GB News

[telebox2001]

Gosh, that was explosive.

So true about the guests though, they really scraped the barrel at times.

[UploadTV]

Came across this randomly on my YouTube recommended and it really highlights the importance of taking pauses at the appropriate times. https://twitter.com/uploadtv_/status/152...XQjei-VheA

[Brekkie]

More a poor script than a poor execution of said script.

[Inspector Sands]

Lots to digest in a long read from The New Statesman on the personality clashes and technical issues in GB News' first year:

https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/...de-gb-news

Which vindicates those of us who, about a year ago, were looking at their behind the scenes teases and saying they won't be ready in time. The response was that it was old footage. It wasn't and they weren't..

Same goes to the ideological aims of the channel, again some of us didn't need to wait and see what it was like once it launched. 

So much interesting stuff in that article though. It was obvious that there was a lack of experience or expertise involved in setting it up or running it. The workflow of having vision mixers going off to change mic packs is just crazy... but then if some programmes only had one locked off camera then there's less for them to do!

I have worked on a brand new news channel and there were a few parallels, the purchasing of a new producton system that everyone hates for example, but they made so many big mistakes and the biggest was going live too soon, if they'd bitten the bullet and waited they'd have saved more than the £100,000 a week just in reputation

[CantGetIn]

Lots to digest in a long read from The New Statesman on the personality clashes and technical issues in GB News' first year:

https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/...de-gb-news

Which vindicates those of us who, about a year ago, were looking at their behind the scenes teases and saying they won't be ready in time. The response was that it was old footage. It wasn't and they weren't..

Same goes to the ideological aims of the channel, again some of us didn't need to wait and see what it was like once it launched. 

So much interesting stuff in that article though. It was obvious that there was a lack of experience or expertise involved in setting it up or running it. The workflow of having vision mixers going off to change mic packs is just crazy... but then if some programmes only had one locked off camera then there's less for them to do!

I have worked on a brand new news channel and there were a few parallels, the purchasing of a new producton system that everyone hates for example, but they made so many big mistakes and the biggest was going live too soon, if they'd bitten the bullet and waited they'd have saved more than the £100,000 a week just in reputation

I remember the video of the building site and many assumed it was an old video. I don't recall any member stating with conviction the video was old and not new. It was simply an assumption that the video surely must be old, they can't be thinking of launching so soon if that's new was the thinking.

I'm afraid I can't agree with the second point you make, GB News was always clear about what it would be. It just seemed to be that people (on here particularly) whipped themselves up into a state about what GB News was going to do with this, was going to do that. "Supporters" then had to challenge this continually and of course at times tempers flared and I am sure there were things said on both sides which are now regreattable. This reached peak just after launch when there was a ad boycott campaign with companies pulling their ads. I recall a post was made stating at the same time ads were appearing on RT, yet this was not acknowledged or responded to. This said to me the entire "campaign" against GB news was entirely based on people not wanting it to exist because it is taking views they do not agree with in terms of people, and companies were just acting off the back of this regardless of their company belief.

Not to mention the ridiculous criticisms by some people, I recall a person stating a presenter was a disgrace for smiling during a news paper review when she moved from a sad story to a happy one. The constant attacking of the channel for every technical glitch was also tiresome and of course generated negative debate going around in circles. Water under the bridge now. Although I see that such criticism carries on. I would ask if you are going to make an observation of the channel, check if the BBC have made the same mistake first, that will give you a good grounding instead of posting unrealistic criticism (as above with the script).

Many said GB News would not last a year but it has. So I think it was really crying over spilt milk. GB News has not become a real contender to the main players, it has a small active following which those that want to watch do, everyone else still watches the BBC and Sky. Harmony at last!

[Inspector Sands]

I'm afraid I can't agree with the second point you make, GB News was always clear about what it would be. 

According to that article that's not the case, a lot of those working for it including Andrew Neill weren't clear about what it was gong to be!

[Londoner]

I see Amelia Harper is no longer with GB News

[CantGetIn]

I'm afraid I can't agree with the second point you make, GB News was always clear about what it would be. 

