Sky News.... is it them or me?

flogen

Ok, just watching a sky news piece on the 16 year old "slasher" kid with 22 seperate convictions etc., and I noticed what to me was terrible grammer... or am I just wrong here?

The sentence said on the report was "...none was found this time", in relation to the drugs search the police carried out on the scumbags house. Surely it should be none were found.

Now I'm not one to nit pick at peoples bad grammer, or bad spelling, lord knows I get it wrong often enough, but for a pre-recorded report on a news channel full of supposed journalists, I expect some kind of reasonable command over the english language, or am I yet again asking for too much from these toe-rags?

flogen

simu

Yes, that sounds wrong to me too but I would expect such low standards from sky.

mike65

Correct and proper use of the language in the media has been in decline for a few years now.

Mike.

Genghis

You should pick yourself up a regional newspaper if you want to be really shocked. Misspellings, poor grammar, bad use of commas, poor overall punctuation and "conversationsal" reporting style. I find this kind of thing very annoying.

doh.ie

I heard something during that report on Sky News yesterday and commented to someone at work "That's very poor English for a broadcaster...", so I'm assuming it was the same thing.

Genghis is right about regional newspapers. One of my favourites a few years back was an in-house designed ad for a "Ladie's SALE this weekend!" How they cannot see the importance of proofing their own copy, I don't know...

article6

Technically, "None was found" is a correct usage. The BBC World Service says so, anyway.

In the context of the article flogen mentions, we see how discordant English can sometimes be. Some of the ambiguity is due to the way most of us treat "drugs" as a singular noun. If we treat it as a plural noun, it makes more sense, as in this sentence: "The police were looking for drugs [many drugs]... but they did not find even one". That corresponds to "The police were looking for drugs... none [not one] was found".

pork99

I remember an Irish Independent article some years ago which referred to the American Abstract Expressionist painter "William D. Kooning". Any relation to the painter "Willem De Kooning" I wonder.

Flukey

You'll find plenty of bad grammar everywhere. You have all the usual suspects like people mixing up there, they're and their, let's and lets, it's and its, when to use apostrophes, like knowing the difference between the following:

Toms cars.
Tom's cars.
Tom's car's.
Toms car's.

If you are interested in this kind of thing the book "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" is well worth getting. Amongst its pages is this example of how puctuation can completely change the meaning of something:


Dear Jack,

I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can forever be happy - will you let me be yours?

Jill.

Dear Jack,

I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men I yearn! For you I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart I can forever be happy. Will you let me be?

Yours,

Jill.

It also recommends visiting this website The Apostrophe Protection Society

flogen

Flukey wrote:

You'll find plenty of bad grammar everywhere. You have all the usual suspects like people mixing up there, they're and their, let's and lets, it's and its, when to use apostrophes, like knowing the difference between the following:

Toms cars.
Tom's cars.
Tom's car's.
Toms car's.

If you are interested in this kind of thing the book "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" is well worth getting. Amongst its pages is this example of how puctuation can completely change the meaning of something:


Dear Jack,

I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can forever be happy - will you let me be yours?

Jill.

Dear Jack,

I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men I yearn! For you I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart I can forever be happy. Will you let me be?

Yours,

Jill.

It also recommends visiting this website The Apostrophe Protection Society

I must admit apostrophe's are my downfall.

I must get "Eats, Shoots and Leaves", A cousin of mine told me it was worth reading too.

flogen

Flukey

This Board and the internet as a whole are full of misuses and abuses of apostrophes and a whole range of other punctuations and confusions of words. We are all prone to it: Your and You're, Their and There, Were and We're, you know the sort of thing. There are loads of them. Even those of us who know the difference between these things can make the error if we are not concentrating. I know I have. A quick read before you post will often catch them, though not always. Simple rule to get you going:

's after something is possesive whearas s after something is plural.

Joe's cars = The cars that Joe owns. He owns more than one.
Joe's car's = The unstated something of the car that Joe owns. The reader should be asking "Joe's car's what?"
It should be something like:

Joe's car's window.

That is the lesson for today.

bonkey

Flukey wrote:

Simple rule to get you going:

's after something is possesive whearas s after something is plural.

And s' after something plural and possessive, except when that word ends in s itself. (e.g. the Jones' house, not Joness' or Jones's)

And all of that goes out the window when you are referring to it in the possessive where the rules just change entirely.....

And let's not even try to get to abbreviations.

Oh crap. I wrote all that before drinking enough coffee this morning, and now my brain is leaking out my left ear. I need more caffeine.

jc

Hagar

flogen wrote:

Ok, just watching a sky news piece on the 16 year old "slasher" kid with 22 seperate convictions etc., and I noticed what to me was terrible grammer... or am I just wrong here?

The sentence said on the report was "...none was found this time", in relation to the drugs search the police carried out on the scumbags house. Surely it should be none were found.

flogen

I won't mention the missing apostrophe on "scumbags house". Whoops it slipped out.

The real flaw here is the cops should have slipped a small "twist " in somewhere and locked up the scumbag. This should be followed by a long "sentence".

seamus

bonkey wrote:

And s' after something plural and possessive, except when that word ends in s itself. (e.g. the Jones' house, not Joness' or Jones's)

Actually, that's an interesting one. If a man's name was Jones, and he had a car, you'd say "Jones's Car". But if the Jones family owned a dog, do you say "The Jones's dog", "The Joneses' dog", "The Jones' dog" or something entirely different?

ChipZilla

Sky News is a first cousin of Fox News and The Sun, so whaddya expect?

"Supposed journalists" is a good way of describing the people employed by all three of the above...

Zulu

Tabloid TV - what would you expect?

seanboy

I only watch Sky News to get the time, and whoever is discussing the newspapers' headlines before midnight.

