ASIA Disaster - Coverage & Discussion

You cannot dispute that Matt Wells' piece in the Guardian is fair.
Yes News 24's coverage of the Asian tsunami has had its weaknesses, and so has Sky's, which he rightfully points out.

It's refreshing that Wells sees through some of Sky's flimsy presenting (no one's lip gloss mentioned) as well as Sky's ticker; which I have always argued is - for a service that touts itself as an international news channel - incredily parochial.

But where Wells' argument, for me, falls flat is when he says that News 24 shouldn't be trying to produce bulletins but rather roll with news.
Wells points out that News 24, following the Lambert report (which said that News 24 should be distinctive from Sky News) doesn't seem to know what it's trying to be.

I think News 24 is absolutely distinctive - it chooses packages and reports over presenters in the region reading wire copy to a camera.
In short Wells seems to be suggesting that, in effect, News 24 would be good - if it were more like Sky.

But then hurrah! to Roger Mosey - his strongest point about ratings.
Isn't it funny that, up until now, everyone has used the same stick when beating News 24; "rubbish because no-one's watching, waste of money, who watches...?" etc.

Suddenly, when News 24, throughout 2004, and during the coverage of the Asian tsunami is beating Sky in the ratings, no one even mentions them. Suddenly ratings are not important.

Apparently now it's important that bosses are in the office on the morning of the story, as early as possible. Suddenly it's BBC management who are to blame etc. etc.

As Mosey points out - more people are now watching News 24 because it's better and the UK public seem to agree.
So perhaps the media correspondents should stop moving the goalposts and judge the channels on what they've achieved, not what one media correspondent thinks they should have done.

Fair, enough?

I imagine it is more the case that more people are watching News 24 because more people are getting Freeview.

As the tendency amongst Freeview-viewers seems to be a natural inclination toward the BBC (unsurprising, given they plug it so frequently) and perhaps a mistrust of Sky, they go for News 24.

On Sky Digital, the exact opposite is true, and Sky News still has a lead over News 24 on that platform.

And again, I suspect the significant lack of any BBC coverage on One and Two made regular BBC News viewers migrate to the channel. They didn't have anywhere else to look.

As for the assertion in the reply that ''we have achieved our higher viewership by being distinctive, not by being imitative.''... just LOOK at your TV screen, Roger.

When it launched, it was the most distinctive news channel in the world. Now it's just looking like a washed out clone. Also find it slightly perplexing that he's tried to turn the argument about viewers on its head, always saying that ''viewers don't matter'', and now he's saying that high viewing figures are a justification of great programming. 12 months ago, he was saying pretty much the opposite.

I think Snu makes a very striking point when he says that the BBC often start out with good intentions and a highbrow attitude, only to capitulate when they see how everyone else is doing things.

By that arguement you've proved that what Matt Wells said was unfair ...

Still continuing to watch the coverage across alll outlets (except ITN - which I cannot get here).

I have observed the following:

Sky still out in front, despite some borderline serious/tabloid stories.

BBC World getting much better as the days progress and as they continue to mobilise senior presenters to the region. (As I only have access to BBC World, I haven't been able to see Sian Williams and George Alagiah presenting live from the scene. As a native Sri Lankan, I am sure that George will bring his own special perspective to the presentation. No slight intended whatsoever to any of the other anchors out there, before someone starts hurling bricks at me again.)

The biggest improvement I have observed though has been in CNN International's presentation and coverage. The seemed slower than most to actually get feet on the street. What they are now presenting though is excellent.

This story is set to stay around for a long time. The Broadcast Outlets have all done a magnificent job in bringing the news to us.

Watching from afar, the one thing that comes across quite significantly about the British involvement is the lack of Tony Blair's involvement. Is he a bit more present on screens in the UK???

James

I wonder if more people watch Sky News on Sky because it is first in the channel numbers. When you choose 'News & Docs' in the menu, the top of the pile is Sky News. On Freeview News 24 is first.

In that report he said that The Welsh has already donated £5 million pounds! At the same time the whole of the UK had given £70 million which considering the population is just over 2 million shows quite a generosity of the Welsh.

I have given twice already and if I pass anymore collections that look legitimate I will donate again.

I am normally a supporter of BBC News 24 but at this moment I am absolutely appauled. At 14.11 amatuer footage that had just been received from Phuket was put onn screen showing a lone child on the beach in the distance seconds before the tsunami struck followed by the child being engulfed by the water. This was totally inappropriate, shocking and I think unnacceptable.

EDIT: The same footage has just been shown again at 14.21 with a warning preceeding it.

Sky News innovates with tsunami disaster ticker

Not sure whether this has been posted yet, but Sky Publicity have put this on the site. Basically it just gives statistics on how the ticker was useful and how they were first to break the news of the Asian tsunami and to put presenters on the scene.

I've seen the footage on Italian television... Personally I don't think that was unacceptable, in my opinion it wasn't more shocking than lots of other pictures and videos we've seen these days.

I saw those pictures and was really shocked. They may not be as graphic as dead bodies, but it is highly likely you are watching someone die on camera, which is usually deemed unacceptable.

The pictures may not have been graphic - no blood or body parts - but I still found them intensely shocking, as did the people I was watching them with.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have been shown - I think this disaster is of a scale that to illustrate the sheer drastic nature of the tragedy you do have to use images that might not have been deemed appropriate previously.

I don't understand this ticker thing. If they can text sky then surely they can text home.

And the chances of anyone they know to be actually watching and reading the ticker at the time the message goes up, must be remote indeed.

Am I missing something