Do You Watch Sky News? If so why? If not why not?
Do You Watch Sky News?
Related Stores
Comments
exactly, they blend news with opinion.
All the right-wing talking heads have a subtle comment icon in their logo - but it still has the Sky news logo too.
Such a shame we get it on free-to-air in regional areas - and that Murdoch got taxpayer $$$ in return.
Rarely watch the news and wouldnāt pay to watch it. I gather very few do watch it so itās tailored for the audience that does and I would say thatās 45+ of age who are always yelling at the world.
Much better content elsewhere like YouTube and streaming
Iām over 45
@deme: Rightio
Clearly you are in that category that yells at the world. Always looking to start an argument with someone
@Dollar General: When you get to 45+ all of a sudden you'll think, "I'm tired of accepting crap and nodding my head hoping people will like me instead of saying, what you're doing is wrong."
You see life does have a purpose after all.
Karen called, and wants to renew her subscription…
like YouTube and streaming
Needless to say but YouTube is NOT a source of real, certified news.
I post videos on YouTube … anybody does.Yes it is "entertaining" but not a source of truth.
Sky News are certainly NOT news either but instead an opinionated comedy, a show, a mockery made about real news happening around.
Depressing to see "a comedy" being made of the many tragedies (Gaza!) happening around.Youāre right and what i was meaning to say is thereās so much other content around why watch the depressing news
real, certified news.
Certified by whom?
As being real facts confirmed by different independent sources.
Now … getting different independent sources to agree is a challenging task.
News isn't certified either lol. Half of news.com.au articles are posts from Australia subreddits The other half are AI crap.
You shouldn't believe anything from any single news source, and unfortunately thanks to the "associated press" half the news articles around are all sourcing each other.
I'd rather choose a single credible news source like Reuters than consider anything from Sky or news.com.au
certified
/ĖsÉĖtÉŖfŹÉŖd/
adjective
adjective: certified… meeting certain standards.
Yes, I watch the new on YouTube
Always seems to be the mid 20s age group doing all the yelling.
Seems more like the people under 30 are protesting about everything and people over 60 are yelling about all the protesters and all the change. The people in between are too busy working and/or looking after kids to care.
Interestingly if you look at YouTube subscribers, Sky has double the amount of subscribers that ABC news does.
Sky News Australia - 3.88 Million
ABC News Australia - 1.9 Million
Junk food is often attractive.
That tells me people donāt want to pay to watch sky news & instead will rely on free content posted on YouTube. Thatās not a good business model
I don't want to pay for the abc either, but unfortunately I can't choose where my tax money goes.
Though with that many views and subscribers the advertising commissions from YouTube would be quite hefty.
Now look at the app downloads, ABC has 10x the downloads:
Android ABC News App: 1m+ downloads
Android Sky News App: 100k+ downloads
That means literally nothing.
I don't watch Sky News. I also don't watch 7 News, 9 News, 10 News, ABC News, SBS News, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC (US), CBS, CBC, CityTV, CTV, BBC, Channel 4, ITV, DW, Al Jazeera, or Russia Today.
What about PBS
Try CGTN, you will be surprised.
I watch Al Jazeera, but since the war in Gaza kicked off that's been like 90% of their coverage. I want to watch ABC News24 but it doesn't support chrome cast and I don't want to buy another Apple TV just for the rarely used kitchen TV.
I can assume from this comment you watch NHK News?
No - I avoid Newscorp content except for the occasional visit to news.com.au for memes, sexy criminals, and to see what's happening on Reddit or TikTok.
The company Newscorp was founded to spread corporate propaganda - article on company history.
The same applies to many other news sources in this country, unfortunately. Supporting corporate interests over what is good for Australians.
A Royal Commission into Murdoch would be great - https://murdochroyalcommission.org.au/ . The senate inquiry into media diversity is well worth a watch.
Plus newscorp avoids paying company tax in Australia
Ahh true, there's also the news media bargaining code that takes more tax revenue away and props up a dying industry.
Plus newscorp avoids paying company tax in Australia
Whilst blasting the Federal Government about tax changes
They keep talking about other people being āunAustralianā when their patriarch ditched his Australian citizenship to make money in America. The hypocrisy is astonishing.
There's also the foreign influence aspect seeing as News Corp Australia is owned by the American News Corp.
