CH
I agree - the decision to broadcast it before 9 wasn't appropriate, although it was a decision made by other broadcasters too.
A lot of tweets saying that ITV News was wrong when taking the decision to air the video of the man brandishing the knife. Obviously a lot of confusion as ITV London began airing the footage without any audio with the mans face blurred while at 6.30 the audio and face was shown.
I agree - the decision to broadcast it before 9 wasn't appropriate, although it was a decision made by other broadcasters too.
TV
I agree - the decision to broadcast it before 9 wasn't appropriate, although it was a decision made by other broadcasters too.
Do we know who recorded the video? Someone planted as a passer-by? Certainly a brave individual to stand there filming someone who has just become a murderer if he was a genuine pedestrian.
I'm undecided on the decision to air the video before 9. It is something of huge public interest and I assume an appropriate warning was given before the video was broadcast. At the same time, this would be something very disturbing to a very large number of people.
I'm fairly certain this type of thing is unprecedented in terms of broadcasting.
A lot of tweets saying that ITV News was wrong when taking the decision to air the video of the man brandishing the knife. Obviously a lot of confusion as ITV London began airing the footage without any audio with the mans face blurred while at 6.30 the audio and face was shown.
I agree - the decision to broadcast it before 9 wasn't appropriate, although it was a decision made by other broadcasters too.
Do we know who recorded the video? Someone planted as a passer-by? Certainly a brave individual to stand there filming someone who has just become a murderer if he was a genuine pedestrian.
I'm undecided on the decision to air the video before 9. It is something of huge public interest and I assume an appropriate warning was given before the video was broadcast. At the same time, this would be something very disturbing to a very large number of people.
I'm fairly certain this type of thing is unprecedented in terms of broadcasting.
MA
I agree - the decision to broadcast it before 9 wasn't appropriate, although it was a decision made by other broadcasters too.
It seems to me, that neither the BBC nor ITN had applied any proper consideration to the footage, and
the legal/social consequences.
Possibly another case of junior/inexperienced staff with too much editorial empowerment ?
Did Sky show the footage BTW ?
Of course, today might be another watershed moment, where the balance between traditional broadcasting, and 'social media' has undergone another shift ?
A lot of tweets saying that ITV News was wrong when taking the decision to air the video of the man brandishing the knife. Obviously a lot of confusion as ITV London began airing the footage without any audio with the mans face blurred while at 6.30 the audio and face was shown.
I agree - the decision to broadcast it before 9 wasn't appropriate, although it was a decision made by other broadcasters too.
It seems to me, that neither the BBC nor ITN had applied any proper consideration to the footage, and
the legal/social consequences.
Possibly another case of junior/inexperienced staff with too much editorial empowerment ?
Did Sky show the footage BTW ?
Of course, today might be another watershed moment, where the balance between traditional broadcasting, and 'social media' has undergone another shift ?
DA
I don't see how ITV couldn't air the footage. It was certainly interesting to hear from one of the suspects and to hear him speaking so clearly and calmly too. This is the unanswered question in so many news stories, "why?". In this case we now know, thanks to the video. There is clear edits in the video, I wonder what we weren't shown and who choose not to show it. Frankly, I'd rather see this than keep hearing stupid reports such as 'Government believe it was a terrorist attack' and 'Queen upset by attacks'. This would only be news if the opposite were true, the government for some reason didn't believe it was a terrorist attack and the Queen has come out in support of killing people in the street. Otherwise, it is just filler.
NI
ITV certainly do - the person who filmed the video was speaking on News at Ten a few moments ago (although with his identity protected).
Plenty of warning was given prior to the footage being broadcast on News at 6:30 - but exclusive footage or not, I tend to agree that something as potentially traumatic as that shouldn't have been broadcast pre-watershed. I guess this has opened up a can of worms regarding what news programmes can broadcast or what they should broadcast.
Do we know who recorded the video? Someone planted as a passer-by? Certainly a brave individual to stand there filming someone who has just become a murderer if he was a genuine pedestrian.
ITV certainly do - the person who filmed the video was speaking on News at Ten a few moments ago (although with his identity protected).
I'm undecided on the decision to air the video before 9. It is something of huge public interest and I assume an appropriate warning was given before the video was broadcast. At the same time, this would be something very disturbing to a very large number of people.
I'm fairly certain this type of thing is unprecedented in terms of broadcasting.
I'm fairly certain this type of thing is unprecedented in terms of broadcasting.
Plenty of warning was given prior to the footage being broadcast on News at 6:30 - but exclusive footage or not, I tend to agree that something as potentially traumatic as that shouldn't have been broadcast pre-watershed. I guess this has opened up a can of worms regarding what news programmes can broadcast or what they should broadcast.
BR
It's no more traumatic than images of the aftermath of the Oklahoma tornado and the like.
I agree. The BBC News at Six opened with Sophie reading the headline and then the VT being a random passer by basically repeating what she just said - an absolutely pointless VT, especially in a headline sequence. This added something to it and probably says a lot about society today that the first reaction of folk when they see a stranger getting their head hacked off is to start filming. Wonder if he got more than the £250 that YBF offers!
This is probably more of a political and policing issue than a media issue today but I do think it's wrong to throw the words "terrorist attack" out so early in to the story, effectively glorifying the actions of what could be seen as a random, but isolated act of extreme violence.
I don't see how ITV couldn't air the footage. It was certainly interesting to hear from one of the suspects and to hear him speaking so clearly and calmly too. This is the unanswered question in so many news stories, "why?". In this case we now know, thanks to the video. There is clear edits in the video, I wonder what we weren't shown and who choose not to show it. Frankly, I'd rather see this than keep hearing stupid reports such as 'Government believe it was a terrorist attack' and 'Queen upset by attacks'. This would only be news if the opposite were true, the government for some reason didn't believe it was a terrorist attack and the Queen has come out in support of killing people in the street. Otherwise, it is just filler.
I agree. The BBC News at Six opened with Sophie reading the headline and then the VT being a random passer by basically repeating what she just said - an absolutely pointless VT, especially in a headline sequence. This added something to it and probably says a lot about society today that the first reaction of folk when they see a stranger getting their head hacked off is to start filming. Wonder if he got more than the £250 that YBF offers!
This is probably more of a political and policing issue than a media issue today but I do think it's wrong to throw the words "terrorist attack" out so early in to the story, effectively glorifying the actions of what could be seen as a random, but isolated act of extreme violence.
DA
The next big thing will be the naming of the person who has been killed which will be the cue for the press, increasingly including TV news nowadays it seems, to camp outside the relatives homes and steal pictures from their Facebook and Twitter accounts. I expect they are already doing this, the name of the victim must be known by the media already. I find this more offensive than broadcasting a video of someone with blood on their hands.
WO
She's down my way later today. Funny enough I'll be out reporting!
BBC reporting as breaking news that Buckingham Palace have issued a statement that the Queen is being kept informed. Good, we can all go to sleep free of any concern now we know she is up to date.
She's down my way later today. Funny enough I'll be out reporting!
IS
Although the video of the aftermath of the attack wasn't (as far as I know) uploaded to Twitter or YouTube, it was aired and distributed by a TV news organisation - ITN.
Of course, today might be another watershed moment, where the balance between traditional broadcasting, and 'social media' has undergone another shift ?
Although the video of the aftermath of the attack wasn't (as far as I know) uploaded to Twitter or YouTube, it was aired and distributed by a TV news organisation - ITN.