GB News

[Busaholic]

I wouldn't be surprised if they start announcing some high profile names over the next couple of weeks - have the "soft launch", get the channel up and running and then introduce some people from LBC/ Talk Radio etc - don't announce Piers Morgan too early, let the station bed in before you unleash the "big guns"

What has surprised me so far is that they haven't (as far as I've noticed) introduced the "token liberal" - in the way that Fox News would sometimes have a counterfoil, e.g. Alan Comes to Sean Hannity - or LBC have James O'Brien in midmorning to follow Nick Ferrari - in fact having someone like Ash Sarkar would not only counteract the accusations that it was only biased in one direction but it'd also get the right wingers agitated enough to phone/tweet their views (in the way that some car crash presenters are so bad that you just have to keep listening to/ watching them to find out what objectionable thing they'll say next). Maybe George Galloway - he's worked with Murdoch companies before so he's not going to be too proud to take money from Andrew Neil and his mysterious backers.

GB News need to keep your audience angry and scared and sometimes the best way of doing that is by showing the worst excesses of the other side - e.g. Andrew Neil's late night show on BBC One was careful to balance the photogenic articulate right wing Micheal Portillo with the slightly clumsier Dianne Abbott (who the right wingers must love to hate) instead of a Blairite

Ah, but when Diane Abbott joined the Shadow Cabinet she was replaced by the markedly more moderate Liz Kendall, whom I must admit to finding quietly impressive and competent and lacking in 'side.' Even Galloway in one of his tirades against Labour on the programme excluded her from the criticisms he was making, but with George you never know the true agenda! Mind you, he and Neil like to play on the supposedly underprivileged Glasgow childhoods they both had (amazing how potent the word Gorbals can be even now.)

 

[Mojo]

What has surprised me so far is that they haven't (as far as I've noticed) introduced the "token liberal" - in the way that Fox News would sometimes have a counterfoil, e.g. Alan Comes to Sean Hannity - or LBC have James O'Brien in midmorning to follow Nick Ferrari - in fact having someone like Ash Sarkar would not only counteract the accusations that it was only biased in one direction but it'd also get the right wingers agitated enough to phone/tweet their views (in the way that some car crash presenters are so bad that you just have to keep listening to/ watching them to find out what objectionable thing they'll say next).

I think the difference being that unlike LBC which is basically just a single presenter having a rant for an hour about whatever takes their fancy, all of the shows seem to either be: a set two or three regular presenters, a panel format, or one regular presenter and guest (or interviewee); therefore what you’re suggesting I don’t think would really work.

I wouldn't be surprised if they start announcing some high profile names over the next couple of weeks - have the "soft launch", get the channel up and running and then introduce some people from LBC/ Talk Radio etc - don't announce Piers Morgan too early, let the station bed in before you unleash the "big guns"

I thought they did already have quite a few “high profile” names already! They had a stated aim of wanting to spend their almost entire budget on getting big names (I think it shows in the number of mistakes, although this has definitely got better over the week).

 

[class ep-09]

2 weeks and it seems , wheels are coming off …
Neil is taking brake for few weeks …

 

[eMeS]

2 weeks and it seems , wheels are coming off …
Neil is taking brake for few weeks …

... or did you mean a break?

 

[Typhoon]

... or did you mean a break?

If the wheels are coming off, surely you need to apply the brake (and sharpish)?

 

[class ep-09]

... or did you mean a break?

It was mistake .
I wanted to write “Neil is pressing brake” instead “Neil is taking brake “
My bad .

 

[birchesgreen]

He is just going on holiday he says, very strange timing just 2 weeks into the channel's life TBH.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

He is just going on holiday he says, very strange timing just 2 weeks into the channel's life TBH.

Maybe not quite so strange if you consider how much work must be involved in setting up a new business like this in the first place. I would hazard a guess that he may well have had next to no rest for quite a few months and could well therefore be totally exhausted. In that situation, if you think the station has reached a point where all the staff you've recruited can handle things almost as well as you can, then it might seem appropriate to take a few weeks' break.

(Of course that's pure speculation on my part - it could equally be something else).

