• expired

Sky News - Stream Main Channel for Free


As Australia faces catastrophic bushfire conditions, Sky News is making its main channel available to the public so regional communities across the nation can keep safe and stay informed of the very latest developments.

Related Stores


closed Comments

  • +4 votes

    Pretty sure it was always free on the foxtel whatever apps?

  • +2 votes

    Free to air is… free…


  • +72 votes

    ABC News is already free and provides better coverage. IMO Sky is part of the problem for trying to discourage action on climate change.

  • +63 votes

    "And in breaking news, it's Labor's fault. And the Greens."

    • -65 votes

      Mean while on the ABC, “it’s the Libs fault”. Both a biased trash. The only difference is I’m forced to pay for one of them with taxes.

      • +42 votes

        30 million of our tax dollars was gifted to Foxtel a few years ago.

        You were forced to pay for two of them whether you wanted to or not.

        • -26 votes

          I don’t agree with that. But it’s piss in an Olympic Pool compared to the billions the ABC gets.

          • +11 votes

            @PainToad: I hope you have your epipen handy:


            Good Grief, that's almost $1 a day - each!

            • -25 votes

              @terrys: Is any of these facts meant to change my mind or upset me? I love the cuts to the ABC since the Libs got in. I want much much deeper cuts. Start with selling of Triple J and slashing ABC television down to one station that focuses on young children education programming and unbiased (ie. no editorial shows like Q&A and Insiders) news.

              As for radio, one station per capital city and regional area.


                @PainToad: Yeah dude, kids shows are the most important aspect of abc xd xd xd

              • +7 votes

                @PainToad: What will your country mates do? A good amount of ABC radio and TV is aimed at them. Thankfully, despite your rant every enquiry into ABC bias has found in favour of the ABC. They also rate FAR above any other media organisation in this country for trust, accuracy etc. No prizes for guessing where Murdoch controlled companies consistently finish. The ABC is FAR from perfect - too bloody soft on the conservatuive right imo - but they're light years ahead of the rest and generally good value for money.

          • +6 votes

            @PainToad: To put your piss into perspective the ABC could be funded for nearly a century on the back of the $90B+ tax handouts your mates Howard and Costello gave to multinational gas producers under changes to the PRRT.

      • +14 votes

        When was the last time that the Greens was in power again?'

        My memory fails me.

      • +5 votes

        I forgot which on them is in power right now, it's the greens right?

      • +1 vote

        Plain Toad wrote: "Mean while on the ABC, “it’s the Libs fault”. Both a biased trash. The only difference is I’m forced to pay for one of them with taxes."

        Simple explanation: the government of the day is primarily responsible for decisions and last I looked the cons have had the reins of power for 18 of the last 24 years. The ABC gave the Gillard government an absolute flogging on many occasions - and most of it was justified imo. What wasn't justified was the constancy of attacks compared to their approach to conservative governments.

        Taxpayers are "forced to pay" for all manner of things they don't like or agree with. For example I don't agree we should subsidise carbon polluters yet under the LNP "Direct Action" the taxpayer has handed out more than $2B to them to date. The Carbon Tax on the other hand put the onus on big polluters to get their houses in order. Funny how the cons abandon price signals as a lever when it suits eh?

        That you think you aren't "forced to pay" for Murdoch companies suggests you need to read more widely. You could start with government handouts and tax concessions. Later you could move on to meddling in elections and the effect of News Corp's apparently bottomless pit of lies and misinformation on democracy and a civil society.

  • +22 votes

    its been given for free in regional areas for some time. best way to indoctrinate the naive. and their coverage is not better than ABC.

  • +26 votes

    Gonna maximise the propaganda defending the virtues of coal and more coal. Especially when Scumo has a coal selling trip in two weeks time.

  • +37 votes

    No Thanks Murdoch can cram it up his arse.

  • +30 votes

    Free propaganda. No thanks!

  • +22 votes

    In all seriousness and honesty, the ABC coverage is way better. I have friends who rely on ABC radio for updates when the power/mobile towers/internet is cut off.

