Interesting comment piece in The Guardian (P23) from their media correspondent Matt Wells. He puts forward th case that Sky will now have to confront the dilemmas about news priority that the BBC and ITV already face. The problem of say Andrew Marr being wanted on News 24 at the same time as preparing a report for the BBC One Six. He asks the question What happens when a hijacked jumbo jet hits Canary Wharf and Five wants a different take on the story from the Sky News channel? I assume that Five may well have a bigger audience that Sky News so they would get priority???
Interesting point there about them being able to use Sky News' reporters, but will they? If there was a piece of breaking news whilst a five bulletin was on the air, surely Sky News would keep their reporters for their own channel and use them rather than letting five use them.
They'll do what the BBC do..... the reporter will do the live on 1 channel first, then the other (of course which gets priority would be a problem). Either that or both will send a reporter and they'll do it simultaneously
Interesting comment piece in The Guardian (P23) from their media correspondent Matt Wells. He puts forward th case that Sky will now have to confront the dilemmas about news priority that the BBC and ITV already face. The problem of say Andrew Marr being wanted on News 24 at the same time as preparing a report for the BBC One Six. He asks the question What happens when a hijacked jumbo jet hits Canary Wharf and Five wants a different take on the story from the Sky News channel? I assume that Five may well have a bigger audience that Sky News so they would get priority???
In such an event, would five be able to just simulcast Sky News?
This is a very sad time for those working within ITN both on Five News and as colleagues of those who work on Five News.
It is a disgrace that it has happened this way and a real smack-in-the-mouth to the dedicated team of people who tirelessly put Five News together. Despite what you may think, a relatively small team put together Five News and it is remarkable how hard they work to produce three half hour programmes a day (plus bulletins) with extremely, extremely thin resources. They have worked tirelessly for seven years to build up Five News which now has begun to build up a large fan base and excellent viewing figures for minority broadcaster.
This has been handled extremely appallingly by Five who have had no loyalty to the dedicated staff at ITN who have worked their fingers to the bone to provide an exceptional news service with what they had! Of course, in business, there is no loyalty, but there should have been a moral loyalty to the people who aren't particularly well paid, but still come in every morning, full of enthusiasm, ideas and so, so keen to make sure they provide a service that is exceptional!
Sky have money. Nothing more, nothing less. This was a purely commercial decision based on finance and what Sky were prepared to offer. ITN is a commercial organisation and was not in a position to make a 'loss-making' offer, even if it had been given the opportunity to.
Murdoch has finally got his hands on a terrestrial outlet - I am sure he will do a good job, but, like I say, this has been handled appallingly, (and dare I say it, sneakily!) by Five.. they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
I doubt whether Five's management will be crying into their cornflakes this morning though - unlike some other people who have effectively lost their jobs .. totally out of the blue!
Not "sour grapes" as Sky say - but genuine disappointment and sadness.
And in answer to your question, the news agenda is set by the channel. Five News went upmarket as the channel did. No longer is it there for the three 'F's, but it is now there for arts and cultural programmes (in the main).. Five News is a lot more high-brow than before. Not because of an ITN decision, but because of a Five directive.
The original lasted until late 1999 when it was replaced with the white look (the one with the huge clock in the background), presumably to match the new white background presentation they introduced at the end of 1999.
Slightly o/t, but a friend of mine was working on 5 News at the time, and told me that the big clock didn't actually have a working mechanism, and so someone had to nip on set during every report to move the hands on to the right time.
Apparently one evening they forgot and the time stayed at 7.05 for the whole programme!
In the end it was replaced by a projected working clock.
Interesting comment piece in The Guardian (P23) from their media correspondent Matt Wells. He puts forward th case that Sky will now have to confront the dilemmas about news priority that the BBC and ITV already face. The problem of say Andrew Marr being wanted on News 24 at the same time as preparing a report for the BBC One Six. He asks the question What happens when a hijacked jumbo jet hits Canary Wharf and Five wants a different take on the story from the Sky News channel? I assume that Five may well have a bigger audience that Sky News so they would get priority???
In such an event, would five be able to just simulcast Sky News?
I read in today's Guardian (this is in the much larger page 3 article) that five and Sky already have such an arrangement in place, before this new contract, though to my knowledge it's never been used.
Interesting comment piece in The Guardian (P23) from their media correspondent Matt Wells. He puts forward th case that Sky will now have to confront the dilemmas about news priority that the BBC and ITV already face. The problem of say Andrew Marr being wanted on News 24 at the same time as preparing a report for the BBC One Six. He asks the question What happens when a hijacked jumbo jet hits Canary Wharf and Five wants a different take on the story from the Sky News channel? I assume that Five may well have a bigger audience that Sky News so they would get priority???
In such an event, would five be able to just simulcast Sky News?
I read in today's Guardian (this is in the much larger page 3 article) that five and Sky already have such an arrangement in place, before this new contract, though to my knowledge it's never been used.
Yep - this was part of the contract that saw Sky Sunrise replace the ITN breakfast show. Five were able to "opt-in" to Sky News from this point - for breaking news coverage.
I guess this will be discussed as part of the new provision. On the one hand Five would presumably want big breaking news covered by Kirsty - but they may not be paying enough to do this?
It is a real shame for ITN - AIUI Five was a more multi-skilled area than some other areas in ITN - so presumably acted as a bit of a training ground for other programmes?
You've got to ask the question "What has Sky News got that ITN hasn't?"
The answer would of course be money. But WHY doesn't ITN have any money? Why can't ITN be better than Sky News or BBC News?
It has the potential to do all kinds of things, but no, it plods along producing a few bulletins for ITV1 & C4 each day and then re-hashing bits of the ITV1 bulletin and putting it out on the ITV NC.
It would be better if ITN was totally independent from ITV Plc.
For the past few contract renewals, SKYnews have been picked to the post by ITN, and now the time has come, where Sky has been giving the chance to really shine. It is sad that the staff may be made redundant, but they could easily be given new positions at ITN, or apply for jobs elsewhere.
ITN have not announced they will make the five news team redundant.
Trade union bosses have criticised Channel Five's decision to dump ITN for Sky News, claiming "quality had been abandoned for the sake of a cheap contract".
The National Union of Journalists is seeking talks with ITN over the future of the 60 journalists and production staff who currently work on Five News. Some of them are likely to follow the bulletin to Sky, while others will remain with ITN. But redundancies are thought to be inevitable.