GB News
Comments
-
Good Morning Britain has news bulletins.darkhairedlord said:
It's Good Morning Britain but with more hate.pangolin said:kingstongraham said:It's not a news channel.
0 -
0
-
Talk TV?rjsterry said:I don't know why they didn't just call it Spectator TV.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Just switched this on for the first time - Christ it's bad.
Why is it so dark, why do they have glass walls revealing what looks like some basement call centre behind them, why does the whole conversation appear forced and do they just talk about culture wars the entire time?[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Maybe UEFA have started advertising on GB News? "Wokewatch, brought to you by UEFA".
0 -
There's these homophobic police horses tooelbowloh said:Maybe UEFA have started advertising on GB News? "Wokewatch, brought to you by UEFA".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMyf6ewi7E8 0 -
-
Sod the news, what is going on with that website?briantrumpet said:Too early to tell, obvs.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1452848/GB-News-viewers-ranking-TV-channels-UK-BBC-Channel-4-evg
I feel assaulted.1 -
Horrendous isn't it? I struggled to find the actual story among the junk on the layout.morstar said:
Sod the news, what is going on with that website?briantrumpet said:Too early to tell, obvs.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1452848/GB-News-viewers-ranking-TV-channels-UK-BBC-Channel-4-evg
I feel assaulted.0 -
Pross said:
Horrendous isn't it? I struggled to find the actual story among the junk on the layout.morstar said:
Sod the news, what is going on with that website?briantrumpet said:Too early to tell, obvs.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1452848/GB-News-viewers-ranking-TV-channels-UK-BBC-Channel-4-evg
I feel assaulted.
Haha, yes, quite. But somewhere buried there...BBC Breakfast: 1.4 million
Good Morning Britain: 574,000
Channel 4 News: 323,000
BBC Newsnight: 288,000
BBCNews 9am: 226,000
Sky News Breakfast: 73,000
Great British Breakfast: 56,000
Brazier and Muroki: 36,0000 -
I would be pulling my advertising too if no one is watching.briantrumpet said:Pross said:
Horrendous isn't it? I struggled to find the actual story among the junk on the layout.morstar said:
Sod the news, what is going on with that website?briantrumpet said:Too early to tell, obvs.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1452848/GB-News-viewers-ranking-TV-channels-UK-BBC-Channel-4-evg
I feel assaulted.
Haha, yes, quite. But somewhere buried there...BBC Breakfast: 1.4 million
Good Morning Britain: 574,000
Channel 4 News: 323,000
BBC Newsnight: 288,000
BBCNews 9am: 226,000
Sky News Breakfast: 73,000
Great British Breakfast: 56,000
Brazier and Muroki: 36,000
Unless I was selling MEGA hats.
0 -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9721469/Andrew-Neil-celebrates-GB-News-beating-BBC-Sky-audience-figures.html
And a very good show it is too, more fool the BBC for letting him go. Technical problems, Mike Oxbig gaffes and lighting seem to be largely sorted out now too but the Breakfast show is still a weak link. Most of the other output is fairly good IMHO and whatever else it might be it's most definitely not far right and hate filled.0 -
But surely its still too early to say given they've only beaten the BBC figures several times in the first 2 weeks since launchingshortfall said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9721469/Andrew-Neil-celebrates-GB-News-beating-BBC-Sky-audience-figures.html
And a very good show it is too, more fool the BBC for letting him go. Technical problems, Mike Oxbig gaffes and lighting seem to be largely sorted out now too but the Breakfast show is still a weak link. Most of the other output is fairly good IMHO and whatever else it might be it's most definitely not far right and hate filled.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Yep. Is 92,000 for its flagship show enough to make money?0
-
I've said this like 5 times, the prospectus for GB news says explicitly it will not make money and it will rely on donations by offering a chance to mingle with their guests to break even.kingstongraham said:Yep. Is 92,000 for its flagship show enough to make money?
It is not a commercial venture, it is a political one, backed by well known political players.0 -
Still need some viewers thorick_chasey said:
I've said this like 5 times, the prospectus for GB news says explicitly it will not make money and it will rely on donations by offering a chance to mingle with their guests to break even.kingstongraham said:Yep. Is 92,000 for its flagship show enough to make money?
It is not a commercial venture, it is a political one, backed by well known political players.0 -
Meh, they just need hits on you tube and retweets on twitter.kingstongraham said:
Still need some viewers thorick_chasey said:
I've said this like 5 times, the prospectus for GB news says explicitly it will not make money and it will rely on donations by offering a chance to mingle with their guests to break even.kingstongraham said:Yep. Is 92,000 for its flagship show enough to make money?
It is not a commercial venture, it is a political one, backed by well known political players.1 -
I do think it's important to know with all these news outlets, papers and TV, nowadays there is no money in it, especially not newspapers.
Murdoch recently wrote down the value of the sun to zero, right? There is no commercial value in that paper. There is however political value.
We're moving into a sort of neo-Victorian world where a handful of superrich go around buying up newspapers at a loss (think WSJ, Evening Standard, the sun, the times & Sunday times, telegraph etc etc) to push their own personal political agendas.
What are these people paying for? to influence mugs like us.0 -
Poses an interesting question for the future.rick_chasey said:I do think it's important to know with all these news outlets, papers and TV, nowadays there is no money in it, especially not newspapers.
Murdoch recently wrote down the value of the sun to zero, right? There is no commercial value in that paper. There is however political value.
We're moving into a sort of neo-Victorian world where a handful of superrich go around buying up newspapers at a loss (think WSJ, Evening Standard, the sun, the times & Sunday times, telegraph etc etc) to push their own personal political agendas.
What are these people paying for? to influence mugs like us.
