Sky News Ireland


“The tal­en­ted and ded­ic­ated Sky News Ire­land team has pro­duced a high qual­ity product, some out­stand­ing journ­al­ism and attrac­ted a loyal audi­ence.” [DS]

Someone from Sky net­work might say exactly the same thing when they shut down Sky News. It is a highly pro­fes­sional oper­a­tion and has pro­duced some excel­lent journ­al­ism, but it has failed to find an audi­ence. Invest­ment needs to be refocused.

Sky News Ire­land, like Sky News, was never an invest­ment that was going to gen­er­ate a return.

Things are very dif­fer­ent in the United States where CNN is still the most prof­it­able of the cable news chan­nels. Fox News is snap­ping hard at its heels. One of Fox’s ongo­ing prob­lems has been that it was locked into long-term cable agree­ments at very low prices when it star­ted. Those agree­ments are now com­ing to an end, and Fox is scal­ing its fees up three and fourfold. With increased advert­ising rev­en­ues com­ing in, that should spell prof­it­ab­il­ity for Fox – just as the tide of pub­lic sym­pathy turns against its edit­or­ial cheer­lead­ing. Bear in mind though, that Fox’s very con­sid­er­able start-up costs have prob­ably yet to be recouped.

What’s good for Fox is bad news for CNN. CNN got to charge a premium ten years ago on its licence fees, as the only real show in town. Still CNN might just drop a slot – it won’t stop mak­ing money.

This might once have been the story for Sky News. When it began, it was alone in a field of one. But then the BBC intro­duced a news chan­nel that meant Sky News couldn’t really charge for car­riage. Even ITN, one of the most cost-effective news­gath­er­ing oper­a­tions any­where in the world, dis­covered that up against the BBC they couldn’t make the num­bers work. Their news chan­nel suc­cumbed too.

Reduced com­pet­i­tion in 24-hour news is the mar­ket impact of BBC inter­ven­tion. Review­ing the cov­er­age of 7/7 recently, I was reminded how well both Sky News and the ITV news chan­nel per­formed that day. Only the polit­ics of shut­ting their chan­nel down pre­ven­ted ITN from enter­ing the cov­er­age for awards.

When or if Sky decides that the rev­enue game is lost in 24-hour news, will we get the same absence of pub­lic out­cry that fol­lowed ITV’s decision? If we accept the BBC’s charter renewal argu­ment that news is a pub­lic good, and we accept too that com­pet­i­tion is healthy then there’s a case for arguing that just as on good old-fashioned ter­restrial TV, news should be a require­ment – and it should be prop­erly funded.

Al Jaz

“You read it here first. Al Jaz­eera Inter­na­tional will launch in Novem­ber. And not Novem­ber 2010 either. This November.” [MG]

Yes, the old crys­tal ball is still working…of course when I wrote that for Press Gaz­ette back in June, Al Jaz­eera Inter­na­tional prob­ably didn’t know they would be on air in Novem­ber. Early this month there were exec­ut­ives say­ing it would be either Novem­ber or next March. So, it would be stu­pid to crow, but what the heck! Along with my pre­dic­tion that Christ­mas will fall on Decem­ber 25th this year, it’s one of my bet­ter ones.

Behind the polit­ics that people love so much, there are the tech­nical issues of co-ordinating a break­ing news chan­nel broad­cast­ing from four dif­fer­ent loc­a­tions. Any­one who has ever fit­ted out a digital news­room will know that the prom­ises made by the people who provide the soft­ware to achieve the digital mir­acle don’t exactly make for a smooth ride. Ensur­ing that dif­fer­ent com­pan­ies’ com­pon­ents talk to each other can be harder than they said on the stall at IBC.

But there are polit­ics behind it. Polit­ics moves in when eco­nom­ics moves out. The press­ing com­mer­cial need for AJI has yet to be estab­lished. Someone with a lot of money wanted to do it – it’s hap­pen­ing. The bit­ter­ness eman­at­ing from the Arab ori­ginal spilled out in Yousri Fouda, Al Jazeera’s chief reporter, con­demning AJI as a waste of money. A board­room coup saw Wadah Khan­far installed as AJI’s super-boss over the head of Nigel Parsons.

Par­sons would still be my pick for first post-launch cas­u­alty. His job is done, and Steve Clarke will take on the edit­or­ial run­ning of the place. Clarke once ran a chan­nel called MBC, but his last gig (two years ago now!) was edit­ing the Richard Little­john show on Sky News.

Someone that Par­sons tapped up for a job has got half a dozen digital chan­nels on the air in the time he’s taken to estab­lish one. But that’s not the point. This chip off the Anglo-Saxon news block has developed what could be an iconic news brand, as import­ant to the next dec­ade as CNN was to the 80s, and Fox to the 90s.

