Armed Insurrection at US Capitol Building

To be clear for people who didn't see old title, it was 'Protesters storm US Capitol Building'

With regards to the coverage. In the past few days CNN and MSNBC has achieved their largest viewership in their history. Whilst FNC who fueled the madness also saw increases, but Im sure their elderly audiences were probably turned off by treasonous actions of the people that they were seeing on television. The first few minutes of last nights Rachel Maddow programme was quite interesting in explaining why there was an "asymmetrical response" by law enforcement. I think we all know that the response would have been significantly different....lets just say under different circumstances. I hazard a guess to say there would have been for more dead people or at least more injured or people under arrest at this moment.


https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/wednesday-jan-6-scoreboard-cnn-ranks-no-1-on-cable-news-msnbc-averages-its-largest-total-day-audience-ever/467392/

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/cnn-has-most-watched-day-ever-with-capitol-insurrection-coverage/467372/

Solid point and much appreciated. I shall edit my post right now.

It's important to remember the original question was whether BBC One and ITV in the UK should interrupt regular programming about an event in a foreign country. US networks should as it directly affects Americans. But in the UK or anywhere else? The answer seems to be no to covering it as it happened on non-news channels. And why should non-news channels outside America carry a special bulletin? Other countries have had coups and etc. They're historical moments too, but BBC One and ITV never interrupted whatever they planned to air for them. Instead they waited for the next scheduled news bulletin. They have to balance the audience's interests, the majority not interested in politics, with the severity, importance and relevance of a foreign event to said audience.

However, had a politician especially a high profile one been held hostage that probably would add pressure on those in charge to interrupt regular programming.

America is an important player on the world stage, but so is China.
If something similar happened there (and the circumstances allowing it to be reported would be vastly different of course), would it merit live coverage on the UK's two main PSB channels?

Occasionally I hear the World Service news, and sometimes it does sound to be focused on the USA, even their domestic politics, to the exclusion of other world events. Is that the right balance?

You never know though, look what happened on 11/9/01, BBC1 broke into programming to show what was happening in New York, even though at that point it was just an American story.

It’s not really the same. A plane crashing into one of the world’s tallest skyscrapers, filled with thousands of workers from across the globe, is different to protestors storming a political building. The former is a disaster - the latter is much more symbolic.

Equally as news worthy - and just because it happens in other countries means it shouldn't be ignored. This was occurring for the first time since 1814 in a country that sees itself as the worlds greatest democracy, not an unstable country which sees such events relatively frequency.



So weird seeing 9/11 written like that (correctly).

Ahem: 2001-09-11. Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

It's a tough call. Comparing the events of this week to 9/11 is ridiculous. The latter is like nothing we had ever seen before and I completely agree with the decision of UK broadcasters that day to enter full rolling news mode (at a time when such a thing was quite novel). It had absolutely worldwide ramifications and I remember the world being very tense that day. None of us had any idea whether our country was next to be targeted.

That being said, an attempted coup in the USA is nothing to be sniffed at. Apart from being (allegedly - personally I disagree) the "world's greatest democracy", the "special relationship" between the USA and UK and the fact that the ongoing US Election saga is probably the number two story in the world right now, merits a bit more than the UK broadcasters did. I don't necessarily think that abandoning scheduled programmes for rolling news would have been the right thing to do. However, I do think a quick newsflash to highlight the story and promote the news channels and/or late news bulletins wouldn't have gone amiss.

It was clear from the first glimpse of the WTC buildings on fire that something historic is about to happen. Even if it was just an accident and buildings still collapsed as consequence, it would be one of the most shocking events. Not to mention the number of people who died and many different, vicious ways in which they died.

Comparing that to a bunch of buffoons live streaming and taking pictures in Nancy Pelosi's office should not be done.

We might not but they would. And considering how long it's took them to count the things in the first place you wouldn't want to be losing them.

I think the fact though we are still discussing how newsworthy this story was a few days on means the call to air not even a newsflash on BBC1 and ITV during primetime on Wednesday was wrong. Some people clearly disagree with the view it warranted two hours of live primetime coverage which is fine, but I think news needs to be above the narrowminded view that if it doesn't directly affect Brits it isn't newsworthy - and sometimes people literally need these stories put in front of them.

Beslan for example is a story which I think in theory many of us would agree wouldn't warrant live news coverage, but for those of us who watched it unfold that day it's arguably one of the most memorable pieces of television of the mid-noughties.