Sky is the keep on the right-side of the line of what the governments position is. No one gets canned for rehashing press releases

OfflerCrocGod

I would kill for BBC 24! Why is it not broadcast over here? I love the quality of the BBC unfortuantely all I can get is Sky Thank God for the Beebs website it means I don't have to watch Sky to often

tipperaryboy

ahemm..it is broadcast over here on Chours Digital TV.You can also watch it over the web at wwitv.com and select uk

AntiRip

Sorry for off topic, but I'm trying to get a signature like OfflerCrocGod for Firefox & I just can't seem to get it right! I copy and paste the script but it just comes out as writing. Any ideas what I'm doing wrong?

aidan_walsh

AntiRip wrote:

Sorry for off topic, but I'm trying to get a signature like OfflerCrocGod for Firefox & I just can't seem to get it right! I copy and paste the script but it just comes out as writing. Any ideas what I'm doing wrong?

HTML bad, BBCode good...

a href = [ url ] [ /url ]
img src =

OfflerCrocGod

tipperaryboy wrote:

ahemm..it is broadcast over here on Chours Digital TV.You can also watch it over the web at wwitv.com and select uk

Thanks but I'd prefer it on the 28" None the less I'm kepping that for the Italian channels, I'm losing the language, ta tipperaryboy!

flogen

AntiRip wrote:

Sorry for off topic, but I'm trying to get a signature like OfflerCrocGod for Firefox & I just can't seem to get it right! I copy and paste the script but it just comes out as writing. Any ideas what I'm doing wrong?

There are plenty of places to find out more... Newbies / FAQ is probably your best bet, here is not really suitable

flogen

AntiRip

flogen wrote:

There are plenty of places to find out more... Newbies / FAQ is probably your best bet, here is not really suitable

flogen

Well I thought OfflerCrocGod would reply with the script as he's got it for his signature. It's not just a big deal anyway.

Sorry if here's not really suitable

OfflerCrocGod

AntiRip wrote:

Well I thought OfflerCrocGod would reply with the script as he's got it for his signature. It's not just a big deal anyway.

Sorry! I came back and someone already had replied so I just left it at that [PHP]
The best Internet browser bar none - for a web without ads or pop-ups.[/PHP]

Change to suit your own tastes.

sceptre

flogen wrote:

The sentence said on the report was "...none was found this time", in relation to the drugs search the police carried out on the scumbags house. Surely it should be none were found.

The jury's still out on whether "none was" or "none were" is correct. You'll find either used and both have been used for quite a number of years so I wouldn't get too worried about that particular discussion.

I found BBC News 24 referring to the "mythical" river Ganges in a number of repeated reports last year more annoying (purely because they repeated the phrase again and again). They changed it to "mystical" when I emailed and whinged. Then there was the time RTE's online news had a headline that read "Rebels raise Kingdom to the ground" (changed to "raze"). Newspapers are generally littered with bad grammar (Rupert's Times has long been the chief culprit) but I've not got the patience to even bother complaining about it.

Magnolia_Fan

Was that a quote?..if so then its not Skys fault

wheels of ire

seamus wrote:

Actually, that's an interesting one. If a man's name was Jones, and he had a car, you'd say "Jones's Car". But if the Jones family owned a dog, do you say "The Jones's dog", "The Joneses' dog", "The Jones' dog" or something entirely different?

Ah, this is a good one.The apostrophe is, at heart, a printer's convention, and much loved by pedants. We don't vocalise it, so the example ''The Jones' dog'', although being regarded as correct in the past , is regarded as being somewhat outdated by the Style Books of most major newspapers.
(You can find the Guardian's one on their site, www.guardian.co.uk)
Lynne Truss's book quotes Fowler's Modern English Usage as saying that with modern names ending in ''s''(including biblical names,and any foreign name with an unpronounced final ''s''),the ''s'' is required after the apostrophe:

Keats's poems
Philippa Jones's book
St. James's Square
Dumas's The Three Musketeers

With names from the ancient world, it is not:

Archimedes' screw
Achilles' heel

If the name ends in an ''iz'' sound, an exception is made:

Moses' tablets

And Jesus

Jesus' disciples.

But still there is debate, and this is not set in stone. Hope this elps

father_ted9t9

ChipZilla wrote:

Sky News is a first cousin of Fox News and The Sun, so whaddya expect?

"Supposed journalists" is a good way of describing the people employed by all three of the above...

Have any of you read the post which stated that technically they used the correct terminology??

"Technically, "None was found" is a correct usage. The BBC World Service says so, anyway.

In the context of the article flogen mentions, we see how discordant English can sometimes be. Some of the ambiguity is due to the way most of us treat "drugs" as a singular noun. If we treat it as a plural noun, it makes more sense, as in this sentence: "The police were looking for drugs [many drugs]... but they did not find even one". That corresponds to "The police were looking for drugs... none [not one] was found"."

People should read the answer posts before replying with silly answers, and the putting down of talented journos

wheels of ire

father_ted9t9 wrote:

Have any of you read the post which stated that technically they used the correct terminology??

"Technically, "None was found" is a correct usage. The BBC World Service says so, anyway.

In the context of the article flogen mentions, we see how discordant English can sometimes be. Some of the ambiguity is due to the way most of us treat "drugs" as a singular noun. If we treat it as a plural noun, it makes more sense, as in this sentence: "The police were looking for drugs [many drugs]... but they did not find even one". That corresponds to "The police were looking for drugs... none [not one] was found"."

People should read the answer posts before replying with silly answers, and the putting down of talented journos

Fair comment, But whilst I am willing to accept that there may be some talented hacks amongst the bottom-feeders on the Sun, they have frequently and fearlessly dragged the name of journalism down to a baser,coarser level.
That said, the subs who write the headlines are talented. When the then little-known Inverness Caledonian Thistle hammered Celtic, about 6-1, back page headline of Sun was 'Super Calley are fantastic;Celtic are atrocious'
Now, that is genius.
But against that we have to remember 'Gotcha' and 'Rejoice!, on the sinking of the Belgrano, not to mention their jingoism.
Private Eye memorably slagged this as 'Kill an Argie;Win a Metro!
(Note for younger readers, the Metro was a crappy BL car, surpassed in uselessness by the bigger Marina)

Flukey

Magnolia_Fan wrote:

Was that a quote?..if so then its not Skys fault

I know generally on Boards.ie we are not meant to point out errors in other posts, but in this thread we can be forgiven for making an exception. So, the above should be:

Was that a quote? If so then it's not Sky's fault.

