GB News

[507021]

I didn't see it myself, but apparently whoever's in charge of the news ticker misspelled the word freedom.

"FEREEDOM DAY DELAYED".

 

[py_megapixel]

I didn't see it myself, but apparently whoever's in charge of the news ticker misspelled the word freedom.

"FEREEDOM DAY DELAYED".

I've occasionally seen that on BBC and ITV too, but it usually flashes up for a short time only, to be corrected almost immediately (within a couple of seconds)

 

[Trackman]

I have it on Sky in HD. The whole thing is tin-pot, so wont be watching it again, not that I watch news channels anyway.

 

[py_megapixel]

I can't help but feel they might have been better with some kind of fairly private soft launch, then do the public launch to big fanfare once the technical issues are ironed out and the presenters know what they're doing.

 

[hvordan]

I just watched Dan Woottons segment for an hour or so, personally thought it was awful. Couldn't stand Wootton constantly interrupting the guests and inserting his own nonsensical opinions whilst a guest is providing actual news. Will watch their breakfast show tomorrow morning but cannot see myself being a regular watcher at all lol.

 

[wireforever]

Yes the picture quality is poor and it is never in sync on freeview or Virgin cable need to up their game.Quite like the regional reports and the breakfast programme

 

[birchesgreen]

Just put it on for a bit, still plagued with sound problems.

It kind of reminds me of Wire TV.

 

[ainsworth74]

I can't help but feel they might have been better with some kind of fairly private soft launch, then do the public launch to big fanfare once the technical issues are ironed out and the presenters know what they're doing.

I must admit I do find myself somewhat perplexed. Did they not do any technical rehearsals? A few bugs would be expected but they seem to having some real technical grief that almost feels like they've not practiced or trained their staff.

 

[DarloRich]

I must admit I do find myself somewhat perplexed. Did they not do any technical rehearsals? A few bugs would be expected but they seem to having some real technical grief that almost feels like they've not practiced or trained their staff.

I read somewhere that it was alleged that they had struggled to recruit off camera "talent". I also sure I saw a tweet from Andrew Neil showing the broadcast being via webcams

 

[ainsworth74]

I read somewhere that it was alleged that they had struggled to recruit off camera "talent". I also sure I saw a tweet from Andrew Neil showing the broadcast being via webcams

Ah, that would explain a lot.

Perhaps they should have considered the balance between how much they pay their presenters and how much they pay the people that allow them to present a bit more carefully in that case...

 

[birchesgreen]

Looks like a number of advertisers have pulled their ads. Probably as much for the shoddy execution than anything else.

 

[class ep-09]

Looks like a number of advertisers have pulled their ads. Probably as much for the shoddy execution than anything else.

Also, the content of the channel was against of the values of some advertisers ( Ikea for example ) .

 

[nlogax]

Also, the content of the channel was against of the values of some advertisers ( Ikea for example ) .

At least one of the companies who pulled their ads wasnt initially aware they were being advertised there in the first place. Not sure how that happens.

 

[Ianno87]

At least one of the companies who pulled their ads wasnt initially aware they were being advertised there in the first place. Not sure how that happens.

Do they go via some sort of Advertising agency?

 

[XAM2175]

At least one of the companies who pulled their ads wasnt initially aware they were being advertised there in the first place. Not sure how that happens.

Do they go via some sort of Advertising agency?

Most companies will indeed deal only with their advertising agency, and that agency will buy space and arrange placement of the ads. Often though those agencies will be buying space from other agencies that represent the advertising channels like broadcast networks, newspaper publishers, street furniture suppliers, etc etc, and they'll target their purchases primarily by intended audience - so yes, it's actually entirely possible for a company to not know exactly when and where their advertisements are running.

To avoid this some companies will specify exclusions and/or require a review-before-placement process, but it's usually only the very sensitive ones.

 

[nlogax]

Most companies will indeed deal only with their advertising agency, and that agency will buy space and arrange placement of the ads. Often though those agencies will be buying space from other agencies that represent the advertising channels like broadcast networks, newspaper publishers, street furniture suppliers, etc etc, and they'll target their purchases primarily by intended audience - so yes, it's actually entirely possible for a company to not know exactly when and where their advertisements are running.