 

[MotCO]

Maybe not quite so strange if you consider how much work must be involved in setting up a new business like this in the first place. I would hazard a guess that he may well have had next to no rest for quite a few months and could well therefore be totally exhausted. In that situation, if you think the station has reached a point where all the staff you've recruited can handle things almost as well as you can, then it might seem appropriate to take a few weeks' break.

(Of course that's pure speculation on my part - it could equally be something else).

I would tend to agree - the adrenalin rush to launch must have taken it out of him, and now he can take a break to recharge his batteries.

 

[AlterEgo]

I would tend to agree - the adrenalin rush to launch must have taken it out of him, and now he can take a break to recharge his batteries.

He’s commuting from France (!) and is pretty old himself. The rocky start to the channel was far from ideal.

 

[thenorthern]

In regards to Andrew Neil going on holiday, it's not unexpected. Remember he has to quarantine when he arrives in France for 10 days and he may have to quarantine in the United Kingdom for 10 days when he returns. That is already 20 days where he isn't doing "Holiday" things.

Also don't forget Parliament is beginning to wind down next month and we enter silly season in which most political tv shows are off the air anyway.

 

[dgl]

In the lastest news about GB news, viewing figures have slumped so now even Patrol Pawennau, the Welsh language version of Paw Patrol, gets 5x as many viewers!

 

[Typhoon]

In the lastest news about GB news, viewing figures have slumped so now even Patrol Pawennau, the Welsh language version of Paw Patrol, gets 5x as many viewers!

I think we were given high expectations that have not been realised. And, as Alistair Stewart said on Any Questions, 'It's a views channel' - but its called GB News; I had hoped for the news that I don't get from elsewhere.

I have heard a few interesting discussions, and some excellent guests however some of the presenters interrupt too much, they need to let the conversation flow - one incident where there were two guests discussing something (not arguing), each adding their own experience which gave the topic more depth to me when one of the presenters interrupts and tries to add something controversial into the subject matter, conversation then falls flat. They have hours to develop themes, plenty of time to interject. Also, I wish there was an indication of what they were going to discuss. I am not interested in everything, I tuned in just before writing this, something I know nothing about and want to know nothing about, but by the time I finished there may be something I might be interested in but I am not going to tune in on the off-chance. Something like BBC News, on the hour main news stories in some depth, entirely predictable what they will be, I know that if I have had my fill of Hancock and his significant other, don't bother. On the half hours there is sport, plus certain other regulars at certain times. GB News - no idea!

I notice a number of our local buses have adverts for LBC on the side. They may have wasted their money.

 

[James H]

The ads for LBC on buses are probably (at least in part) filler for unsold ad space, given that the ads on many buses are managed by Global, who own LBC.

 

[thenorthern]

The comparison in regards to Paws Patrol is slightly misleading the Paws Patrol figures were for one episode of Paws Patrol in March when the schools were closed. Nevertheless the viewing figures drop will be disappointing for GB News executives.

Given GB News coverage very heavily British political based it will be interesting to see how it fares over the next 2 months given Parliament is beginning to wind down and we enter silly season.

 

[Gloster]

Has GB News really been set up to produce a profitable business that supplies a need to an area of the market that it is unfilled? Or is it intended to push the political, economic or social attitudes of its backers? Give it a couple of years and you could have a situation where politicians will give equal weight to the opinions expressed on GB News, viewing figures: three dozing pensioners and one rabid nutter, and those expressed by guests on the BBC or ITN, viewing figures: in the six or seven digits. They will claim that they are reflecting a wide range of views from all across the spectrum, ignoring the way in which they are giving a tiny minority equal weight as a much larger group.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Has GB News really been set up to produce a profitable business that supplies a need to an area of the market that it is unfilled? Or is it intended to push the political, economic or social attitudes of its backers?

