GBNews: anyone watching?

[Pint of Ale and a Burger]

It’s incredible how they had years and months to prepare, hire technical experts from within the industry, test and trial, and yet get the sound so wrong. Sheer incompetence.

Yes,I can forgive a few teething problems at launch but it's been a few days now and I would have expected the sound to be at the top of a snag list for a TV show.
I will give them until Monday which should be more than enough time to get it sorted,but if they still haven't solved the issue by then it does indeed raise serious questions about their competence.

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

Surely advertisers pulling spend from a station like GB News is almost irrelevant? The amount GB News makes from them must be tiny compared to the costs of running the channel. Even if GB News grows to be as big as Sky News the amount of people watching is only going to be tiny. It seems to me the point of the station is to the pollute the national debate with the ideas of whoever is paying for it, not make anyone rich off advertising revenue.

 

[Weststander]

Surely advertisers pulling spend from a station like GB News is almost irrelevant? The amount they make from them must be tiny compared to the costs. Even if they grow to be as big as Sky News the amount of people watching is only going to be tiny. It seems to me the point of the station is to the pollute the national debate with the ideas of whoever is paying for it, not make anyone rich off advertising revenue.

With corporate backers having deep pockets.

 

[R. Slicker]

[tweet]1405157772719759361[/tweet]

They really don't help themselves do they?

 

[clapham_gull]

Surely advertisers pulling spend from a station like GB News is almost irrelevant? The amount GB News makes from them must be tiny compared to the costs of running the channel. Even if GB News grows to be as big as Sky News the amount of people watching is only going to be tiny. It seems to me the point of the station is to the pollute the national debate with the ideas of whoever is paying for it, not make anyone rich off advertising revenue.

They will never make money in the UK, but their business model is based upon rolling the idea across a number of countries based on a proof of concept UK launch.

I'll let you decide how that is going so far.

I'm completely bemused. It just needed the removal of certain presenters particularly the "shock jock" element, careful thought regarding the global pandemic and not place inexperienced pundits up there as anchor people, especially when the technology is clearly failing.

There is room for different views, views that aren't getting expressed on current news television and other stations could have learnt from it.

However the first few days couldn't have gone any worse.

 

[The Clamp]

Surely advertisers pulling spend from a station like GB News is almost irrelevant? The amount GB News makes from them must be tiny compared to the costs of running the channel. Even if GB News grows to be as big as Sky News the amount of people watching is only going to be tiny. It seems to me the point of the station is to the pollute the national debate with the ideas of whoever is paying for it, not make anyone rich off advertising revenue.

It will likely become a mouthpiece for lobbyist advertisers like betting companies.

 

[Randy McNob]

They will never make money in the UK, but their business model is based upon rolling the idea across a number of countries based on a proof of concept UK launch.

I'll let you decide how that is going so far.

I'm completely bemused. It just needed the removal of certain presenters particularly the "shock jock" element, careful thought regarding the global pandemic and not place inexperienced pundits up there as anchor people, especially when the technology is clearly failing.

There is room for different views, views that aren't getting expressed on current news television and other stations could have learnt from it.

However the first few days couldn't have gone any worse.

The right wing tabloids don't make money, Rupert Murdoch declared the Sun newspaper worthless, so they are only there to serve a purpose i.e. gaslighting the country

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

They will never make money in the UK, but their business model is based upon rolling the idea across a number of countries based on a proof of concept UK launch.

I'm not sure. It's not like selling the concept of Love Island. Each country would need to set up their own independent 24hr rolling news operation so would still need a big backer pouring in dough (unless in other countries news channels perform as well entertainment does). Where would they go next anyway?

However the first few days couldn't have gone any worse.

This will be more likely to be death of it. If on first impression the audiences thinks you're a joke that will be difficult to shake off and be taken seriously later.

 

[clapham_gull]

The right wing tabloids don't make money, Rupert Murdoch declared the Sun newspaper worthless, so they are only there to serve a purpose i.e. gaslighting the country

There are obviously a variety of conspiracy theories but really long term the investors would like a return on their money. Arguably those investors abroad wouldn't be experts on how the UK audience would react to the content.

They have cocked up editorially and have cocked up technically.

Irrespective of how you are I like the content, they have to exist within a regulatory framework and would only have obtained a broadcast licence if they planned to do so.

 

[clapham_gull]

I'm not sure.

It's their business plan.

It's not like selling the concept of Love Island.

That's correct, it's a comment and opinion channel.

Each country would need to set up their own independent 24hr rolling news operation.

No they wouldn't. GBNews is clearly NOT a rolling 24 hour news operation. They repeat content on a loop, there is nothing live after midnight.