    Also, David Speers is the only decent journo on Sky and he is moving to ABC.

    • +1 vote

      My dad's house was literally in the path of the bushfires when they were threatening in the wollondilly area. We weren't in the area at the time (but still in rural NSW) and had to switch to a commercial AM station because ABC Local was running a program about the differing ways people find Love in modern times. Sadly for us, the ABC dropped the ball, which is a shame as ABC local are my usual station.

      • -7 votes

        ABC Local was running a program about the differing ways people find Love in modern times.

        I’m sure the yuppy, who has never left inner Sydney, who came up with the programming schedule, thought it was a great decision.

        • +7 votes

          "inner Sydney"

          Have you considered you might embarrass yourself less in this comment section if you relied less on marginalizing swathes of people and more on, like, actual facts?

      • +5 votes

        I want to investigate this, which frequency were you on and a rough location please.

  • +8 votes


    Please, everyone, if you want to post publicly about bushfires, show the people who have been effected by them some compassion, contribute your time/money/surplus bargains to help them out and vote according to your beliefs next election. Bushfires are not a political argument.


      The caps lock is on the left side of your keyboard.

      • +1 vote

        Yep, well aware. I was trying to convey the sheer outrage/disgust that the far left/far right sides of the political spectrum seem to have towards one another.

    • +27 votes

      Ordinary bushfires are not a political argument.

      These ain't ordinary.

      These massive fires were predicted years ago.

      The government ignored the scientific warnings for reasons that omitted Australian needs.

      So now you try to shut down the reality of why AUSTRALIA is burning because you don't want to deal with the reality of that it was left to burn by our governments.

      And you try and abuse those who want Australia to be returned to Australians by implying we don't care.

      please stop presenting scummo's arguments as valid, maybe a trip to Hawaii will help you. Follow your leader.

      • +6 votes

        Many predicted them, its not really a labor v liberal matter imo. Hard science and environmentalism can differ for starters. If anything i feel how pollies and the media deal with extreme environmentalists (often avoidance and appeasement) is a big factor. Protests, petitions to prevent backburning do happen. Its hard enough getting resources and a safe window to do it let alone have well intentioned nutters rallying others against it. Add to that creeping red tape/regulation as politicians do best. For perspective here, our family own a property that got hit in 2001 (and at risk now) and ever since there has been little to no hazard reduction efforts. Fire trails locked and overgrown etc. Drought is no doubt a factor, no reprive by rain is crushing. But the fuel loads out there strategically just grossly inadequately managed. Even red tape here over clearing some shrubs on own property to build a little kit shed (1-2 day max build time) shed defy belief, mostly enviro related and nonsensical.

        • +4 votes

          I can echo the red tape issues. A friend did some clearing on a property recently (to allow the construction of a greenhouse to grow plants funnily enough) and was fined heavily as a result as he was told that permission wouldn't have been granted.

          That same friend's property was in the path of the fire, subsequently burnt but helped fire crews start to gain control of the fire front and help it miss a commercial operation across the road because it was well manicured, cleared 6 months ago and he had since installed water tanks to help recycle the water in the nursery/from the roof of the greenhouses.

          Edit: ps - Petry - no need for that - i'm saying funnel your dissatisfaction into your voting rights and help support the people in need. If enough people do it, it will make a change.

        • +1 vote

          As I said both parties are in the sway of powerful American interests.

          Environmentalists are not against back-burning and both parties feared the back-burning would become out of control because of the constant severe droughts.

          Both parties are culpable, and scummo with his varnished lump of coal in parliament deserves a very special place in Australian history.

          Climate change is real, is here, and our pollies are just hoping that when most of Australia is burnt, it won't just burn again very quickly.

          management of the news surrounding effectively Australia's deforestation is critical now.

    • +1 vote

      Lol. Is this not a good time for you to discuss the role of climate change and government policy on our environment? There is no economy without an environment and the complacency of successive governments, authorities and the public has finally been shaken to the core.