Pedants of the world: Unite!

wheels of ire

It isn't just pedantry. What's at stake here is comprehension. And more.
I'd not be usually in favour of convention, of just doing someting because thats how we always do it.If we all did, the first fish that turned fins into limbs wouldn't have bothered. We would never have got up the beach, never mind trying to come down from the trees.
But punctuation and spelling, (to a lesser degree),are really important.
As English is the language with most words, lots of which have meanings which vary according to context, and where the pauses are, it has an enormous potential for being misunderstood.
For instance,at the top and bottom of long escalators on the London Underground are signs insisting 'Dogs MUST be carried'.
I used really enjoy asking unfortunate staff where I could borrow/get a dog so as to be able to use escalator, and when I'd get about 20 passengers arguing with the staff, I'd slope off.
On a rather more important note, proper translation of stuff is even more so, as if something is misinterpreted. Or worse. omitted entirely.
Before the latest Iraq invasion,when the Americans were still trying for a UN resolution, I watched Chirac say that he would veto the one as it was , 'Ce soir'. This pair of words were not on subtitles, but they completely changed the sense of what he said.
And seized on by the right-wing radio and so on. And now 'a fact'. After all,everybody 'knows' it, as they've heard it parroted so often. Goebbels was right.
Just as most Americans believe that Saddam was the culprit for 9/11.

Hairy Homer

flogen wrote:

I noticed what to me was terrible grammer... or am I just wrong here?

You certainly are with regard to your spelling of 'grammar'.

seamus wrote:

Actually, that's an interesting one. If a man's name was Jones, and he had a car, you'd say "Jones's Car". But if the Jones family owned a dog, do you say "The Jones's dog", "The Joneses' dog", "The Jones' dog" or something entirely different?

I don't have 'Eats, Shoots and Leaves' but I do have a copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage which expounds on this topic as follows:


Possessive of names ending in -s

Add 's to names that end in s when you would pronounce then with an extra s in speech. (e.g. Charles's, Dickens's, Thomas's, the Times's, Zacharias's); but omit 's when the name is not normally pronounced without the extra s. (e.g. Bridges', Connors', Mars', Herodotus', Xerxes').

So that's as clear as mud.

How do you normally pronounce the plural or possessive of Herodotus or Zacharias?

Flukey

It is annoying when you see bad spelling and punctuation from what are meant to be professional organisations or journalists or whatever. We all, even us pedants, make errors sometimes, (read your post carefully again Wheel of Ire) and we can let one or two slip through after proof-reading, but you do see some howlers in publications that you would expect more from. Looking through a lot of the threads on Boards.ie you would wonder about the standard of education in this area nowadays, seeing as a lot of the people here are not long out of education, or even still in it. It would appear that they don't have the errors they make pulled up by those teaching them. If they were, we would have people learning better punctuation and errors would be less prevalent here. It seems that once people leave primary school, that it is forgotten about, even for people doing subjects like Honours English. Reading and writing, two of the fundamentals of education, should be given more emphasis. It is probably the case that even a lot of the teachers don't even realise that there are errors in the work they are reading.

wheels of ire

Touché, Flukey. Sorry, I see the error now. That's what happens when I answer the phone in middle of posting. What I had intended was to point out that where we pause in speech can affect the meaning of the sentence. In print we use commas for this.
And as for post 'where I hoped this elps'...

flogen

Hairy Homer wrote:

You certainly are with regard to your spelling of 'grammar'.

*cough*... hey everyone, look over there!!

Flukey, I couldn't agree more with you as regards mistakes in publications, but I wouldnt go too much on the state of posting here.
Most people, including myself wouldn't be too pushed about grammatical errors and so on, or precise spelling when posting here, once its readable. If and when I'm doing a test or were to be writing something for print, I'd be much more careful as regards mistakes... It can often be a lot of trouble when you're just slapping up a quick responce to someone here!

flogen

Flukey

I was just making the general point that there is a lack of grammar out there and that it is not being taught properly. I was using here as an example as it is someplace we can all see. While people might take more care if going to print, they should have a good enough knowledge to be able to minimise mistakes wherever they write or type. If they don't have that knowlege it will slip through into their professional work. We all mistype them, but even after reading back through it, a lot of people would not even know they have made any error, or not see them all at least. We've pointed out a lot of the common errors here, but many people would not be aware that they are errors. We know they're wrong, but many people wouldn't. To put that another way:

We no there wrong but many people would'nt. Its terrible that there grammar isnt up to the standard that there grammar should be. Wev'e seen it to often and its terrible. Your better at spotting these errors than some are but as for others, they're spelling and punctuation is'nt what it should be. Maybe they didnt learn it properly or maybe it was badly thought to them. How many would spot all the errors that their are in this paragraph.

Hairy Homer

Flukey wrote:

I was just making the general point that there is a lack of grammar out there and that it is not being taught properly.

I think you're correct in this regard. Where I were a lad, fado, fado, we were taught grammar in primary school as part of the curriculum. I'm not sure that the same applies to the younger (Under 40s) generation.

I was explaining to a younger (albeit English-educated) colleague a simple approach to hyphenation, namely 'we don't generally hyphenate nouns, or adverbial clauses but we DO hyphenate adjectival clauses', until I was blue in the face before I realised that he hadn't the faintest idea what the term 'adjectival clause' meant.

University educated to masters level as well. What do they teach them nowadays?

