged by employees of said organisation, either publicly or not.

... which is why I bother to post here and not there.

Well there is one thing I have learnt here today - is that it's not worth standing up for anyone on here who I think has been treated unfairly.

And I'd like to think that most of us on here speculate with a sense of realism about the industry, rather than the tabloid posts at the other place.

If I speculate or get the facts wrong, I like the fact we have knowledgable people who will debate properly.

Exactly.


The reason my posts in this instance have been so - let's call them "rich-with-adjectives" - is that I seriously couldn't believe what I was reading. A lot of times (i.e. when people speculate as to the employment status of presenters), I keep my mouth shut out of respect for my colleagues and sometimes - more broadly - in the interests of commercial sensitivity.

But when I see something that puts my employer in an erroneously-bad light and that I can directly refute, I will make no apology for doing so.

By such a small amount it's barely worth commenting upon (I would guess it's down to the increased ascender height of the "k").

I don't know why there is so much opprobrium against Skygeek recently, but I think the forum would be significantly worse off without his many excellent contributions (and far better off without the ridiculous snipes towards him I've seen in this thread).

That is unduly-kind of you - thank you.

It has nothing to do with being an insider, and everything to do with not being a fantasist.

No broadcaster is going to demonstrate seniority on air by making one person's name imperceptibly larger than another's.

And since when did anyone have to respect the views of someone who is blatantly wrong in their view? If someone comes up to you declaring the sky is green and grass is pink, are you seriously suggesting you would respect those opinions, or would you laugh in their face and tell them to pull the other one?

If you don't know what you're talking about, and decide to make something up, don't be surprised if someone who does know what they're talking about pulls you up on it. That's how the world works *and* how you learn things.