Business people, on the whole, do not set up businesses that they do not believe are likely to be profitable. To do so would be madness since you'd basically be throwing your money away and risking going bankrupt. So I think you can be fairly sure that the aim is primarily to set up a profitable business by catering to an area of the market that they believe is unfilled (although certainly some of the backers will agree with the political philosophy of GB News. It seems to be in human nature to believe that your own views are under-represented, whether you are from the left or the right)

 

[Gloster]

Business people, on the whole, do not set up businesses that they do not believe are likely to be profitable. To do so would be madness since you'd basically be throwing your money away and risking going bankrupt. So I think you can be fairly sure that the aim is primarily to set up a profitable business by catering to an area of the market that they believe is unfilled (although certainly some of the backers will agree with the political philosophy of GB News. It seems to be in human nature to believe that your own views are under-represented, whether you are from the left or the right)

Agreed, but I wonder if this is a form of loss leader, although possibly making greater losses than they hoped (so far). Use it to skew the whole political dialogue: if it costs you a million a year to put a political party that will enact policies that increase your profits by twice that sum every year in your debt, you are in profit. Why do the owners of newspapers continue to accept massive losses: because the papers push their agendas and promote their other interests.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Agreed, but I wonder if this is a form of loss leader, although possibly making greater losses than they hoped (so far). Use it to skew the whole political dialogue: if it costs you a million a year to put a political party that will enact policies that increase your profits by twice that sum every year in your debt, you are in profit.

That also wouldn't make any sense in terms of the maths. Sure, if it costs you a million a year to change a Labour Government into a Tory Government with 100% certainty and you are 100% certain the Tory Government would give you twice that in profits, then from your POV it's a very good investment. But GBNews won't do that. At best, if it sways public opinion a little bit, it might flip a couple of seats in Parliament. That's not going to make any difference politically unless by some chance a general election produces a total knife-edge parliament. And even then it's only an educated guess that the Government might let you increase your profits (and how exactly? Is there some reason to believe that people buy newspapers and watch subscription channels in vastly greater quantities when there's a Tory Government? Lower taxes maybe? Possibly, but that's not at all a certainty. )

Remember too that any supposed benefits to businesses won't be exclusively for the people who've invested in GB News - they'll presumably be spread over all similar businesses - including all your competitors, making your own gain very much less. In the end no sensible business person or organisation is going to put up such an expensive loss leader with such an uncertain, and likely minimal, outcome for themselves.

Why do the owners of newspapers continue to accept massive losses: because the papers push their agendas and promote their other interests.

Because they already own and run those papers, having acquired them back in the days when they did make regular profits? So their choice is to go through the vast expense of winding down the business, or to carry on looking for ways that they can turn the papers round and make a profit. And don't under-estimate the power of optimism bias here.

 

[birchesgreen]

The comparison in regards to Paws Patrol is slightly misleading the Paws Patrol figures were for one episode of Paws Patrol in March when the schools were closed. Nevertheless the viewing figures drop will be disappointing for GB News executives.

The top rated GBN show gets about the same number of viewers as Pobol Y Cym (40,000s).

 

[nlogax]

Viewing figures have allegedly dropped to zero for recent shows. Is GBN circling the drain already?

 

[tbtc]

They've had a bit of attention tonight for tweets that they've, erm, tweeted (@GBNEWS):

GB News stands four square against racism in all its forms. We do not have a company line on taking the knee. Some of our guests have been in favour, some against. All are anti-racist. We have editorial standards that all GB News journalists uphold.

On Tuesday a contributing presenter took the knee live on air and this was an unacceptable breach of our standards

...so they are happy to have slanted opinion like their focus on "woke", but it's unacceptable to represent the anti-racist gesture

But this is the problem with GB News - they want to do some "opinion" rather than just "news", but (whilst it's fine to be opinionated in one direction) they now feel it's "unacceptable" to represent the taking the knee - fair enough if you want to say "we are a serious news channel and shouldn't be engaging in stunts" but if you also want to be opinionated then it looks a bit off if you decide to draw the line... if you want to say that you don't have a policy on taking the knee then why is it unacceptable?

Has GB News really been set up to produce a profitable business that supplies a need to an area of the market that it is unfilled? Or is it intended to push the political, economic or social attitudes of its backers? Give it a couple of years and you could have a situation where politicians will give equal weight to the opinions expressed on GB News, viewing figures: three dozing pensioners and one rabid nutter, and those expressed by guests on the BBC or ITN, viewing figures: in the six or seven digits. They will claim that they are reflecting a wide range of views from all across the spectrum, ignoring the way in which they are giving a tiny minority equal weight as a much larger group.