Mr Byrne

Thank god I'm finally registered because you guys were driving me grazy from pick ups on google, laying into Sky News. Now lets get a bit fair and balanced and get me into the topic:

I'm a loyal viewer of Sky News. I've watched Sky News since it was first pumped into the NTL package, or Cablelink and it was called back then. I remember the first main crises I watched on Sky news, the crises that sealed me as a Sky News viewer - it was the kosovo conflict, or maybe it was the bombing of baghdad in 1997, can't remember which came first. But I felt Sky News gave the best converage by far, Since then , I watch sky news sunrise over Breakfast, Sky News today with my lunch and if I want to find out whats going on in the World at night -time I tune into Sky. As regards Irish news, I now watch Sky News Ireland too, of course, I have pointed out faults in it, but not to the extent that you guys do...

Let me first take you back to the last Gulf War! Remember there was a Sky Correspondant reporting Live From Baghdad all through that period. His name is David Chatter, one of the most respected Investigative Journlists in Europe. While reporting from Croatia in 93 he was shot and nearly killed. But the point is, remember the great converage Sky News had? But to name a few other Journalists - David Bowden and Stuart Ramsy. In fact, Sky News broadcasted some great battles live. Now lets compare Sky news' coverage of the Gulf War, to RTE'S!!! - Fun fun fun - Ok so we have David chatter live in Baghdad and for RTE we have Richard Downs in Baghdad, seems good but he's not LIVE! - No, RTE can't aford nor do they have the technology to that. In fact I think that the reports he did film, were sent via someone elses satellite- Reuters! - Now lets get to the Combat Journalists on the field with the troops - Sky have Ramsy and Bowded, more, but to name a few, while back at RTE - we have our good friend - CHARLIE BIRD! - Yayyyyyyyyyy. Wheres charlier reporting form - you named it!!! - The biggest hot-spot of the war!!!! - Where all the big action is - KUWAIT CITY!!!! - wOOOM WHOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Then when the invasion is going on! - Cahrlie Bird remains in Kuiwait city , telling us whats going on - yeh, he's telling whats going on all right - he's telling us whats going on - on CNN!!!

Then when the invasion gets going, aboput three weeks into it, - The Chief- anchorman for sky Nes - Jeremy Thompson - You know him - real serious voice - He's on Live @ Five - he goes into the battlefield working his way up to baghdad, while good all charlie stays where the action is - in Kuwait city!

So you have such a great choice with News now in ireland - you can watch RTE, who will tell you whats going on 200 miles away from the battlefield - good thing to watch if you don't have CNN. You can watch TV3 news, poor TV3 Nes, they can't afford a foreign Affairs office, they buy all their foreign footage from agencies like Reuters. You can watch Fox news, - great service - where there anchormen live on tv say "You're asking me am I biased? Well damn right i'm biased" - You can watch BBC News - its great, traditional old fashioned news - ITS LAST WEEKS NEWS TODAY!!! And seen as they can't compete with anyone, they now have top make up the stories. - You can watch ITV!! - They are real fair - The really question the American administration - they are in fact, probaley the only News Service outside of America to call the war "war on saddam" - real fair and balanced! - Real independent! - Or you can watch CNN - owned by Time Warner - they have no political influence what so ever - seriously - the only political influence they have is that the Bin Laden family have shares in them!

- Or you can watch sky news - an accalimed global reach 24/7 news serive. I've lost count of how many years they've won News channel of the year!!!

- The choice is yours!

flogen

Mr Byrne wrote:

Thank god I'm finally registered because you guys were driving me grazy from pick ups on google, laying into Sky News. Now lets get a bit fair and balanced and get me into the topic:

Is this Fox News Fair and Balanced or real fair and balanced?

I'm a loyal viewer of Sky News. I've watched Sky News since it was first pumped into the NTL package, or Cablelink and it was called back then. I remember the first main crises I watched on Sky news, the crises that sealed me as a Sky News viewer - it was the kosovo conflict, or maybe it was the bombing of baghdad in 1997, can't remember which came first. But I felt Sky News gave the best converage by far, Since then , I watch sky news sunrise over Breakfast, Sky News today with my lunch and if I want to find out whats going on in the World at night -time I tune into Sky. As regards Irish news, I now watch Sky News Ireland too, of course, I have pointed out faults in it, but not to the extent that you guys do...

I watched sky news for years because I had no choice, it was the only 24 hour news channel going, and only when its a very big story will other channels break from regular viewing to cover it. However, when they do (such as Beslan), I go to BBC, who had about 3 reporters at the foot of the school, and a detailed account of what was happening as well as shots of the chaos. Went to sky news, and they had one guy near the school, a repeated 30 second clip of a shakey camera twirling around, and a lot of people with no idea as to what happened. They had these ex-SAS people on (who didnt seem to be of a high command, but I may be wrong), and they all speculated and said "They shouldn't have done that", even though they didnt know what 'that' was.

Let me first take you back to the last Gulf War! Remember there was a Sky Correspondant reporting Live From Baghdad all through that period. His name is David Chatter, one of the most respected Investigative Journlists in Europe. While reporting from Croatia in 93 he was shot and nearly killed. But the point is, remember the great converage Sky News had? But to name a few other Journalists - David Bowden and Stuart Ramsy. In fact, Sky News broadcasted some great battles live. Now lets compare Sky news' coverage of the Gulf War, to RTE'S!!! - Fun fun fun - Ok so we have David chatter live in Baghdad and for RTE we have Richard Downs in Baghdad, seems good but he's not LIVE! - No, RTE can't aford nor do they have the technology to that. In fact I think that the reports he did film, were sent via someone elses satellite- Reuters! - Now lets get to the Combat Journalists on the field with the troops - Sky have Ramsy and Bowded, more, but to name a few, while back at RTE - we have our good friend - CHARLIE BIRD! - Yayyyyyyyyyy. Wheres charlier reporting form - you named it!!! - The biggest hot-spot of the war!!!! - Where all the big action is - KUWAIT CITY!!!! - wOOOM WHOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Then when the invasion is going on! - Cahrlie Bird remains in Kuiwait city , telling us whats going on - yeh, he's telling whats going on all right - he's telling us whats going on - on CNN!!!

