Newsreader & Reporter thread

That's pretty rubbish actually...he sounds as if he was in a studio commentating on a football match or something...

Another frontline broadcast from BBC World/News 24 in Doha before, really getting close to whats going on while Sky News are live walking around Saddams palace in Tikrit.

Ste

You've got a serious problem.

It's a news channel not UKStyle. Its fine to show the palaces but we don't need an indepth look at them, it doesn't really explain whats going on or give anaylsis which I would guess is what the BBC is doing.

I didnt say it was a tour of the palace, they where just inside the palace reporting on what is going on in Tikrit, showing the view from the window and showing how the iraqi people suffered while Saddam lived in luxury. However from watching the BBC it seems like the Iraqi people hate the Americans and would be SO much better off under Saddam while it seems half the city is in hospital after what was definatly air strike inflicted injuries.

One advantage is that the presenter would have been able to attend all the briefings (and the off the record briefings) in person, and as a result will have been somewhat better prepared and informed.

One issue I wondered about. Would the satellite delay during one to ones be significantly shorter by virtue of carrying them out from the next country, as opposed to London?

I hadn't heard that as I was watching News24 at the time. I assumed from others postings that it was something special. How wrong I was. He sounds so bland. No emotion, No sense of occasion. Just compare it to Rageh's fantastic commentry as he stood by the statue as it came tumbling down.

No doubt the BBC would have used a microwave link if they had had access to one. However the way they did it worked much better. Using the camera's on the Palastine Hotel gave the effect of evesdropping on History. And the moment Chris Ekyn asked Rageh to wave so we could pick him out of the crowd was inspired.

I would expect that both feeds would be linked back to the London studio - rather than any attempt made to organise them locally within the region. To do the latter would require lots of extra facilities in the location OB - which would complicate things (and cost more) for little reward. Far safer and simpler to co-ordinate the whole thing from London.

Yes - though many of these attacks turned out not to be attacks ISTR...

Rageh is a World Affairs Correspondent - which means he is not based in any particular country AIUI. John Simpson is World Affairs Editor.

(This is different to a Paris Correspondent or a Washington Correspondent who are based in a particular location)

Rageh, John and the other World Affairs correspondents are therefore deployed to different countries around the world as the news develops there. Rageh has covered Iraq for the BBC for 6 years - this is not the same as being based in Baghdad for 6 years...

Actually, Rageh Omaar is usually based in the BBC's Johannesburg bureau.

I take it you've been reading The Independent then. For some people, it's clear that the BBC can do absolutely no right. If it had taken a less inquisitive approach to the war, then people would have lashed out at it for compromising its journalistic integrity and leaning towards a particular viewpoint. Yet now that it's being more questioning of everything that happens - sceptical is perhaps too strong a word - people are still up in arms because apparently it now has an anti-everything-to-do-with-the-war stance. I think it's wrong to say that just because the BBC has not taken the flag-waving 'let's blow the ******* up' approach of FOX News that it is somehow deliberately painting a negative image of the war.

I, for one, would much rather watch a channel that questioned what was happening over there rather than simply saying 'this is what happened, there we go' every time. I'm not saying that the BBC has been alone in analysing the events of the war, nor am I saying that the BBC has done the best job overall - it's clear to see that Sky News has excelled in many areas, and that ITV News has matured considerably over the last few weeks - but I do think it's deeply unfair to be criticising the BBC for reporting responsibly, and seeking answers to the questions that should rightly be answered. Granted, the BBC has had a tendency in some situations to over-analyse, but in most instances this has manifest itself in protracted one-to-ones with field reporters who had nothing to say, rather than going out of their way to portray the war as being wholly negative.