Try this if you want to break the habit with the news.com.au:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bye-rupert/see what's happening on Reddit or TikTok
Been chuckling about that for a good few minutes lol
My favourite browser extension!
I worked for a regional newspaper company both in my hometown and when I relocated to the city. We produced most of the local papers in Queensland. NewsCorp bought the company not long after I left and shut down every single one (afaik) of the local offices and moved access to their online paywall model. Hundreds of jobs that people had been in for decades just gone, not to mention the remote and regional areas left without a regular source of local news in a format that's easy to digest (I know a lot of the elderly population struggle to access news in digital format because of lack of tech/knowledge). And obviously, well…everything else they've done/continue to do to undermine democracy.
tl;dr - screw Murdoch and NewsCorp.
Edited to remove sweary stuff.
sexy criminals
stops scrolling
Say what now?Mediawatch: Townsvilleās hottest crims
News Corpās Townsville Bulletin has decided to rank the townās crims by how sexy they look
Former colleagues have told me that they are told to ignore the charges and instead look out for attractive women appearing in court. They check their social media following and lift their photos off Facebook.
"Noah… bring the ark… this timeline has gotten weird again! "
Mate I really thought you were taking the piss. This is just /facepalm.
sexy criminals
where is this? Asking for a friend, friend
If not why not?
Kinda think this part is self explanatory.
A quick look at the comments section of any article (political ones especially) on Sky News will quickly show its readers are not to be regarded as role models
I get all my news from OzBargain.com.au
All the important stuff - the 7min red light runners etc.
paying to get lied to
No thanks, there are enough news outlets that will lie to me for free.
"Watch it"? No thanks, might be subjected to their "opinion pieces".
But I do read the website, where you can find the actual news articles and avoid Credlin, Murray et al.
While I prefer ABC, Guardian etc, they are becoming increasingly narrow in perspective, and I don't want to live in an echo chamber. Diversity of news sources is good.Thisā¦ Diversity of various views of News is what counts, and a free mind to be critical of what you are reading. I cant believe a lot of younger people now get āServedā news through Tik Tok. It makes you worry for the future
It's Australia's version of Fox News, so no. I have watched it just to see what Rupert Murdoch's groupies see. But I don't watch it.
Poll needs more options;
Do you watch ABC/7/9/10 news?
Do you watch any news?
Do you force yourself to browse the news so you know what everyone else is talking about?You mean questions?
Yes. Like 'do you watch sky news'?
Definitely need to add these poll options.. I used to watch the news in the morning and read news sites randomly through the day… I stopped about a year ago - refuse to watch or read any news sites. Guess what happened - nothing, and I'm heaps happier not knowing what's going on.
Sky news is the biggest load of garbage sprouted as news
More like a soapbox for sponsors and their political viewsabsolute garbage
You want facts nobody has the balls to say on mainstream media
https://www.youtube.com/@KangarooCourtofAustralia/videosIt's one of the channels that I delete whenever I setup a new TV or do a rescan on an existing one.
Is sky free to air?
Some areas get Sky News Regional on FTA, it also gets Fox Sports News mixed in
https://www.skynews.com.au/sky-news-regionalPoor them
OP? do you watch it? why? if not? why do you have this question?
Great questions! @deme? š¤
Nope, have better things to do; like asking this question.
I prefer to be told what to think by reddit like all true intellectuals.
you mean the brain damaged toilet that is r/australia - he is your * for the USSR
Yes but in combination with a range of other news services. Currently have BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera, DW, France 24, NHK, Rai Italia, RTE, WION, CNA, KBS.
Ive found that Australian reporting standards have slipped dramatically the last few years. Strong believer that SBS and ABC should be overhauled and merged. They are not world class by any measure.
š¤£
i got to agree with what you said bar the BBC they're trash - in Aus channel 10 is the worst ABC/SBS is not far behind for government funded outlets they are horrible
but overall - all Aussie media is trash - Al Jazeera is fantastic but they are trashing the war in the middle east to much i know it is a big deal but they literally have non stop just reported on that one issue
I agree. BBC has equally lost the plot but trying to get half decent news out of the UK is frustrating in such a tabloid heavy environment. Online is a must to get more comprehensive economic information. Currently, the BBC and ABC are just copy/pasta news articles to each other. Not new and not surprising, just lazy and tiresome.