And will it be any good? It’s all very well to talk edit­or­ial val­ues but if you want to impose char­ac­ter on a 24-hour news chan­nel, you have to do it from the gal­lery and stu­dio floor, not in a memo. Exactly whose vis­ion is wait­ing to be imposed on the new chan­nel – Wadah Khanfar’s or Steve Clarke’s? Guess we’ll have to wait for their first big story to find out…

Politics on TV

With Amer­ica going to the polls on 7th Novem­ber, any­one temp­ted Jonny Freed­land–style to laud their dynamic polit­ical cul­ture will have to squeeze past this gem from NBC’s Today Show. It fea­tures Repub­lican National Com­mit­tee boss Ken Mehl­man and Terry McAul­iffe, former head of the Demo­cratic National Com­mit­tee. Stuck in the middle, Today anchor Meredith Vie­ira:

DEMOCRAT: …They can’t blame the Demo­crats. They’ve con­trolled the spend­ing for the last six years. Record defi­cit. Spend­ing up 8 per­cent.
REPUBLICAN: The defi­cit — the defi­cit…
DEMOCRAT: Under Bill Clin­ton it was up 3.2 per­cent.
REPUBLICAN: The defi­cit declined by 40 per­cent this past year!
ANCHOR: You know what, guys, we gotta stop here. We could — guys — we could talk forever. We’ve only got two and a half weeks…
REPUBLICAN: The deficit’s 40 per­cent lower this past year than it was before …
ANCHOR: …till the elec­tion. Guys. Hello?
DEMOCRAT: New dir­ec­tion for Amer­ica. You know, cul­ture of cor­rup­tion…
ANCHOR: Talk amongst yourselves. We’ve run out of time. We have two and a half weeks…
DEMOCRAT: All right, Meredith. Good to be with you. Right.
ANCHOR: …till the elec­tions…
REPUBLICAN: We’ll con­tinue — we’ll con­tinue this in the green room.
DEMOCRAT: Vote Demo­crat!
ANCHOR: …But you know what? That’s a life­time in polit­ics. Thanks. Ken Mehl­man, Terry McAul­iffe.
MEHLMAN: We’ll con­tinue this in the green room.

Inspir­ing stuff for polit­ical show pro­du­cers every­where.[CJR]

Gardening, ‘New’ Media and Auntie

The news that the BBC might soon look at online advert­ising [DS] reminded me of a panel I sat on recently with an exec from a national news­pa­per. He was talk­ing cogently about his title’s online strategy. It was mov­ing towards audio-visual con­tent. It was all about niches, said the exec. Pan­el­lists and audi­ence nod­ded. Plaus­ible stuff. Sens­ible. But then he men­tioned the niche he wanted to ‘own’ – garden­ing. My heart sank. He wanted to ‘own’ gardening.

In Bri­tain this mod­est sound­ing ambi­tion is instantly blighted by every gardener’s friend — Auntie. Auntie, as nobody calls the BBC, ‘owns’ garden­ing. It airs Dig­ging Deep, Garden­ers’ World, A Year at Kew, The Fly­ing Gardener, Royal Gar­dens,and many oth­ers besides. It cov­ers Royal Hor­ti­cul­tural Soci­ety shows at Chelsea and Hamp­ton Court, live and inter­act­ive. It even puts on its own garden­ing show – GW Live. If you missed Garden­ers’ Ques­tion Time on digital or ana­logue radio, you can listen again online.

And in case you thought it just occu­pied the media space formerly known as ‘New’, it is a for­mid­able pres­ence in the glossy magazine sec­tor where it pub­lishes Britain’s favour­ite hor­ti­cul­tural mag, Garden­ers’ World, with 300,000 cop­ies sold every month – over a third to sub­scribers. The profits return to the BBC to bene­fit the UK’s licence-fee pay­ers. It would be quicker to hand them straight to Jonathan Ross, and cut out the middle man, but decency forbids.

The BBC’s tanks are dug in on Britain’s lawns. Any­one want­ing to tip­toe into the tulips risks one of Auntie’s uranium-tipped shells. And this, ladies and gen­tle­men, is just gardening.

So what, you may say? The sloth­ful under-investors who own news­pa­pers deserve it. The BBC got there first and the pub­lic good is served. God for­bid that Richard Des­mond should get his hands on the fra­grant Rachel de Thame.

But there is a point at which the BBC’s grav­ity warps the whole of cyber­space. For an unac­count­able organ­iz­a­tion estab­lished under that least demo­cratic of instru­ments, a royal charter, it has neither the com­mer­cial free­dom to become a global force, nor the com­mer­cial con­straints to pre­vent it stifling domestic opponents.