Then when the invasion gets going, aboput three weeks into it, - The Chief- anchorman for sky Nes - Jeremy Thompson - You know him - real serious voice - He's on Live @ Five - he goes into the battlefield working his way up to baghdad, while good all charlie stays where the action is - in Kuwait city!

Ok, you're trying to compare the war reporting of a 24 hour news channel with nothing better to while the hours away with (and with a endless pot of resources), to the Irish state broadcaster with limited resources and limited time (in which Irish issues are the top priority, international issues second)? Please.

You can watch Fox news, - great service - where there anchormen live on tv say "You're asking me am I biased? Well damn right i'm biased"

You do realise that Sky News is the UK (and Australian) version of Fox, don't you? Owned by the same people, run with a similar tabloid ethos, and often linking up with each other for cross atlantic reports...

You can watch BBC News - its great, traditional old fashioned news - ITS LAST WEEKS NEWS TODAY!!! And seen as they can't compete with anyone, they now have top make up the stories.

Wow, you really don't know the BBC do you? From what I've seen of the 24 hour news channel, its far supreme to Sky in quality of stories, speed of delivery and range of programming. The BBC is unquestionably one of the strongest forces in international journalism, and to believe the Hutton Inquiry is just naiive, that a government commissioned report on a story that could have ended Tony Blair is trustable? About as trustable as a corruption tribunal on Fianna Fail where Bertie is the judge.

Or you can watch sky news - an accalimed global reach 24/7 news serive. I've lost count of how many years they've won News channel of the year!!!

Yeah, this always made me laugh... they would win a British award for news channel of the year for the 8 or 9 years they ran as the only mainstream British news channel. Great stuff, should be proud.

The choice is yours!

Indeed it is.
And given that threads posted here in this forums short life have been so common that I have considered making a "Sky News mistakes" sticky says nothing about the quality of their journalism. As a matter of fact, one more and I probably will (and eventually send it to Sky News to show them what the fans think )

flogen

Mr Byrne

Show them what the fans think? Yuo're not a fan!

Sky News was around before Fox News! - they were created in 1989, as far as I know, fox NEWS came after sky news.

I have to laugh at you and the beslan because I was home when that got seiged and BBC were horrific, they didn't go into the bloody thing they stood well back. To prove that you didn't watch sky news and to prove that every thing you say is completely biased the sky news "guy" you talk about was none other than Rahel Ammet. Now unless you drive on both sides of the road, you would consider Rachel Ammet a women.

typical of a left-winger liek you. I bet you're anti-bush and you probabley vote for labour, or sinn fein or the green party. I'm sorry but you can't just watch a biased news agency that agrees with your views. Thats what people who watch Fox news do, you're no better than them.

Sky have been less and less taking footage from FOX. They ahve their own and they know well that Fox is unfair, thats why they broadcast CBS twice a day and use their footage more than FOX. Just because Murdock owns both, it doesn't mean that he decides what goes on.

besides NewCorp although they have the majoprity of shares in BSKYB they don't own all of them, did you not see the hamering James Murdock got at last years AGM?

flogen

Mr Byrne wrote:

Show them what the fans think? Yuo're not a fan!

Sarcasm is lost on this one.

Sky News was around before Fox News! - they were created in 1989, as far as I know, fox NEWS came after sky news.

For one channel to be the UK version of a US channel it doesnt have to be there afterwards, it can just become the UK version. If you want I'll rephrase my comment to "Fox News is the US version of Sky News". Whatever suits you.

I have to laugh at you and the beslan because I was home when that got seiged and BBC were horrific, they didn't go into the bloody thing they stood well back. To prove that you didn't watch sky news and to prove that every thing you say is completely biased the sky news "guy" you talk about was none other than Rahel Ammet. Now unless you drive on both sides of the road, you would consider Rachel Ammet a women.

guy to me is an asexual term, I'm not from the 1920's so I tend not to say "gal". The BBC had all the info accurate (as much as they could) they had streaming live footage from the event, and real experts who made constructive comments on the chaos. Sky had a repeated 30 second clip of bad footage, their reporter didnt have even a slight notion of what was going on, it was all guess-work and off the mark comments. Their experts knew even less.

typical of a left-winger liek you. I bet you're anti-bush and you probabley vote for labour, or sinn fein or the green party. I'm sorry but you can't just watch a biased news agency that agrees with your views. Thats what people who watch Fox news do, you're no better than them.

I am indeed anti-bush, but not because I'm liberal, its more because he's a nut case. Who I vote for is none of your business, but I can guarentee its not a party with a private army, or one that campaigns on non-issues like the threat of nuclear power plants in Ireland.

As for bias, I do my best to avoid bias or tabloid reporting. Sky News falls flat on both counts here.

Just because Murdock owns both, it doesn't mean that he decides what goes on.

That made me smile. Thank you. You honestly think the hard line right wing owner of a news channel wouldnt interfere with the reporting made on it? He wouldn't mind if his channel came out and made a damning report on his buddy politicians, or even he himself?

besides NewCorp although they have the majoprity of shares in BSKYB they don't own all of them, did you not see the hamering James Murdock got at last years AGM?

Listen to yourself. NewsCorp have a majority holding in BskyB, and thats all that matters. James Murdock could make hundreds of terrible errors and get a beating at the AGM, but so what? Once it pushes the Murdock regime and makes lots of money, who cares? He has the majority holding so he can do what he likes.

flogen

Mr Byrne

:rolleyes:

It took be fecking 30mins to get this up, what is up with these forums? You should ask Sky to host it, it'd go a lot faster.

You do know that Sky News is seen to be pro labour? this has been going back to when Sky first set-up. The Labour Party allowed sky to expand into the mass media service that it now is. I mean Sky get interviews with labour MP's and conservative party MP's and Lib dem MP's so I think you're very false.

There are producers editor etc. that decide what gets shown.