Al Jazeera is also doing its obvious flog. I just like a good mix. I figure, if you're getting enough from around the place, you should be at least more reliably informed than 'omg, did you see what that footballer's wife was wearing on the weekend' crap they cough up here.
Australia is still a complete backwater in terms of news and social focus.
i wouldnt pay for it but i have watched it in passing - probably better journalism then the ABC but it is bias to center-right agenda you got to keep that in mind when watching it - News corp also owns 60 percent of REA which makes it bias to pumping the property market which depending on where you are on your property journey is 'good or bad'
however same could be said about the ABC which is bias to the left agenda so you got to balance it out and turn them off and watch al jazeera [however it is too much about the war in the middle east atm]
I donāt watch TV but ABC news online seems to have turned into short stories about people I donāt care about, as part of Ida trying to make it a supermarket magazine.
Itās hard to tell if thereās bias when thereās not even a point to begin with. Although maybe their stories about cost of living of every single person in Australia could collectively be considered left wing.
Although maybe their stories about cost of living of every single person in Australia could collectively be considered left wing
probably more programs like Q&A id argue is mega left the ABC news issue is similar to sky it 'tells half a story'
However ill use recent examples of bias i have witnessed on both platforms to 'suit an agenda' (Im Paraphrasing)
Ill give you two examples
Sky News ALP minister SPENDS 7 MILLION! on flightsABC ALP minister has arrived in (whatever country) for whatever reason then will head to whatever country next for whatever reason
Clearly Sky has an agenda….no mention of what the flights are for or if there is a reason for such expenses - simply attempting to have the viewer think the MPs are 'wasting money'
on the slip side i have seen this in recent months (im paraphrasing)
Sky with voice referendum will give 1st nations a voice in addition to parliament, the power of this voice is unclear. The current set up has a minister for indigenous affairs as well as a number of advisory bodies, other nations in the region have indigenous representation but few have a minister in their front bench.
ABC - The Voice will give 1st nations a 'say' in parliament other nations (has a montage of other nations in the pacific have their own versions via etc) - The Voice mirrors other nations.
ABC clearly bias here there is no mention of the current set up attempting to make viewers feel like 1st nations dont have any say but other nations indigenous populations do. The idea is to 'trick' viewers into thinking supporting the voice will some how improve the current set up whilst not mentioning the current set up actually gives 1st nations ppls a lot of power and it has done nothing to improve their situation and the voice is probably a waste of money based on historical data.
Both IMHO are terrible news sources as they simply only tell half the story to 'suit' an agenda - i cant take either to seriously only looking at the evidence they bring up and being very critical of each source to get a decent picture of the 'truth'
I love it how the people who criticise / hate it the most are also people who claim to never watch it.
āItās biased garbageā
āDo you watch it?ā
āNoā
āThen how do you know itās biased garbage?āIf someone already knows it's biased garbage based on past experience, there's no reason to watch it. Pretty simple concept really.
All one needs to do is watch a few snippets of video from their "opinion" based personalities (that gets embedded into their online news articles) to see them for what they really are - a poor man's Fox/Newsmax/OAN etc.
How do you know that dog shit on the table isn't dog shit, if you haven't tasted it?
Occasionally an extremely biased Sky News excerpt making fun of "leftists" (yes they use that word) pops up in my YouTube feed. Any news media organisation that produces this kind of crap cannot be taken seriously. It is clearly catered to a biased (actually delusional) portion of the population that thinks anyone left of centre (actually anyone left of rightwing) is an idiot worthy of ridicule.
It is quite at odds with the data that shows: 1. Left-leaning people are on average more intelligent than right-leaning/conservatives, 2. Left-leaning people are on average more educated than right-leaning/conservatives, 3. Left-leaning news is more accurate/reliable on average than right-leaning news (rightwing news outlets generate more fake news).
" biased (actually delusional) portion of the population that thinks anyone left of centre (actually anyone left of rightwing) is an idiot worthy of ridicule"
Likely a majority of the population consider most lefties as whacko nut jobs.
For some reason leftie warmunists seem to be in plague proportions at OzB … fascinating, n'est ce pas?.
Never imagined leftie warmunists would allow a consumer culture site like OzB take precedence over their virtue signalling "save the planet" efforts.
