On Tue, 25 May 2010 17:08:35 +0100, "Stephen O'Connell"
wrote:

"Vincent" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:15:15 +0100, "Stephen O'Connell"
wrote:

Well one news channel is fine, for dipping in and out to see what's going
on in the world at a time that suits you. But news in HD? Nope, can't
really see the point of it. It's just another Sky gimmick...

I'm sorry but I don't understand this. Ideally all channels should be
HD. Just like ideally all channels should be in colour instead of B&Q,
then all channels should be in Widescreen instead of 4:3, and so on.

Yeah, but you don't have to pay extra for widescreen channels, or colour
TV channels do you? If you want to see Kay Burley's wrinkles while she reads
the news, you have to pay more for the er... 'privilege'.

Of course in a few years time we'll all be wetting our pants over 3D TV won't
we? As that will be the next money making gimmick. Now if the young female
Sky News anchors have some of their good points sticking out, then it might
be worth a new TV to see that... but when all is said and done, the news is
the news no matter how you dress it up!

Is Sky News HD not one of the free HD channels?

That aside, it's unfair to say you're paying more for the privilege of
seeing some news anchor's wrinkles. You're paying for up to some 40
odd HD channels. If you don't want to see wrinkles, I can highly
recommend Hollyoaks on Channel 4 HD or E4 HD

News is news, yes, but reporters mostly have HD cameras with them, so
the quality is better throughout.

--
Vincent

Paul Martin wrote:
: Is Sky News HD not one of the free HD channels?

: It may be FTV (needing a valid Sky card) but it's definitely not FTA.

Not FTV either! It needs a subscription to SkyHD