      How about the fact that the NAFC sent a request on behalf of all States to the LNP government well over a year ago requesting further funding for aerial bombing capacity and didn't receive any response until mid December, when the shit had already hit the fan. How about the fact that Morrison received a detailed letter from experienced fire experts in April pointing out that we were facing unprecedented conditions and challenges which required coordinated action and significantly better capacity? Some background to that: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-06/former-fire-chief-wor...

  • +21 votes

    This channel contains some batshit crazy stuff like geriatric Gerry Harvey banging on and crazy conspiracy theorists. I'm not sure whether its amusing or terrifying.

    • +3 votes


      Are you saying I can watch videos of geriatric Gerry Harvey banging on crazy conspiracies?

      Him and Alex Jones should join up.

  • +7 votes

    its only been promoted to spread its right wing propaganda about the fires, the causes, etc etc - how to manage the news crap to suit those in power.


      As opposed to the ABC left wing propaganda ?

      • +9 votes

        sadly the abc often promotes fake right wing news which is why it is government funded. there is no left wing Australian press, and there is little genuine news to be found on any station or in any paper. of course this makes it very easy to lead people by the nose.. which is why Australia is going to burn for a very long time…

      • +2 votes

        You might wish to familiarise yourself with the concept of an operating charter. Only the uneducated view the ABC as a source of propaganda (though many suggest they invite on purveyors of propaganda on both sides - the IPA wouldn't exist without the ABC).

        • +4 votes

          the IPA wouldn't exist without the ABC

          Could do with a cold IPA right now, but I wouldn’t be giving credit to the ABC for it.

      • +1 vote

        Any evidence for that comment? No enquiry has found that to date. The ABC is generally centrist in current affairs, and imo far too often fall over themselves to placate conservative governments.

        • +6 votes

          Any evidence for that comment?

          Pretty much every time I watch Q&A


            @jv: You could try watching with both eyes open and an open mind but I'm guessing that's nigh on impossible. Common sense and truth ought not be the domain of the left alone (yes, I'm speaking generally) but in today's world it seems that's more and more the case. Unfortunate, but finding a centrist conservative - like Piccoli or John Hewson for example - is becoming more difficult by the day.

            • +3 votes


              but I'm guessing that's nigh on impossible.

              That's exactly the attitude that the presenters and much of the audience have that makes people hate that show so much…

              They cannot accept that people are entitled to have their own opinions on things.

              • +2 votes

                @jv: Depends on whether the opinion is informed and what that opinion is based upon. If it's nothing more than ideological blindness - as yours appears to be - then the opinion has little value other than to you. We live in a time of opinionated ignorance and false equivalence. Here's a discussion from another of those supposedly "leftie" websites on the topic. Hopefully you'll read and absorb it, but somehow I doubt it.

                • +1 vote


                  Depends on whether the opinion is informed and what that opinion is based upon

                  No it doesn't.
                  Everybody has a right to make up their own mind on things for any reason they choose.

                  • +1 vote

                    @jv: So we can take it you didn't read the link. Pity, you might have learned something. The old saying about water and horses has never been so apt. Personally I think your comment displays arrogance of the highest order but I concede that some people love wallowing in their ignorance. Sign of the times unfortunately.

                    Here's an extract:
                    “I’m sure you’ve heard the expression ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion.’ Perhaps you’ve even said it yourself, maybe to head off an argument or bring one to a close. Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it’s no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”

                    A bit harsh? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument – and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.

                    The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.

                    • +1 vote

                      @Possumbly: Well put possumbly. A right to an opinion doesn't mean a right to be respected for said opinion. Stupid, opinionated comments deserve to be torn down to a) clear the record on the given subject and b) discourage the nuff nuff who said it from going off half cocked in future.

                      • +1 vote


                        Stupid, opinionated comments deserve to be torn down

                        Who decides which opinions are stupid?


                          @jv: The observer can decide if the one who posits or responds to said opinion is correct…just as everybody is entitled to an opinion, responders are entitled to dismantle said opinion.

