Sky News: 2021 Refresh

[Rxtx]

The newscopters are contracted on an x number of hours basis (not sure if it’s monthly or yearly) which sometimes explains the glamour shots of Westminster but having them on a contract also means they can go up quickly for the likes of today.

I think it is a UK rule re circling as even the police helicopters circle a location the majority of the time- they were also circling the fires today. 

But they went low enough or close enough to today to effect the fire (helicopters fanning flames was actually investigated following Grenfell after a complaint against the police but they looked in to the media helicopters too).

investigated

[rw96]

Kay Burley out on location this morning to cover yesterday's fires 

[Spencer]

Is there a reason why they still use a helicopter for live aerial shots rather than a drone? I’d have thought the latter would be cheaper and more versatile these days.

[valley]

Is there a reason why they still use a helicopter for live aerial shots rather than a drone? I’d have thought the latter would be cheaper and more versatile these days.

Drones have their place in newsgathering but right now it's mostly limited to controlled environments and packages. BBC Breakfast has made excellent use of drones in some of its live reports from the coastline (etc.) but this is a controlled environment and planned well in advance - not breaking news.

Most drones have limited capability to downlink a broadcast quality signal and get it back to NOC and to the gallery. Helicopters have powerful transmitters on them and the broadcasters maintain receive points (tall buildings in Croydon, the Barbican etc.), can be downlinked to a satellite truck or can use a 4G LiveU(-type) device.

In London and most urban areas flying a drone large enough to be broadcast-quality at short notice is not going to be easy (unless you're the police or fire brigade, really). Likewise with over/near airports, prisons, military bases or any other sensitive establishment. In theory you can stick a news helicopter up over Heathrow as long as you follow what air traffic control want you to do.

Helicopters are also more versatile - it is rare that they are sent out on just one assignment and will often do a variety of filming on one sortie: Dover for Brexit traffic queues, up to Maidstone to film some overlay for a correspondent package and then over London for PMQs (for example). Hard to get a drone to do all three of those assignments in one hour but easy with a helicopter. And fast paced breaking news scenarios like yesterday where the Sky News helicopter filmed the Wennington fire as well as flying 5 miles west to film other fires in the east London area - again, challenging with a single drone.

Helicopters can have incredibly powerful zoom lenses - 40:1 or higher in some cases - which allow for more discrete filming (staying out of the way at a Royal event or not fanning the flames at a wildfire by keeping height and distance, but still getting the required shots) and it also increases versatility. You can be over Westminster but get a reasonably tight shot of Wembley Stadium, or the sunset, or anything else. Putting one of those lenses on a drone would be hilarious and rather impractical.

Getting the required height on a drone is challenging - 400ft / 120m is the height limit in the UK - and this limits you to a certain type of filming. The line of sight requirements would also be problematic - no following the PM as he goes down the Mall to see the Queen in September as he leaves office since you can't see the drone after it's gone behind the trees in St James' Park. 

Safety is another concern - a helicopter is a much larger and potentially more dangerous object, but a twin-engine helicopter removes a significant amount of the risk associated with single-engine bird. If your helicopter catches fire, the pilot will probably be able to control it to the extent that it crashes in a place where it is not endangering the public. You only need to look at the number of drone fly-away incidents, failures and crashes amongst professional pilots (police, film crews, etc.) to realise that the likelihood of an incident with a drone is in all probability much higher. Beyond having the correct "return to home" settings, you can't control a drone that you've lost communication with.

You can also fly a helicopter in far worse conditions by virtue of the fact that it's designed to go out in the rain - most drones are not rated for poor weather.

[Spencer]

I’ve only just seen your post, valley. Thanks for the detailed and interesting response to my question.

[addxm]

The Sarah-Jane Mee Show has gone off air with technical problems.

Breakdown slide appeared for a few minutes before throwing to a pre-recorded programme about Climate Change.

Edit: And just as I hit post, live broadcasting continued.

[SB678]

I'm not sure what that one was about. I couldn't see anything obviously wrong, they did the top story at 3 PM but after that Sarah-Jane Mee said they were going to go to an advert break to solve a technical problem.

EDIT: Just looked back on the YouTube stream, it looks like there were a few problems with the graphics.

[Kojak]

EDIT: Just looked back on the YouTube stream, it looks like there were a few problems with the graphics.

As sadly seems to be de rigueur these days at Sky (albeit not quite as much as when they first moved to the current setup). I wouldn't normally have made this post, as a) it's a bit of a done-to-death point and b) I know there are people here who work for Sky (and if you're reading this, please please please don't take any offence - this is purely my opinion). As the forum is closing on Sunday, though, I might as well make my points:

The whole Sky News channel just feels to me like it's on its last legs. It's so boring to watch now. Certainly during the day, it seems to be just hour after hour of the same reports, plus the odd press conference, linked together by endless no-name presenters from that ghastly glass box. I can count on one hand the amount of times I have watched Sky News over the past 12 months - whereas 6, 7 years ago, I'd often have it on all day, even if just in the background. It used to be much more lively and watchable, whereas now... it's almost nothingness. How sad.

The reporting is generally as good as it ever was, which is of course the most important thing, but I just wish the people who are in charge of the actual day-to-day output would take a good, hard look at it, and see how it could be made a bit more interesting to watch. Though I will say that the new evening interview shows are a step in the right direction.