Why is Rachel Ammet treated as a hero for her great coverage? She went into the hot spot, where the gym was, of course she couldn't hold a steady LIVE camera while she was dodging bullets - its a bit difficult because you need to take around this big thing with you called a "satellite" - thats why she onl;y had voice while she was in the hot-spot. later we saw her full report. Meanwhile the live cameras sky had placed had just as good, if not better coverage than BBC. I switched on the BBC but had to turn it off, it was some dude talking live on a camera out of the action, while rachel ammat was in the action.

Now as regards the news channell of the year. There is Sky News, BBC 24 and ITV news 24 have been around a while and CNN London had also been up and runing, why does sky news still win news channell of the year? Why is it still the most popular channel in England and one of the most popualr in the world?

As regards Sky News Ireland, you are uninformed. SKY took a risk, they weren't going to come rushin gin with a 24 hour sky news for a population of 4 million, where only 2/3 of them have access to Sky News. However despite what you or anyone else says or hopes, Sky news Ireland has been successful - they're expanding. They were short staffed till now. they're getting a bigger news room, they're hiring an Executive Producer, more technicians, producers and more journalists.

Personally I don't understand why there isn't aSky News Ireland between 5:30PM-10PM - I'm sure that they aim to have that as a starter and when they do, that'll be the last time I watch RTE FOR EVER Because there is only two things I watch on RTE - 6.1 Newss (for ten minutes, because after that its all about sheep in Co. Clare) and The Sopranoes - but i can watch that on E4.

As I was saying times have changed - 24 hours news channels broadcasting in London include: Sky News, BBC News, ITV News and CNN. If you don't like sky then stop watching it and then you'll stop whining about it, good man, well done.

flogen

Mr Byrne wrote:

It took be fecking 30mins to get this up, what is up with these forums? You should ask Sky to host it, it'd go a lot faster.

Yeah, but we'd have nothing to say but "Bush Rules".

You do know that Sky News is seen to be pro labour? this has been going back to when Sky first set-up. The Labour Party allowed sky to expand into the mass media service that it now is. I mean Sky get interviews with labour MP's and conservative party MP's and Lib dem MP's so I think you're very false.

Oh right, Labour, that pseudo-liberal political party in the UK. You're trying to tell me that a news channel that shows any liking to any political party is a good thing? Just like Bertie here in Ireland, Murdock and Blair have a "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" kinda deal, and supporting Labour is naturally not hard to do while supporting Right wing ideology.

There are producers editor etc. that decide what gets shown.

mmm hmm, and who hires the producers and editors? Who has the power to sack them when they do a bad job too?

Why is Rachel Ammet treated as a hero for her great coverage? She went into the hot spot, where the gym was, of course she couldn't hold a steady LIVE camera while she was dodging bullets - its a bit difficult because you need to take around this big thing with you called a "satellite" - thats why she onl;y had voice while she was in the hot-spot. later we saw her full report. Meanwhile the live cameras sky had placed had just as good, if not better coverage than BBC. I switched on the BBC but had to turn it off, it was some dude talking live on a camera out of the action, while rachel ammat was in the action.

Hero? Give me a break. There are very, very few hero reporters out there, Ammet is not one of them. I guess were both looking for different things as regards coverage... I wanted the straight facts juxtaposed with accurate footage, you wanted guess work, semi-experts and repetetive footage of nothing.

Now as regards the news channell of the year. There is Sky News, BBC 24 and ITV news 24 have been around a while and CNN London had also been up and runing, why does sky news still win news channell of the year? Why is it still the most popular channel in England and one of the most popualr in the world?

BBC News 24 and ITV News are only in their infancy, BBC News was setup in 1997 and has grown in leaps and bounds since then. I find it difficult for anyone to deny that the BBC is a journalistic supremo, and the fact that it does all this without advertising or shareholders means you can actually get some trustable news. ITV News is just as bad as Sky.

As regards Sky News Ireland, you are uninformed. SKY took a risk, they weren't going to come rushin gin with a 24 hour sky news for a population of 4 million, where only 2/3 of them have access to Sky News. However despite what you or anyone else says or hopes, Sky news Ireland has been successful - they're expanding. They were short staffed till now. they're getting a bigger news room, they're hiring an Executive Producer, more technicians, producers and more journalists.

Fair enough that Sky took a risk, if you want to nit-pick the launch of any new show is a risk in itself. Now, I can see the point as to not starting Sky News Ireland 24, but you'd think that the hour they do broadcast a day they'd do a decent job. We've had reports of stories being rejected if they come in after 5, I've seen extremely dated news (not just hours old, but days old), and I've seen horrible reporting and the Sky-style pointless use of technology and features, such as one report that saw Grainne conversing by video link with another reporter who was on the Sky-Roof (or balcony, or some crap like that). Basically he was standing out on a balcony facing the Quays, but his story had nothing do with his backdrop. He could have easily reported this news from the studio right beside Grainne, but they decided to make a pointless change.
Also, I've seen nothing to suggest that Sky News Ireland is thriving, quite the opposite actually (be that true or not).

Personally I don't understand why there isn't aSky News Ireland between 5:30PM-10PM - I'm sure that they aim to have that as a starter and when they do, that'll be the last time I watch RTE FOR EVER Because there is only two things I watch on RTE - 6.1 Newss (for ten minutes, because after that its all about sheep in Co. Clare) and The Sopranoes - but i can watch that on E4.

Well maybe they should, but I can't see that happening, I haven't seen any great response to the current situation that would encourage a widening of service.

As I was saying times have changed - 24 hours news channels broadcasting in London include: Sky News, BBC News, ITV News and CNN.

Yes, times have change, but must we sacrifice un-bias, quality journalism just because we're getting the news a bit quicker? I don't see why we should sell ourselves when there are other options.

If you don't like sky then stop watching it and then you'll stop whining about it, good man, well done.

