ASIA Disaster - Coverage & Discussion

Oh sweet lord, cat takes an opposing view to someone or something. I think the earth just briefly stopped rotating again. What's that I can hear? Sounds like someone riding their high horse so I will keep this brief as I am sure it will lead to a tirade of lengthy responses from your good self.

a) (To be as much of a pedant as you are) You really must be a penurious eff-wit if who you donate money to is based on the most minor details of the recording of the appeal. Once again is it not the disaster itself which leads you to donate as opposed to your homoerotic adoration of Jeremy Thompson standing in the holiday destination of a lifetime?

b) (Being a pendant is quite dull, I don't know how you can do it day after day) By having the news gathering resources of the BBC coupled with information and footage from the world's television and newsgathering organisations will Anna Jones not be just as well informed about the situation as anyone on the ground? Since it was not just Phuket that was affected but rather countries spanning two continents, then 'our man in Thailand' brings little gravitas than having a range of journalists across the area.

Do get back on topic - does anyone know roughly how many foreign journalists there are in the Indonesian Province of Aceh? For many years the perceived situation has been too dangerous to get journalists in due to the sepratist violence, but since sunday I have seen two BBC correspondents, including the excellent Rachel Harvey, as well as one ITN reporter. Does anyone know who else is there?

Julie Etchingham in Phuket just passed over to Martin Stanford in Sri Lanka, who then interviewed two survivors who were in Millbank.

Sky's coverage is, dare I say it, very slick. I wonder if they'll be getting Bruce to record some "in Indonesia" and "in Thailand" tags for the top of the hour?

I really don’t think it’s necessary to be that personal. Cat was making a valid point insofar as a presenter actually amidst the disaster recovery will be better placed to interview, report and present compared to presenters stationed behind desks in London.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it does help to know that the person reading the autocue does so with the knowledge of the situation up close. You may not agree, but I find it helps as do many others. There is such a thing as choice and if you really find how Sky are reporting the situation that offensive then you should simply switch over to one of the other 2 news networks, each of which are doing it slightly differently.

You have to also remember that Sky doesn’t have a bottomless pit of skilled correspondents as the BBC do. Multitasking is the order of the day for Sky when these situations unfold; you’ll note that all presenters when not on screen have been filing reports.

a) (To be as much of a pedant as you are) You really must be a penurious eff-wit if who you donate money to is based on the most minor details of the recording of the appeal. Once again is it not the disaster itself which leads you to donate as opposed to your homoerotic adoration of Jeremy Thompson standing in the holiday destination of a lifetime?

What a logical, reasoned, and well argued point. Obviously that was EXACTLY what I was trying to say. What a sensitive and intelligent argument you do make. You pillock.

Had you read it in a little more detail, perhaps you would have understood better.

In terms of the impact a segment is going to have, and therefore the number of donations it will prompt, I think having someone actually there, witnessing the suffering, telling you to donate has a little more resonance with people than someone sitting thousands of miles away in London who has just had his hair and make-up done.

Under your suggestion, perhaps we should put a clown on television and get him to tell us about donating, because that would have the same impact as anyone else.

Do you not think that putting a suffering child on television asking for help would have greater impact than putting a man in a suit asking for help? Presumably you have such a weak grasp of human emotion that you can't quite comprehend that.

b) (Being a pendant is quite dull, I don't know how you can do it day after day) By having the news gathering resources of the BBC coupled with information and footage from the world's television and newsgathering organisations will Anna Jones not be just as well informed about the situation as anyone on the ground? Since it was not just Phuket that was affected but rather countries spanning two continents, then 'our man in Thailand' brings little gravitas than having a range of journalists across the area.

No, Anna Jones will NOT be just as informed as anyone on the ground. Of course she will not be. What on Earth are you suggesting? That someone who is thousands of miles away genuinely has a better comprehension of the impact of the disaster than someone who is actually there? That someone in an air conditioned studio in London can quite grasp the impact of the tragedy and formulate their line of questioning around that from wire reports snatched from Reuters in the same way as someone standing amongst people searching for their relatives bodies in hospitals?

That's not necessarily the case - it is quite possible that someone in London will have a better overview of the situation than someone on the ground.

Most of the terrestrial bulletins have led with an overview package filed from London rather than the particular stories of particular places from the correspondents in the region.

1) I agree Cat. An anchor out on the ground will of course be better informed about what is going on - IN HIS IMMEDIATE VICINITY.

2) However, the anchor in the studio has three screens in front of her which will display all the wires - GLOBALLY.

2), above could function and perform without 1). But not the other way round, unless Jeremy's Thompson and Bowen have their computers set up in front of them on Phuket beach.

I guess that the wires info is fed to the beach based anchor down his ear, either from London or from a regional control room (or van), which replicates what the London based anchor sees. Would that be correct?

Providing a balanced view, I think that a mixture of both is actually the best solution for the viewer, who enjoys having a combination of senior studio anchor and a field based colleague linking live inwards.

I'd imagine it would be



cf Comic Relief

Seriously, though, you clearly have different opinions on the matter, you've made your points, would it be too much to ask for you to just agree to disagree? Even if it's only for the sake of stopping the thread becoming mindlessly dull?

Unfortunately the deaths have gone up to 112,000 people. See Here

DEATH TOLL : 123,000
source:sky news

This truly is horrible isn't it. You feel like getting on a plane and going out there to just try and help somehow. Sitting here in the UK watching is getting very uncomfortable.

I'm a Scout Leader and half of the world's Scouts are in the effected region - Indonesia is the country with the most Scouts in the world. I'll be certainly trying to do something to help them.

Most people will be watching general entertainment channels. Remember there are still plenty folk without access to the news channels (especially ITVNC which is still missing from Freeview, the most popular digital platform 1 )

There is also this little thing called Christmas occuring here at the moment which means people will be more concerned with family films and comedy than depressing things like this.


1. (Freeview is more popular than Sky now isn't it?)

we're not talking about being informed though are we, we're talking about how the coverage can get people to donate. Someone being in the area where this has occured is far more likely to make someone donate money than a presenter in a studio in London.

Anyone who tries to suggest that people are not that shallow really has a weak grasp of reality.