When the print media buying generation are no more, what direction will politics take when we (they) are all fed their information by t’interweb.
It’s more diverse in content but equally more extreme with fewer checks and balances.
1 -
-
Talking of loss making papers with political agendas, is the Guardian still begging for online donations?rick_chasey said:I do think it's important to know with all these news outlets, papers and TV, nowadays there is no money in it, especially not newspapers.
Murdoch recently wrote down the value of the sun to zero, right? There is no commercial value in that paper. There is however political value.
We're moving into a sort of neo-Victorian world where a handful of superrich go around buying up newspapers at a loss (think WSJ, Evening Standard, the sun, the times & Sunday times, telegraph etc etc) to push their own personal political agendas.
What are these people paying for? to influence mugs like us."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Absolutely.Stevo_666 said:
Talking of loss making papers with political agendas, is the Guardian still begging for online donations?rick_chasey said:I do think it's important to know with all these news outlets, papers and TV, nowadays there is no money in it, especially not newspapers.
Murdoch recently wrote down the value of the sun to zero, right? There is no commercial value in that paper. There is however political value.
We're moving into a sort of neo-Victorian world where a handful of superrich go around buying up newspapers at a loss (think WSJ, Evening Standard, the sun, the times & Sunday times, telegraph etc etc) to push their own personal political agendas.
What are these people paying for? to influence mugs like us.
Look at how they ask for it
In these extraordinary times, the Guardian’s editorial independence has never been more important. Because no one sets our agenda, or edits our editor, we can keep delivering high-impact, trustworthy journalism each and every day. Free from commercial or political influence, we can report fearlessly on world events and challenge those in power.
We believe everyone deserves equal access to accurate news and calm explanation. Your support enables us to keep our journalism open for all. No matter how unpredictable the future feels, we will provide vital information so we can all make decisions about our lives, health and security – based on fact, not fiction.
Support the Guardian from as little as £1 – it only takes a minute. Thank you.
I do think the FT, times (Murdoch ownership aside) etc have the right model ultimately.
If your news is free or next to free, you are the product and the owners of the newspaper are paying for it.
If you want proper news you have to pay properly for it.0 -
It's hardly comparing apples with apples is it? Only one of the broadcasters is reliant solely on that channel and has it as their entire point for existing.Stevo_666 said:
But surely its still too early to say given they've only beaten the BBC figures several times in the first 2 weeks since launchingshortfall said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9721469/Andrew-Neil-celebrates-GB-News-beating-BBC-Sky-audience-figures.html
And a very good show it is too, more fool the BBC for letting him go. Technical problems, Mike Oxbig gaffes and lighting seem to be largely sorted out now too but the Breakfast show is still a weak link. Most of the other output is fairly good IMHO and whatever else it might be it's most definitely not far right and hate filled.
For what it's worth I knew someone who used to present a section on QVC selling hair products and he used to claim viewing figures far in excess of 92,000.0 -
Not sure why he's comparing viewing figures with news bulletins on news channels.
Claiming to be number one in time slot when there was football getting more viewers is a bit dubious.0 -
For reasons that are a complete mystery to me that begging bowl raises staggering sums of money (think tens of millions), in the USA it is tax deductible.Stevo_666 said:
Talking of loss making papers with political agendas, is the Guardian still begging for online donations?rick_chasey said:I do think it's important to know with all these news outlets, papers and TV, nowadays there is no money in it, especially not newspapers.
Murdoch recently wrote down the value of the sun to zero, right? There is no commercial value in that paper. There is however political value.
We're moving into a sort of neo-Victorian world where a handful of superrich go around buying up newspapers at a loss (think WSJ, Evening Standard, the sun, the times & Sunday times, telegraph etc etc) to push their own personal political agendas.
What are these people paying for? to influence mugs like us.0 -
For a news programme at 8pm when the soaps are on. It's a very specifically qualified brag. The viewing numbers are well below what a niche YouTube channel gets.Stevo_666 said:
But surely its still too early to say given they've only beaten the BBC figures several times in the first 2 weeks since launchingshortfall said:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9721469/Andrew-Neil-celebrates-GB-News-beating-BBC-Sky-audience-figures.html
And a very good show it is too, more fool the BBC for letting him go. Technical problems, Mike Oxbig gaffes and lighting seem to be largely sorted out now too but the Breakfast show is still a weak link. Most of the other output is fairly good IMHO and whatever else it might be it's most definitely not far right and hate filled.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Pretty sure even if the donations dried up, the Guardian would keep going. I think it's backed by a trust that was set up by the family that established the paper and is worth I think more than a £billion, certainly hundreds of millionssurrey_commuter said:
For reasons that are a complete mystery to me that begging bowl raises staggering sums of money (think tens of millions), in the USA it is tax deductible.Stevo_666 said:
Talking of loss making papers with political agendas, is the Guardian still begging for online donations?rick_chasey said:I do think it's important to know with all these news outlets, papers and TV, nowadays there is no money in it, especially not newspapers.
Murdoch recently wrote down the value of the sun to zero, right? There is no commercial value in that paper. There is however political value.
We're moving into a sort of neo-Victorian world where a handful of superrich go around buying up newspapers at a loss (think WSJ, Evening Standard, the sun, the times & Sunday times, telegraph etc etc) to push their own personal political agendas.
What are these people paying for? to influence mugs like us.0 -
Andrew Neil is stepping back from presenting his programme for a few weeks. After 2 weeks.
So now no serious journalism on there is there?0 -
Sounds like he has taken two weeks hols to look for another job.kingstongraham said:Andrew Neil is stepping back from presenting his programme for a few weeks. After 2 weeks.
So now no serious journalism on there is there?0