                        • +2 votes

                          @jv: Read the article, you'll eventually get the picture. You might even learn that there are different categories of opinion. Alternatively continue to believe that YOUR opinion and your "right" to hold that opinion irrespective of its validity is the only thing that counts. We see the same nonsensical attitudes where the "right to free speech" is concerned, as if that should take precedence over all other considerations. Puerile and egoistic nonsense.

                          As Stokes says: "an opinion has a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty to it. But “opinion” ranges from tastes or preferences, through views about questions that concern most people such as prudence or politics, to views grounded in technical expertise, such as legal or scientific opinions.

                          You can’t really argue about the first kind of opinion. I’d be silly to insist that you’re wrong to think strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate. The problem is that sometimes we implicitly seem to take opinions of the second and even the third sort to be unarguable in the way questions of taste are. Perhaps that’s one reason (no doubt there are others) why enthusiastic amateurs think they’re entitled to disagree with climate scientists and immunologists and have their views “respected.”

                          • +1 vote


                            irrespective of its validity

                            Who judges validity of opinions?

                            • +1 vote

                              @jv: Hopefully not people with limited common sense and understanding. Again, if you read the link you'd probably have some idea how to judge what's reasonable and what's not but reading is at the other end of the spectrum to the opinionated ignorance you seem to cherish.

                              • +1 vote


                                Hopefully not people with limited common sense and understanding

                                And who determines which people are in that category?


                                  @jv: Telling which opinions are complete garbage is usually as simple as following the voting on your comments on Ozbargain.


                                  @jv: Limited common sense and lack of knowledge/understanding speak for themselves usually. If you're struggling with that simple concept perhaps you should phone a friend? Alternatively you could wave your hands, clap and hope for pentecostal enlightenment.

                                  • +2 votes


                                    Limited common sense and lack of knowledge/understanding speak for themselves usually

                                    Yep, that sums up your opinion and comments.


                                      @jv: Good to see you've managed to get out of your repetitive inane questions loop. Small steps. With a lot of luck you'll get you off your adult training wheels in a decade or two.

                                      • +2 votes


                                        With a lot of luck you'll get you off your adult training wheels in a decade or two.

                                        So now stooping to patronising… I guess that's all that was left for you.


                                          @jv: What did you think of your mate's ad promoting his government's belated response to the crisis? Inappropriate, insensitive self-promotion? I question why his advisors didn't stop him from doing it but even more I question how any person of even below average EQ wouldn't have seen how bloody untimely and insensitive it was.


                                          A pathetic and ill-considered attempt to whitewash reality, which includes among other things his sneaking away for a holiday while the country burned, his government's failure to respond to a request for an increase in funds to the NAFC for hire of aerial bombing planes, and their rejection in 2017 of the NAFC's proposal for the establishment of a national fleet of aerial firefighting tankers.



                                            What did you think of your mate's ad

                                            Who’s my mate?


                                              @jv: The answer is obvious, as were the answers to your previous questions.

                                              What's holding you back? Shock us and give us a considered opinion for once.

                                              • +1 vote


                                                The answer is obvious

                                                Perhaps in the cobwebs of your mind…


                                                  @jv: My apologies. As common as the phrase is, I should have known the reference would confuse you.

                                                  Still no answer? Yet you claim your opinion should be sacrosanct irrespective of its intelligence. No surprise there. Hopefully the lack of response is because you at least understand the futility of defending the indefensible but having read your comments on this website that's a long stretch. Best you stick to your smart-arse comments on other people's deals.

                                                  • +1 vote


                                                    . My apologies

                                                    Apology accepted.

                                                    There’s no shame in admitting you are wrong.


                                                      @jv: Still struggling with common idiom? Apologies as most know aren't limited to admissions of being wrong, just as all opinions aren't of equal validity.

                                                      Still no answer? No room for another foot or is that not where your ideas emanate from?

                                                      Your last sentence suggests there's a glimmer of hope, but I'm unconvinced.

  • +4 votes

    so regional communities across the nation can keep safe

    They can barely make phone calls.


    Can I stream this to my TV via Chromecast?

  • Top