Ah the classic argument... if you dont like it then look away. Is that your general philosophy? If you don't like what Bertie Ahern or Tony Blair is doing, just ignore him, or if you don't like what some scumbag is doing to someone just ignore it? I may be dramatising the situation, but I must say that to ignore something you have strong feelings against is idiotic.
I don't like to see the globalisation of media, and the bastardisation of reporting. I don't like to see the viewers mis-educated and mis-led. Now, I will keep an eye on Sky (without watching it all that much), so I know what the problem is, and so I can voice my opinion using personal experience in the hope of pointing out the reality of the situation to someone who may not have cared before.

flogen

billy the squid

Ooh Ooh can I have a go

Thank god I'm finally registered because you guys were driving me grazy from pick ups on google, laying into Sky News. Now lets get a bit fair and balanced and get me into the topic:

welcome to boards.ie

'm a loyal viewer of Sky News. I've watched Sky News since it was first pumped into the NTL package, or Cablelink and it was called back then. I remember the first main crises I watched on Sky news, the crises that sealed me as a Sky News viewer - it was the kosovo conflict, or maybe it was the bombing of baghdad in 1997,

correct me if I am wrong but wasnt there two years between these two events kosovo being in 1999, around the time B95 was ripped off the air by Slobadon Melosovich. which was it, kosovo or bagdad, ones a desert and ones got trees and stuff in it. Flogen correct me if i am wrong on the date on kosovo, but still I could tell them apart.

By the way sky news was on cable link since 5 february 1989 if I am not mistaken. Alison Holloway and Scott Chism used to present the news at 7pm. . I used to watch it myself because Cableink dropped CNN. even at the age of 12 I found CNN more interesting.

But I felt Sky News gave the best converage by far, Since then , I watch sky news sunrise over Breakfast, Sky News today with my lunch and if I want to find out whats going on in the World at night -time I tune into Sky. As regards Irish news, I now watch Sky News Ireland too, of course, I have pointed out faults in it, but not to the extent that you guys do...

maybe if you tried watching other news providers the flaws with Sky news would become more obvious. as it says in the good book "man cannot live on bread alone"

Let me first take you back to the last Gulf War! Remember there was a Sky Correspondant reporting Live From Baghdad all through that period. His name is David Chatter, one of the most respected Investigative Journlists in Europe. While reporting from Croatia in 93 he was shot and nearly killed. But the point is, remember the great converage Sky News had? But to name a few other Journalists - David Bowden and Stuart Ramsy. In fact, Sky News broadcasted some great battles live. Now lets compare Sky news' coverage of the Gulf War, to RTE'S!!! - Fun fun fun - Ok so we have David chatter live in Baghdad and for RTE we have Richard Downs in Baghdad, seems good but he's not LIVE! - No, RTE can't aford nor do they have the technology to that. In fact I think that the reports he did film, were sent via someone elses satellite- Reuters! - Now lets get to the Combat Journalists on the field with the troops - Sky have Ramsy and Bowded, more, but to name a few, while back at RTE - we have our good friend - CHARLIE BIRD! - Yayyyyyyyyyy. Wheres charlier reporting form - you named it!!! - The biggest hot-spot of the war!!!! - Where all the big action is - KUWAIT CITY!!!! - wOOOM WHOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Then when the invasion is going on! - Cahrlie Bird remains in Kuiwait city , telling us whats going on - yeh, he's telling whats going on all right - he's telling us whats going on - on CNN!!!

Neither Rupert Murdoch (sky) or Ted Turner (CNN) pay the wages for RTE. You and I do. Back in 1991 satelite feeds were about ten times more expensive than they are now. But if you want to have lives scenes of people getting blown to pieces "all the battles live" like you said, it would involve a licence fee increase, which you would probably be the first to moan about. RTE might not have the resources of the likes of CNN and Sky, but at least they will be more balanced than Sky, taking information from more than one source. from both left and right of the political spectrum. Even sky has to depend on other organisations when a story breaks.

Let me throw this name at you. John Simpson, BBC News. He would run rings around ten Sky news "reporters". This man was in BOTH gulf wars. and if you seen the footage of his crew getting cought in friendly fire you would be horrified. I can still see the blood on the camera lens when I think of it. One of the BBC crew were actually killed in that friendly fire incident. Now that is real journalism.

On the subject of the last gulf war. or should i say the current gulf war, all the sky news reporters were imbedded and were only allowed to say what they were told to say by what ever army superior was with them. Simpson was on his own with his team in Kurdistan,.

ou can watch BBC News - its great, traditional old fashioned news - ITS LAST WEEKS NEWS TODAY!!!

Is this a statment of fact or are you just insulting the BBC?

They are real fair - The really question the American administration - they are in fact, probaley the only News Service outside of America to call the war "war on saddam" - real fair and balanced! - Real independent! - Or you can watch CNN - owned by Time Warner - they have no political influence what so ever - seriously - the only political influence they have is that the Bin Laden family have shares in them!

Firstly Osama bin Laden has something like 50 or 60 brothers and sisters. who have DISOWNED him. okay.

secondly, Fox W News supports george bush, which has ordered more killing, Osama Bin Laden or George Bush?

Sky news and Fox news are part of the same organisation which is owned by Rupert Right Wing Murdoch, that is really balanced news isnt it. only difference is that the union jack isnt displayed on the screen 24/7 like it is on fox news.

billy the squid

Sky News was around before Fox News! - they were created in 1989, as far as I know, fox NEWS came after sky news.

good point rupert murdoch owned MORE of sky news in 1989 before it merged along with the other channels of the Sky television network with Brittish Satelite broadcasting (BSB) (o/t) remember the squarials )

seriously though what does this have to do with anything?

typical of a left-winger liek you. I bet you're anti-bush and you probabley vote for labour, or sinn fein or the green party. I'm sorry but you can't just watch a biased news agency that agrees with your views. Thats what people who watch Fox news do, you're no better than them.

dont tell anyone but there are cookies from indymedia on my PC too. i'm afraid the FBI might get someone to take it away for them.

whats wrong with being anti bush? bush is a war monger plain and simple. Shin Fein are wafflers I wouldnt vote for them if they were the only party on the ballot sheet.