Of course, I don't know what goes on at Sky Centre - it might be that there's a lack of money (which would explain why so many presenters and reporters have left in recent months); alternatively it could be due to senior management not wanting to rock the boat. Indeed, it certainly isn't lost on me that under the Comcast ownership agreement, the channel's future is secured until only 2028 - which is really not that far away. I sadly cannot see Sky News the channel surviving much in its current form past then, though I would love to be proven wrong. It might be that the impending closure of BBC News 24/merger with World puts some wind up Sky's sails - but then again, perhaps this is all the last howl of a dying medium.

[valley]

I'm not sure what that one was about. I couldn't see anything obviously wrong, they did the top story at 3 PM but after that Sarah-Jane Mee said they were going to go to an advert break to solve a technical problem.

EDIT: Just looked back on the YouTube stream, it looks like there were a few problems with the graphics.

To me it looked like the (reoccurring) OverDrive automation issue where it cuts whatever is in preview to line. Sky Sports News and a number of other places with OverDrive have had similar failures for a number of years and I've never seen a fix other than hot cutting a camera to line repeatedly before the system fixes itself. I'd rather do that in an ad break rather than do it whilst on-air personally...

The whole Sky News channel just feels to me like it's on its last legs. It's so boring to watch now. Certainly during the day, it seems to be just hour after hour of the same reports, plus the odd press conference, linked together by endless no-name presenters from that ghastly glass box. I can count on one hand the amount of times I have watched Sky News over the past 12 months - whereas 6, 7 years ago, I'd often have it on all day, even if just in the background. It used to be much more lively and watchable, whereas now... it's almost nothingness. How sad.

I'm not sure you actually watch much of the daytime output as it is much more varied than what you claim. What do you suggest is the alternative to a mixture of packages, live interviews, live correspondent reports, specialist features (e.g. Climate Show at 1530), breaking news and press conferences?

[Kojak]

I'm not sure you actually watch much of the daytime output as it is much more varied than what you claim. What do you suggest is the alternative to a mixture of packages, live interviews, live correspondent reports, specialist features (e.g. Climate Show at 1530), breaking news and press conferences?

Ha ha, you make it sound much more exciting than it actually is to watch - for me, anyway. You are right though - I don't watch much of the daytime output (in fact I don't watch much Sky News at all anymore). Maybe I'm being a bit unfair. I know you work there, so I hope I didn't touch a nerve with my post - it certainly was not my intention. Thank you for replying.

It's just that on the few occasions I have tuned in lately, it all seems a bit samey - one presenter in that glass box, sat behind a desk in front of a corridor, reading the news. To be honest, I think the backdrop and set being so boring, plus the never-ending stream of freelancers I've never seen before, puts me off watching for any length of time, as silly as that sounds. I realise that this is almost certainly just a 'me problem', but it just seems like Sky have gradually taken away anything that is visually appealing from Sky News over the years. It would make fantastic radio - but I think for television, a little more is needed.

EDIT: You are right, valley, it could be much worse - if nothing else, at least they don't do that 'Sky News in 15 minutes, every 15 minutes' anymore! Now that really was the nadir of Sky News.

[valley]

I'm not sure you actually watch much of the daytime output as it is much more varied than what you claim. What do you suggest is the alternative to a mixture of packages, live interviews, live correspondent reports, specialist features (e.g. Climate Show at 1530), breaking news and press conferences?

Ha ha, you make it sound much more exciting than it actually is to watch - for me, anyway. You are right though - I don't watch much of the daytime output (in fact I don't watch much Sky News at all anymore). Maybe I'm being a bit unfair. I know you work there, so I hope I didn't touch a nerve with my post - it certainly was not my intention. Thank you for replying.

It's just that on the few occasions I have tuned in lately, it all seems a bit samey - one presenter in that glass box, sat behind a desk in front of a corridor, reading the news. To be honest, I think the backdrop and set being so boring, plus the never-ending stream of freelancers I've never seen before, puts me off watching for any length of time, as silly as that sounds. I realise that this is almost certainly just a 'me problem', but it just seems like Sky have gradually taken away anything that is visually appealing from Sky News over the years. It would make fantastic radio - but I think for television, a little more is needed.

EDIT: You are right, valley, it could be much worse - if nothing else, at least they don't do that 'Sky News in 15 minutes, every 15 minutes' anymore! Now that really was the nadir of Sky News.

No problem. It could certainly be more exciting, I'll give you that.

And yes - I am glad we are (mostly) past the wheel of news...!

[aaron_scotland]

https://twitter.com/TomSykesMedia/status...9800774659

Why on earth was that not cut away from, could have gotten far more serious

[AaronTV]

That is some appalling editorial judgement from Sky News IMO - there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to keep the live feed going there.

Clearly there was someone present who was a potential threat to the safety of the camera man and the cabinet minister, yet the director/editor kept the feed going for as long as possible to try and catch a ‘moment’ to go viral on social media.

Pretty poor from Kay Burley too, asking Nadine Dorries why they need to stop when it’s pretty obvious something is wrong, and then making no attempt to interrupt, cut away or do anything.

Whilst I don’t agree with Nadine’s politics at all, fair play to her for jumping straight to the defence of the camera man.

Extremely poor stuff from Sky News.

[aaron_scotland]

They seemed to only cut away once an f bomb was dropped... ludicrous

[GMc]

To me, it seems like they kept the feed up to gain clicks and views online.