Agreed - it's a lot of money, but so is funding the "think tanks" of Tufton Street, which are used to similarly generate and amplify the views of the mysterious backers - you get some stooge from the Institute of Economic Affairs/ Taxpayers Alliance etc to represent what the shady rich people want him/her to say - then GB News pick up on it as being "representative", which then allows the Daily Mail to report the discussion on GB News, giving the impression that there's a lot of people's views being represented (and well as encouraging the Mail etc to write articles complaining about BBC 'bias" to make GB News look more "trustworthy") - we know that these Tufton Street think tanks are a very effective way of getting your message across, getting your mouthpieces a seat on Question Time etc - now you can have a channel representing this - GB News doesn't need many viewers to carry weight (which is why the news that some of the programmes are watched by so few people to count as "zero" don't seem so significant to me). That said, starting a new channel to discuss UK news/politics shortly before the planned long summer recess seems a bit of an odd time - how will they fill "silly season"?

 

[brad465]

They've had a bit of attention tonight for tweets that they've, erm, tweeted (@GBNEWS):

...so they are happy to have slanted opinion like their focus on "woke", but it's unacceptable to represent the anti-racist gesture

But this is the problem with GB News - they want to do some "opinion" rather than just "news", but (whilst it's fine to be opinionated in one direction) they now feel it's "unacceptable" to represent the taking the knee - fair enough if you want to say "we are a serious news channel and shouldn't be engaging in stunts" but if you also want to be opinionated then it looks a bit off if you decide to draw the line... if you want to say that you don't have a policy on taking the knee then why is it unacceptable?

Yes this made with laugh when I read it on Twitter earlier, not least that they sent the second one in reply to the first and haven't even deleted/realised the gaffe.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Viewing figures have allegedly dropped to zero for recent shows. Is GBN circling the drain already?

I did a bit of Googling after reading that. It seems the Guardian is running a story that a couple of shows recorded too few viewers to register, which the Guardian is ascribing to a viewer boycott after presenter Guto Harri took the knee, with normal viewership outside of the boycott being around 50K. I have to say I'm struggling to believe that story: Viewers are individuals, not an organised group, and there's no way you could get such a high proportion of viewers involved in a (apparently, rather poorly advertised) boycott - so I think the Guardian must got something wrong. Even so, viewing figures look pretty dire.

 

[bspahh]

I did a bit of Googling after reading that. It seems the Guardian is running a story that a couple of shows recorded too few viewers to register, which the Guardian is ascribing to a viewer boycott after presenter Guto Harri took the knee, with normal viewership outside of the boycott being around 50K. I have to say I'm struggling to believe that story: Viewers are individuals, not an organised group, and there's no way you could get such a high proportion of viewers involved in a (apparently, rather poorly advertised) boycott - so I think the Guardian must got something wrong. Even so, viewing figures look pretty dire.

The viewing figures from the Broadcasters Audience Research Board https://www.barb.co.uk/ are based on a sample of 12000 viewers in 5100 households, according to https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/how-are-tv-viewing-figures-calculated/

With a UK population of 67m, that means that if one person from the viewer panel watches your program, the viewing figures estimate audience was 5500. That is fine for the mainstream channels, but it means that the viewing figures get a bit lumpy at the low end, and sometimes you might find there are no viewers on the panel.

 

[birchesgreen]

Has Brillo Pad returned from his hols yet?

 

[52290]

Viewing figures have allegedly dropped to zero for recent shows. Is GBN circling the drain already?

Even Mike Hunt had switched off.

 

[skyhigh]

Has Brillo Pad returned from his hols yet?

I've heard rumours he's decided not to return.

 

[Gloster]

The captain is the first to leave the sinking ship. However, I would be extremely sceptical of such rumours at such an early stage, but who could blame him if he decides to stay in the south of France?

 

[brad465]

The captain is the first to leave the sinking ship. However, I would be extremely sceptical of such rumours at such an early stage, but who could blame him if he decides to stay in the south of France?

I've heard rumours he's decided not to return.

I believe his "two-week break" started three weeks ago, so at the very least he's overstaying it.