Sky news are too sensationalist for my liking, why, because unlike the BBC, they are driven by profit. and as for you comments about beslen. I personally dont care if the jurnalist is 100 metres from the school or whether he/she is ramming microphones into little kids faces as they are being loaded into ambulances, as long as I get the facts at the end of the day.

Sky have been less and less taking footage from FOX. They ahve their own and they know well that Fox is unfair, thats why they broadcast CBS twice a day and use their footage more than FOX. Just because Murdock owns both, it doesn't mean that he decides what goes on.

Ah CBS news, the station which cannot decide whether their copies of George Bush's army records are real or fake, oh that CBS news.

If George Bush can bring in laws that can allow Murdoch to make loads of money then he'll put naked ladies on Fox if Mr. bush wants to see them.

besides NewCorp although they have the majoprity of shares in BSKYB they don't own all of them, did you not see the hamering James Murdock got at last years AGM?
Mr Byrne is offline Add to Mr Byrne's Reputation Report Bad Post Reply With Quote

That uproar was caused because uncle Rupert wanted to give his son a high ranking job in BskyB not because he know anything about the business, but because he was his son, no other reason.

No large company likes to see their share price go down, which would have happened if the rest of Sky's shareholders decided to jump ship.

billy the squid

You do know that Sky News is seen to be pro labour? this has been going back to when Sky first set-up. The Labour Party allowed sky to expand into the mass media service that it now is. I mean Sky get interviews with labour MP's and conservative party MP's and Lib dem MP's so I think you're very false.

When Sky Channel became Sky Television, the conservatives were in power in the UK and it was the ITC that allowed them to become the mass media corporation that they are, not the government.

remember that date 5 february 1989?

Now as regards the news channell of the year. There is Sky News, BBC 24 and ITV news 24 have been around a while and CNN London had also been up and runing, why does sky news still win news channell of the year? Why is it still the most popular channel in England and one of the most popualr in the world?

Where abouts is BBC news 24 on the Sky EPG, Sky news is 501 and news 24 is only availible by manually tuning it in here in ireland, could that have something to do with BBC news 24's audience.

I bet Sky didn't like BBC going FTA. And slightly off topic, does sky still charge its irish customers for BBC 1 and 2 even though you can watch them when the card is switched off.

Personally I don't understand why there isn't aSky News Ireland between 5:30PM-10PM - I'm sure that they aim to have that as a starter and when they do, that'll be the last time I watch RTE FOR EVER Because there is only two things I watch on RTE - 6.1 Newss (for ten minutes, because after that its all about sheep in Co. Clare) and The Sopranoes - but i can watch that on E4.

Firstly, It goes to show how out of touch Sky news ireland are with their audience, considering that Ireland is highly dependent on agriculture for its economy. therefore, at least when RTE show stories about sheep in Co. Clare then someone will be interested in it.

Secondly, episodes of the sopranos are probably on RTE first, I know that RTE were ahead of sky with 24 and were ahead of E4 with the likes of ER, I think the sopranos is crap so i don't know.

Mr Byrne

sorry, its been taking days to finally get to answer this - you seriously need to speed this up!

I didn't read all your messages either.

I'll keep it short and simple. I know someone in northern Ireland who has a niece that works for the Times in Russia. He was quite worried when the belsan thing was happening . Usually he watches BBC news but he told me he switched to Sky because they were giving the best coverage!

BBC 24 is not available here but it is available in the UK. (referring to Sky digital)

I agree that there are few really good heroic reporters, but sky have some - lets point at David chatter, the guy had a narrow escape in Croatia, sky filmed several live battles in the war, what about Stuart Ramsy sneaking into Zymbabwe.

Anyway, we will never agree so lets agree to dissagree, but I just have to say the facts and figures put sky as one of the most popular News channels in Europe,

now lets leave that because I'll get nowhere with you and vice versa.

so lets talk about Sky News Ireland.

You referred to a guy on the top of some roof in the quays - Are you referring to the Weather Girl - Lisa Burke on the top of the civic entre in Sky Nes Irelands first broadcast? Because if you are, I'm goign to scream,

ohh -0 and you'll tune into sky every now and again to point out faults - very informed and balanced opinion you're going to have of sky!

flogen

Mr Byrne wrote:

I didn't read all your messages either.

You really do follow the Sky ethos of not getting all the info before broadcasting your spiel, dont you?

I'll keep it short and simple. I know someone in northern Ireland who has a niece that works for the Times in Russia. He was quite worried when the belsan thing was happening . Usually he watches BBC news but he told me he switched to Sky because they were giving the best coverage!

I don't believe that for a second, but I have no way of disproving you, no more than you have of proving yourself right.

BBC 24 is not available here but it is available in the UK. (referring to Sky digital)

It can, actually, but you need to manually tune it in Ireland.

so lets talk about Sky News Ireland.

You referred to a guy on the top of some roof in the quays - Are you referring to the Weather Girl - Lisa Burke on the top of the civic entre in Sky Nes Irelands first broadcast? Because if you are, I'm goign to scream,

No, that wasn't it. I think it may have been Brian Daly, but I can't be 100% certain.

ohh -0 and you'll tune into sky every now and again to point out faults - very informed and balanced opinion you're going to have of sky!

Well yes, it will be. I'll be watching it as much as I can, and if it's doing a good job then grand, good stuff, but that has still to happen.

flogen

Mr Byrne

I don't care if you don't believe me, this man is from Bangor. You just find it hard to believe that the majority of people that day tuned into Sky for the best coverage.

Mr Byrne

By the way:

"Real Name:
Adam
Biography:
Enjoying the ride
Location:
dublin
Interests:
Picking Funkles for tea
Occupation:
high lord of FlogHasa Inc. "

- Are you one of those stereotypical leprechauns that make me ashamed to be Irish?

flogen

Mr Byrne wrote:

I don't care if you don't believe me, this man is from Bangor. You just find it hard to believe that the majority of people that day tuned into Sky for the best coverage.

yes, yes I do.

And stay on topic please, the subject of me being a walking stereotype or not really isn't for here.

flogen