The Newsroom

Armed Insurrection at US Capitol Building

Split from US ELECTIONS 2020 Coverage

WH
Whataday Founding member Wales Wales Today
While I appreciate the significance of the story I don't think it warranted breaking into BBC 1/ITV programming. They made the right call, if it was even a consideration to begin with.
SC
scottishtv Founding member Central Reporting Scotland
They do okay at breaking news, but I still feel that the BBC excels at well-produced network bulletins.

This is from Wednesday night's BBC News at Ten:

UN
Universal_r Central Reporting Scotland
CNN’s election graphics are back after the first intentional break in almost 5 hours.
SC
Schwing World News
There has been some truly exceptional coverage this evening - not just from here but around the world. As said elsewhere, Ros Atkins really does handle breaking news rather well; the ABC (Australia) coverage was a fine example of public service broadcasting; and Norah O’Donnell’s interview with Rep. Kevin McCarthy was... well... pretty blunt (“At what point do you call a spade a spade?)

The biggest problem has been trying to follow it all. Didn’t somebody post a link to a site that splits news channel feeds into four screens? Would have been good to have to hand this evening!
MA
Meridian AM Meridian (South) South Today
The biggest problem has been trying to follow it all. Didn’t somebody post a link to a site that splits news channel feeds into four screens? Would have been good to have to hand this evening!


https://vidgrid.tk.gg
UL
UsuallyLurks West Country (East) Points West
For those calling for BBC One to drop their programmes and simulcast BBC News, no! By all means stick a bit of text on screen briefly advising to tune to BBC News for ongoing developments but some people won’t want to watch it. It may not interest them. BBC News can be picked up on every TV set in the land that can receive BBC One. Let the news channels do the rolling news, and leave the bulletins to BBC One etc.


I'm fine with that as long as they apply it across the board, but they don't. Why is it deemed worthy for election coverage to take over BBC One the day after the election as it usually does, or rolling coverage of a terrorist attack (which yesterday's events arguably were) to do the same when your argument could be made in both situations.
FrancesC, msim and Brekkie gave kudos
UN
Universal_r Central Reporting Scotland
BBC’s coverage does get knocked and rightly so sometimes but tonight’s coverage has been excellent. It started of with Ros Atkins at about 7:20pm and has been continuous all the way through the night until 3am with katty Kay and Laura trevelyan in Washington and coverage continuing with Mike Embly in London with the back half hour programmes dropped whereas sky news has just gone back to normal and have just shown a press preview repeat.
Last edited by Universal_r on 7 January 2021 3:37am
IN
Independent World News
Re: BBC One and ITV

Why would they cut into regular programming for what's happening in the US? Even in Canada, as far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong), the networks didn't cut into regular programming. Canada actually shares a land border where such craziness could easily spread over the border. I believe such a disruption would be warranted if an attack with multiple casualties on Capitol Hill occurred.

By the way, did they interrupt when a terrorist attacked the Canadian parliament?

Frankly, speaking as a Canadian, the less we hear about the craziness in America the better. It's warping the understanding of our politics. Some in Canada literally think we're like the US and fear the PM might not leave if he loses (the Governor General or even the Queen would dismiss such a PM) or we have rigged voting machines (we vote with paper and pencil and count by hand). So much so that the Canadian federal elections body had to post that on social media a few months ago. Crying or Very sad
Last edited by Independent on 7 January 2021 5:10am - 3 times in total
JW
JamesWorldNews Central World News
Just watched the ITV News report now (Robert Moore inside the Capitol Building). Incredible scenes. And an excellent piece of coverage from ITN.
@JamesWorldToday | Thank you for everything, TV Forum. And good luck to TV Live Forum
JB
JexedBack South East Today
Biden a real president - timed his (historic) speech nicely for broadcasters joining at the top of the hour. Boris Johnson condemning the obstruction to the transfer of power in the last few minutes, and now reports of a bomb being found. This is more than news channel fodder.


BBC One doesn't even have an extended 10 O'Clock News scheduled, as of the time of this post. ITV News At Ten runs to 10:35, so a grand total of 5 extra minutes.


The BBC have added their own 5 minutes now. Enough time for a few vox pops with terrorists in the interests of balance.