According to that article that's not the case, a lot of those working for it including Andrew Neill weren't clear about what it was gong to be!

That may have been on the inside, but we are talking about the outside and how we all reacted to the pre-launch and launch of GB News. On the outside they said they would be a certain thing, and as much as I can tell that is what have. The only change really was the addition of News which originally was very very much on a back burner. I don't think anyone would deny it was a mess at first and that was even visible on the outside, but the core aims were already established and they have not moved from these despite significant criticism, but I get that was the whole idea.

In terms of Mr Neil, I think he himself was perhaps confused about what the channel wanted to be. I understand a similar thing happened when he was with Sky News for the launch but I don't know the full history. My point is, he has only been successful on left wing outfits, BBC to Channel 4 etc, he doesn't seem to know what he wants! With the greatest of respect, he is good at his job without question.

[Brekkie]

Just to note Andrew Neil's new show starts on C4 next week. I doubt he'll begin that by slagging off other broadcasters.

[LiveNews]

he has only been successful on left wing outfits, BBC to Channel 4 etc, he doesn't seem to know what he wants! With the greatest of respect, he is good at his job without question.

While that line is off topic as this forum is about presentation rather than content, I can’t let it slide.

It is totally bizarre to see regulated impartial broadcast outlets described as “left wing”.

[telebox2001]

You say that but those are the two broadcasters currently on Dorries' radar. The perception is there even if it is not true, even if confirmation bias is playing a part.

There were a lot of people who wanted GB News to fail. The Twitterati in particular had the knives out from the word go. For that reason alone, a rush to TX before they were anywhere near ready didn't do them any favours.

It's one thing having a problem with a right wing editorial bias, but to do it with such appalling levels of technical standards is just throwing ammo to your detractors.

[i.h]

Lots to digest in a long read from The New Statesman on the personality clashes and technical issues in GB News' first year:

https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/...de-gb-news

Which vindicates those of us who, about a year ago, were looking at their behind the scenes teases and saying they won't be ready in time. The response was that it was old footage. It wasn't and they weren't..

Same goes to the ideological aims of the channel, again some of us didn't need to wait and see what it was like once it launched. 

So much interesting stuff in that article though. It was obvious that there was a lack of experience or expertise involved in setting it up or running it. The workflow of having vision mixers going off to change mic packs is just crazy... but then if some programmes only had one locked off camera then there's less for them to do!

I have worked on a brand new news channel and there were a few parallels, the purchasing of a new producton system that everyone hates for example, but they made so many big mistakes and the biggest was going live too soon, if they'd bitten the bullet and waited they'd have saved more than the £100,000 a week just in reputation

The comments about batteries are amusing, like, are they that cash strapped that they can't afford decent-brand alkalines or something, let alone OEM packs and chargers

Frangopolous's obsession with trying to impose a tech startup like culture (especially given that most startups fail), right down to rejecting established working practices and worshipping "AI" and the "cloud" & later having to row back on it all are like schaudenfraude to me. I don't work in broadcast, though you could say I am very adjacent, and I find our own similar obsessions very wearing

[London Lite]

The only real USP GB News had in the early days was the commitment to local journalism which soon went by the wayside. Many of those regional BJs left early on or didn't have their contracts renewed.

Frangopolous going by the New Statesman report continues to be the thorn in the success of GB News. It's taken him nearly a year to hire a decent amount of production staff, something which should've been there from day 1 and the over-promotion of Alex Phillips is ridiculous.

[Jon]

The only real USP GB News had in the early days was the commitment to local journalism which soon went by the wayside.  Many of those regional BJs left early on or didn't have their contracts renewed.

Was it really a USP though? They never really knew what to do with them. And people might find local stories in their own region interesting but they don’t care about local stories from other parts of the country. Obviously it’s useful if there is a major story happening in the regions but arbitrarily going to each region one by one doesn’t really make sense. Let’s face it one reporter also can’t match the news gathering from an ITV or BBC region.

[eyeTV]

Yes they were pointless, they'd just pitch up outside a hospital, or a town centre, and do a live telling the presenters about one or two local stories happening.