To avoid this some companies will specify exclusions and/or require a review-before-placement process, but it's usually only the very sensitive ones.

Ah, that would explain it. Thank you.

 

[lxfe_mxtterz]

I didn't see it myself, but apparently whoever's in charge of the news ticker misspelled the word freedom.

"FEREEDOM DAY DELAYED".

Not a surprise, unfortunately.

It seems like none of the news channels can ever spell anything correctly. One of the most memorable blunders for me was seeing Rishi Sunak spelled as "Risih Sunak" for the entire airing time of some sort of parliamentary discussion on BBC.

 

[ld0595]

I've dipped in and out over the past few days out of curiosity. Looks pretty amateurish - both the set, quality and persistent technical issues. I'm surprised it's as bad as it is after the amount of money being pumped in and the time they've had to prepare. Pretty poor first impression to many.

The only things they seem to be covering this week is Meghan Markel, covid restrictions (they are referring to as lockdown, which let's be honest isn't really the case any more), taking the knee and "woke" topics (which seems to be blown way out of proportion imo).

I suspect it will end up being scaled back slightly after a few years but limping on with a small but loyal audience.

 

[tbtc]

I give it a year . Tops

3-6 months major channel rejig, presenters shuffled or axed
12 months, shutdown

I think it'll be here to stay.

You have to understand the business model. This isn't about attracting millions of viewers or making huge profits - it's being funded by various rich foreign people to create a feedback loop of news/opinions so that they can take an unrepresentative tweet, report it on their television station as reflecting some "silent majority", that then allows the Mail/ Telegraph to report it as being a significant opinion (because a television channel has been discussing it), which then allows Tory MPs to raise these "legitimate concerns" in parliament... and so it goes, round and round... just like the way that various "Astroturf" organisations (Taypayers Alliance etc) get views parroted by the Tory press

Funding a TV channel is quite a cheap way of getting your views discussed in parliament as somehow representative of what ordinary people are thinking.

They'll have some fun with some crowd pleasing "woke" stuff (and I despair when I see the easy ammunition that some of the left give to the likes of Titania McGrath, who seems able to ridicule them without ever needing to get out of second gear)

Whilst I am left of centre (or was, before the left started getting extra-weird), I do enjoy some voices on the right - Geoff Norcott's podcast is always worth a listen - but I couldn't do a whole channel of it. And, whilst the initial claims are that it'll be an unbiased channel, it's noteworthy that the reaction to the likes of IKEA boycotting it are along the lines of "oh, so you don't want to appeal to pro-Brexit voters". Mind you, I'm uneasy at the way that people (nominally) on the left start these campaigns/ boycotts, but that's another story!

 

[birchesgreen]

I saw that Mike Hunt wrote in and got his message read on air. Heh.

 

[the sniper]

I didn't expect it to be such a low budget presentation, but the level of technical issues are pretty staggering. Must be plot by those leftie "WOKE" media folk refusing to work for them, GB News are just a victim... The channel's audience will be familiar with the approach taken here though, they had a basic concept, but how it'd be delivered seemingly wasn't considered.

We now have a cringeworthy right leaning channel to add to the cringeworthy left leaning news outlets. Great.

 

[Dai Corner]

I didn't expect it to be such a low budget presentation, but the level of technical issues are pretty staggering. Must be plot by those leftie "WOKE" media folk refusing to work for them, GB News are just a victim... The channel's audience will be familiar with the approach taken here though, they had a basic concept, but how it'd be delivered seemingly wasn't considered.

We now have a cringeworthy right leaning channel to add to the cringeworthy left leaning news outlets. Great.

Or maybe the fear that having GB News on your cv will make it difficult to get a job with the 'leftie woke' Media in future?

 

[BrokenSam]

Catered to the sort of people that would have told Rosa Parks to get off the bus

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Catered to the sort of people that would have told Rosa Parks to get off the bus

Really? Have you actually watched any GB News? And if so, were they broadcasting something openly racist that might lead you to draw that conclusion?