And this here is the problem, people not tolerating other views. I’m no Trump fan, but there’s a significant number of people who believe Trump was ‘cheated’.

It’s important to understand their point of view for ‘balance’.

This isn’t a clear cut issue like climate change coverage. Climate change deniers should not be interviewed for ‘balance’ - they have been scientifically proved wrong. These ‘mobsters’ should have their voice heard.

There’s a real issue now. Social media encourages partisan views of the world- people have forgotten how to be analytical and know it’s okay to disagree but understand people are entitled to different view than theirs.

Anyway, back on topic...

Any videos of how the American networks broke into coverage?
Last edited by JexedBack on 7 January 2021 7:59am
GL
globaltraffic24 Central Reporting Scotland

BBC One doesn't even have an extended 10 O'Clock News scheduled, as of the time of this post. ITV News At Ten runs to 10:35, so a grand total of 5 extra minutes.


The BBC have added their own 5 minutes now. Enough time for a few vox pops with terrorists in the interests of balance.


And this here is the problem, people not tolerating other views. I’m no Trump fan, but there’s a significant number of people who believe Trump was ‘cheated’.

It’s important to understand their point of view for ‘balance’.

This isn’t a clear cut issue like climate change coverage. Climate change deniers should not be interviewed for ‘balance’ - they have been scientifically proved wrong. These ‘mobsters’ should have their voice heard.

There’s a real issue now. Social media encourages partisan views of the world- people have forgotten how to be analytical and know it’s okay to disagree but understand people are entitled to different view than theirs.

Anyway, back on topic...

Any videos of how the American networks broke into coverage?


I don't want this to turn into a heated Trump debate, but if you read your post back to yourself, you'll realise how silly it sounds. The example of climate change can be used with the US election. Twitter is a great example of this, with its new feature highlighting false news. ALL claims of voter fraud and corruption have been proved incorrect. Courts have listened to the claims and thrown them out. Republicans have - in large percentages - agreed the claims are nonsense. So, just like climate change, there should be no time or space afforded to people who attempt to thwart democracy. The only time that should be allotted in news to coverage of such scenes and claims is to explain, with facts, why they're wrong. It's what the BBC would do if this was happening in Pakistan or the Middle East.
JB
JexedBack South East Today

The BBC have added their own 5 minutes now. Enough time for a few vox pops with terrorists in the interests of balance.


And this here is the problem, people not tolerating other views. I’m no Trump fan, but there’s a significant number of people who believe Trump was ‘cheated’.

It’s important to understand their point of view for ‘balance’.

This isn’t a clear cut issue like climate change coverage. Climate change deniers should not be interviewed for ‘balance’ - they have been scientifically proved wrong. These ‘mobsters’ should have their voice heard.

There’s a real issue now. Social media encourages partisan views of the world- people have forgotten how to be analytical and know it’s okay to disagree but understand people are entitled to different view than theirs.

Anyway, back on topic...

Any videos of how the American networks broke into coverage?


I don't want this to turn into a heated Trump debate, but if you read your post back to yourself, you'll realise how silly it sounds. The example of climate change can be used with the US election. Twitter is a great example of this, with its new feature highlighting false news. ALL claims of voter fraud and corruption have been proved incorrect. Courts have listened to the claims and thrown them out. Republicans have - in large percentages - agreed the claims are nonsense. So, just like climate change, there should be no time or space afforded to people who attempt to thwart democracy. The only time that should be allotted in news to coverage of such scenes and claims is to explain, with facts, why they're wrong. It's what the BBC would do if this was happening in Pakistan or the Middle East.


But this is unprecedented.
Thousands of people wrongly believe Trumps lies. That is a fact. But to deny their point of view, or an exploration of why they’ve been mislead misses a great deal of what’s occurring.

This is not just a handful of people. These people have either been mislead or, fundamentally have genuine reason to believe they are being hard done to/feel threatened by the other side.

Don’t you think hearing their arguments, however factually wrong they may be, helps with the understanding of how America has become so bitter and divided? As long as the reporting makes clear that there was no election fraud.

Hitler/Saddam were very wrong, but millions of people were coerced into believing they were right and did their bidding. Should historians discount their accounts too?

Their views, should be aired but importantly qualified or rebutted.
AndrewPSSP, yogibarney and davidhorman gave kudos

Newer posts