Nearly everyone I know, including most people from the town I grew up in, my entire extended family minus 1 or 2 individuals, and everyone I've met at university and in multiple workplaces (successful national and international organisations) consider righties/conservatives to be absolute nut jobs.
This is anecdotal data, but from my perspective it is fairly useful data considering the diversity of experiences I'm drawing on here.
It's hard to get hard data on the percentage of the population that is left vs right, but as you know we now have a left-leaning government, so the notion that the "majority" of the population thinks left-leaning people are "whacko nut jobs" is absurd.
When you factor in the people who support the Greens party (which won 15% of the primary vote in the last federal election), it's looking like around 60% of the Australian population are left-leaning (Labor/Greens), while around 40% of the population are right-leaning (Liberals/Nationals).
Furthermore, like most vocal righties I've encountered online, you seem to have a delusional and distorted "stereotype" image of lefties in your mind, and you probably think we're all the same. In fact, the "left" describes a diverse range of people, from centre-left to extreme left. In my experience, the extreme left, while sometimes a little whacky (e.g. 100% bias against big business and seeking to avoid/apologise for all kinds of imaginary offence), are almost completely harmless, unlike the extreme right, which are often dangerous and full of hate, conspiracy theories, bigotry, selfishness and prejudice, and capable of violence.
"This is anecdotal data"
RIGHT ON!
Conservatives are better looking
Conservatives are more attractive than liberals, study finds
Hot people are more likely to support right-wing parties because they are stronger and more successful than their more liberal peers, apparently.
https://www.indy100.com/article/conservatives-republicans-moā¦Conservatives did not predict permanent drought just before massive rainfalls and flooding.
Conservatives did not predict less snow and warmer winters just before massive snowfalls and bitterly cold winters.
Only LeftieWarunist whackos did!Study claiming psychotic traits linked to conservatism gets reversed ā finds liberals more likely to have those traits
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/10/friday-funny-study-clā¦Conservatives are better looking
Conservatives are more attractive than liberals, study finds
Hot people are more likely to support right-wing parties because they are stronger and more successful than their more liberal peers, apparently.
https://www.indy100.com/article/conservatives-republicans-moā¦I'm not claiming this is fake, but it is a single study. Scientific knowledge is usually built by conducting many studies over time that corroborate/verify each other, correct for limitations in individual/small-scale studies, and identify/weed out flaws/mistakes. This result also could be limited to the US, which is a bit of an outlier with regard to politics and wealth.
Conservatives did not predict permanent drought just before massive rainfalls and flooding.
Only LeftieWarunist whackos did!This is a strawman argument, and it is also incorrect. Scientists predicted that global warming would lead to more extreme weather, and that is exactly what is happening.
See what happens when you stop trying to prove yourself right? You can actually learn something. Keep in mind, every non-idiot on the planet knows the above fact.
In regard to success, think about this: the successful, super-rich beachside suburbs of Sydney voted a strong yes in the Voice referendum, whereas outback QLD where incomes and house prices are far lower voted a strong no in the referendum. Just a bit of data to consider.
@Rear CreviceEruption: "This is a strawman argument, and it is also incorrect"
SORRY BUT 100% CORRECT!
FROM OUR DUD PREDICTIONS FILE ā¦
FLASHBACK 2008:
āThis drought may never break.ā BoM
IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation's most senior weather experts warned yesterday."Perhaps we should call it our new climate," said the Bureau of Meteorology's head of climate analysis, David Jones.
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/this-drought-may-never-brā¦Climate āeggspurtā Tim Flannery was just as bad ā¦
āSo even the rain that falls isnāt actually going to fill our dams and our river systemsā¦ā Tim Flannery 2007With such spectacular failures of past predictions why should anyone believe current alarmist prognostications of doom?
@Gekov: You are cherry-picking in order to support your existing opinion.
Do you know what cherry-picking is?
This is what people do when they know that the actual majority of data doesn't support their opinion.
They cherry-pick in order to find some kind of tiny little discrepancy, and pretend it is representative of their opponent's position.
@Rear CreviceEruption: "Scientists predicted that global warming would lead to more extreme weather, and that is exactly what is happening."
ANOTHER DUD PREDICTION BITES THE DUST!