I didn't expect it to be such a low budget presentation, but the level of technical issues are pretty staggering.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that they are deliberately low-budget compared to other news broadcasts, as part of their strategy to financially survive in a very competitive environment, for which there isn't a huge amount of spare advertising demand to pay for new channels. Maybe that accounts in part for the level of technical problems?

 

[birchesgreen]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that they are deliberately low-budget compared to other news broadcasts, as part of their strategy to financially survive in a very competitive environment, for which there isn't a huge amount of spare advertising demand to pay for new channels. Maybe that accounts in part for the level of technical problems?

Not to this extent surely? They have worse sound, vision and continuity than the average youtuber.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Looks like a number of advertisers have pulled their ads. Probably as much for the shoddy execution than anything else.

The Campaign group, Stop Funding Hate, have been actively trying to get advertisers to stop advertising with GB News - and I'm sure that has something to do with it. I have to admit to some puzzlement as to why they are trying to do that. I've watched GB News intermittantly and not seen anything particularly objectionable - and certainly nothing hateful - on it, so I don't see any reason for Stop Funding Hate to target them. Stop Funding Hate has a page dedicated to getting advertisers to avoid GB News, but I can't find any information about why they are targeting GB News. My suspicion is that it's just based on GB News being somewhat right wing - which in a democracy is really no reason at all to refuse to advertise with them.

 

[matt_world2004]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that they are deliberately low-budget compared to other news broadcasts, as part of their strategy to financially survive in a very competitive environment, for which there isn't a huge amount of spare advertising demand to pay for new channels. Maybe that accounts in part for the level of technical problems?

Their budget is £60 million compared to BBC news budget of £44 million

Catered to the sort of people that would have told Rosa Parks to get off the bus

GB news wouldn't have told Rosa parks to have got off the bus they would have said something like "It is important that buses and their seating is devolved to local authorities . By demanding equal rights in bus seating the government is meddling in the rights of local authorities" or some cloaked way like that

 

[dosxuk]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that they are deliberately low-budget compared to other news broadcasts, as part of their strategy to financially survive in a very competitive environment, for which there isn't a huge amount of spare advertising demand to pay for new channels. Maybe that accounts in part for the level of technical problems?

The problems are not just technical, there's a complete lack of editorial or production oversight. Yesterday their presenters read out emails from Mike Oxlong and Mike Hunt with straight faces, the latter after the presenter looked through the list of messages (on air), looking for one that agreed with her viewpoint.

They're pretty good though at demonstrating that the reason making good television is expensive isn't because it's full of hanger's on and people doing non-jobs, it's expensive because you need a lot more people than you'd think, and the difference between someone who knows what they're doing and someone blagging it is worth a load of money.

In a way though, they're probably happy that the compete technical ineptitude is covering for their lack of content. Day two yesterday and they already had to bring out the filler "bap/roll/bun - what do you call it?" material.

 

[SurreyCommuter]

The Campaign group, Stop Funding Hate, have been actively trying to get advertisers to stop advertising with GB News - and I'm sure that has something to do with it. I have to admit to some puzzlement as to why they are trying to do that. I've watched GB News intermittantly and not seen anything particularly objectionable - and certainly nothing hateful - on it, so I don't see any reason for Stop Funding Hate to target them. Stop Funding Hate has a page dedicated to getting advertisers to avoid GB News, but I can't find any information about why they are targeting GB News. My suspicion is that it's just based on GB News being somewhat right wing - which in a democracy is really no reason at all to refuse to advertise with them.

I think the last sentence pretty much sums it up as it doesn't hold the views of the echo chamber that is pretty much every other news channel. You could say that although they claim to be against bigotry that they have failed to look in the mirror and see their intolerance for other views. Have they been able to put forward any examples of things which are in any way hateful?

The funny thing is all they are really doing is giving GB News plenty of free publicity!

 

[BrokenSam]

Really? Have you actually watched any GB News? And if so, were they broadcasting something openly racist that might lead you to draw that conclusion?

Touched a nerve did I fella? I stand by the statement.