Production could come out of the same studio and they would pool resources. You can broadcast a channel from anywhere. London has been the home for a number of non-uk transmitting channels for a number of years.

Or they simple licence the brand to another. Set up costs then aren't their concern.

Where would they go next anyway?.

Probably the internet and IPTV. Launching on Freeview and Sky seems at present to be a bit odd.

 

[Weststander]

The right wing tabloids don't make money, Rupert Murdoch declared the Sun newspaper worthless, so they are only there to serve a purpose i.e. gaslighting the country

My guess would be that the Daily Mail including its website is profitable. It has a huge number of users including in big markets. It’s plastered with ads.

 

[Cian]

Technical competence that would have you told "thanks, but we must maintain standards" by a hospital radio station - where the hell did they get broadcast engineers that bad? I've got a colleague I could do with disposing of if they pay well for that level of experience!

 

[Baker lite]

The Chancellor is on the Andrew Neil hour tonight.
Very much looking forward to watching this on my journey to work tomorrow, Neil is the very best at this sort of interview.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[clapham_gull]

Technical competence that would have you told "thanks, but we must maintain standards" by a hospital radio station - where the hell did they get broadcast engineers that bad? I've got a colleague I could do with disposing of if they pay well for that level of experience!

I'd imagine it's based more on software than hardware.

Things do go wrong. It's arguably quite a difficult time to launch a new station. You will have pressure to go with new (cheaper) technology, whilst existing broadcasters have older but proven technology that they know where to kick when it doesn't work.

A number of problems may be downstream as well. They aren't transmitting the station and making sure it get's on Sky and Freeview etc.. That's another company which may be using new kit as well.

If the software doesn't work - there isn't much an engineer can do.

We all know what modern software is like. Cheaper, more affordable, more complicated, less reliable send a patch every month to fix it until next time.

 

[Cian]

I'd imagine it's based more on software than hardware.

Things do go wrong. It's arguably quite a difficult time to launch a new station. You will have pressure to go with new (cheaper) technology, whilst existing broadcasters have older but proven technology that they know where to kick when it doesn't work.

A number of problems may be downstream as well. They aren't transmitting the station and making sure it get's on Sky and Freeview etc.. That's another company which may be using new kit as well.

If the software doesn't work - there isn't much an engineer can do.

The sound levels, titling typos and so on aren't the fault of the clearly poor virtual set and other software though.

Some of the cameras are clearly not HD too, or have damaged optics if they actually are.

 

[clapham_gull]

The sound levels, titling typos and so on aren't the fault of the clearly poor virtual set and other software though.

Clearly, but if the gallery can't monitor the audio properly who knows ?

It's clearly a combination of a number of things that worked on paper with a cheap production budget.

Titling typos are very common though and happen on all live stations.

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

No they wouldn't. GBNews is clearly NOT a rolling 24 hour news operation. They repeat content on a loop, there is nothing live after midnight.

Production could come out of the same studio and they would pool resources. You can broadcast a channel from anywhere. London has been the home for a number of non-uk transmitting channels for a number of years.

Or they simple licence the brand to another. Set up costs then aren't their concern.

'Here we are on FRA 24 news broadcast live from the sofas of Paddington.' The dopes who only want a diet of nationalist-tinged manufactured woke outrage as their entertainment might find that a bit much. It would certainly seem ridiculous here if it turned out GB News was filmed in Paris (although maybe it wouldn't matter).

Let's see if it works. I guess ultimately what I am saying is that I think it will always be donor funded as opposed to paying for itself, wherever they decide to set up shop.

 

[clapham_gull]

Let's see if it works. I guess ultimately what I am saying is that I think it will always be donor funded as opposed to paying for itself, wherever they decide to set up shop.

Again (sorry) that's not their plan. It's more based on Fox Nation in the states, where they will fund the station with an associated paid website with exclusive content etc...

They don't have much of a plan to be a new channel like the others, more a case of commentating on it with personalities.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Again (sorry) that's not their plan. It's more based on Fox Nation in the states, where they will fund the station with an associated paid website with exclusive content etc...

They don't have much of a plan to be a new channel like the others, more a case of commentating on it with personalities.

They probably want to sort out the nonce defending and lockdown opposition then. You wouldn't want that in your browser history.

 

[Weststander]

Again (sorry) that's not their plan. It's more based on Fox Nation in the states, where they will fund the station with an associated paid website with exclusive content etc...

They don't have much of a plan to be a new channel like the others, more a case of commentating on it with personalities.

Isn’t it colossally expensive to run an out and out 24 hour news channel?

ITV threw in the towel with their attempt.