World Presently In An Era Of Unusually Low Weather Disasters
This holds for the weather phenomena that have historically caused the most damage: tropical cyclones, floods, tornadoes and drought. Given how weather events have become politicized in debates over climate change, some find this hard to believe. Fortunately, government and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) analyses allow such claims to be adjudicated based on science, and not politics.
https://riskfrontiers.com/weather-related-natural-disasters-ā¦BAD LUCK WARMUNIST FEARMONGERS!
U.S. Climate 2023 Year in Review ā
In one word:
***** NORMAL *****
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/20/u-s-climate-2023-yearā¦@Gekov: You are, again, cherry picking. Why didn't you look for some data that doesn't support your opinion?
Is it because that would be inconvenient and make you look incorrect?
You clearly are not interested in truth, and are just interested in trying to prove yourself right.
Why don't you go to university and tell all the scientists that the way to find the truth is to cherry-pick the data?
You'll be famous.
@Rear CreviceEruption: " You are, again, cherry picking"
Sorry, but this is an absolutely cherry-picking-free zone!
How is showing that today's climate is less extreme cherry picking?
How is exposing past DUD PREDICTIONS cherry picking?
Only to a warped leftist mentality ….
@Rear CreviceEruption: "Heat waves are occurring more than they used to in major cities across the United States."
One word … Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effect
The Chart That Converted A Global Warming True Believer Into A Climate Change Sceptic
https://www.scribd.com/document/67524224/PDF-1996-Goodridge-ā¦My friend Jim Goodridge, former California State Climatologist continues to be busy in his retirement, and sends this along today. Heās been tracking a group of weather stations in California, and has been doing so for over 20 years. In fact, it was Jim who first introduced me to that light bulb moment where I realized that global warming wasnāt really all it was cracked up to be when he made this short publication in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 1996.
I guess you could say it was the graph that launched a thousand blog posts, because as we all know, CO2 canāt heat differently based on county population.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/19/how-not-to-measure-teā¦
FLASHBACK 2012 Climate scientist Dr Spencer uncovered HUGE urban heat island (UHI) warming in the USHCN, using the USCRN as reference! NOAA 'record warm' Jul 2012 was 1.1ĀŗC WARMER than USCRN! .
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/08/spurious-warmth-in-noaasā¦Phoenix is RIDDLED WITH Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effect.
0.2ĀŗF to 0.3ĀŗF per mile from the city centre.
http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Phoenix_UrbanHeat.htmEffect Of Population On Warming Trend In California
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/19/how-not-to-measure-teā¦@Rear CreviceEruption: NOAA climate alarmists actually hate USCRN data.
In Tucson last October 2018, the NWS kept claiming the Tucson had the warmest September EVAH.
Of course, the temp record they use for that is GHCN station at TIA airport (TUS) where there has been significant infilling of buildings and solar panels all around for miles of the airport in the last 30 years, including significant runway, taxiway, and asphalt parking lot expansions.I downloaded the September Tucson USCRN station data for September, which is out in the desert away from any structures for a kilometer in every direction. I ran the daily averages to create a monthly average for every year of data for September. The Tucson USCRN site was setup in 2003 and that data showed that September 2018 was the third warmest with 2010 and (IIRC from memory) 2003 were 1 and 2.
Sent the data results to Tucson NWS and a TV station meteorologist who was crowing about it on the nightly weather.
Never heard a peep back nor from one TV station meteorologists who was also trumpeting the āhottest evahā propaganda.Bottom-line is NOAA/NWS and the propaganda spewing alarmists love the UHI effect in the raw GHCN data. And they clearly dislike USCRN because it isnāt giving them their obviously hoped for clean record of steady, climate model-like surface warming in the US
READER LETTER AT https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/25/how-to-make-use-of-thā¦
Conservatives are better looking
https://www.indy100.com/article/conservatives-republicans-moā¦And as evidence of this, they use a photo of Maggie Thatcher. š¤£š¤£š¤£
Ya' couldn't make it up.
" we now have a left-leaning government, so the notion that the "majority" of the population thinks left-leaning people are "whacko nut jobs" is absurd."
You "whacko leftie nut jobs" are absurd,
This govt was elected on less than 30% of the vote baby!
Greenie preferences made all the difference.
Our preferential voting "system" has a lot to answer for!
Call that news?š