EX
Lead story on CNNI. First headline and first report on the 11pmUK World Report. They were pretty quick to cover the resignation earlier as well (probably helped they had a World Report on air at the time)
Might be worth noting that Entwistle's departure is the second lead story on CNN at the moment.
Lead story on CNNI. First headline and first report on the 11pmUK World Report. They were pretty quick to cover the resignation earlier as well (probably helped they had a World Report on air at the time)
SP
Disappointing but understandable in some respects. The question that remains is who approved that piece for broadcast and didn't see the need to refer it upward to the DG in the circumstances?
Will that individual be taking responsibility for their actions or lack of?
Will that individual be taking responsibility for their actions or lack of?
MA
I'm surprised no one noticed that Sky were using the same camera feed as the BBC for the announcement ?
They cut to the camera outside NBH at 21:01hrs and stayed with it. They seemed confused initially whether the picture was coming from NBH or TVC, but eventually settled on NBH. There were strange finger gestures that kept appearing directly in front of the lens, what were they all about ? Then at 21:10 a rather stroppy BBC Press Officer came out. He shouted out to someone to his left to, 'Give it a rest please ' at which point some music that was playing suddenly stopped, then set out that Entwistle and Pattern would shortly each be making a short statement, and there'd be no questions.
As observed by chance or design the timing managed perfectly to miss the BBC 1 opt out, and the BBC carried the same pictures as Sky for the announcement. Sky didn't cut away quick enough, and caught the camera re- framing on the BBC's Torin Douglas.
What and who were doing the finger gestures, and who was the person playing the music ?
Did ITN use the same BBC provided feed on their report ?
Did they time the announcement to screw their own News Channel? Couldn't have happened at a worse time for BBC One!
I'm surprised no one noticed that Sky were using the same camera feed as the BBC for the announcement ?
They cut to the camera outside NBH at 21:01hrs and stayed with it. They seemed confused initially whether the picture was coming from NBH or TVC, but eventually settled on NBH. There were strange finger gestures that kept appearing directly in front of the lens, what were they all about ? Then at 21:10 a rather stroppy BBC Press Officer came out. He shouted out to someone to his left to, 'Give it a rest please ' at which point some music that was playing suddenly stopped, then set out that Entwistle and Pattern would shortly each be making a short statement, and there'd be no questions.
As observed by chance or design the timing managed perfectly to miss the BBC 1 opt out, and the BBC carried the same pictures as Sky for the announcement. Sky didn't cut away quick enough, and caught the camera re- framing on the BBC's Torin Douglas.
What and who were doing the finger gestures, and who was the person playing the music ?
Did ITN use the same BBC provided feed on their report ?
Last edited by Markymark on 11 November 2012 11:32am
TH
The finger gestures were put down to the cameraman adjusting the camera by the Sky News presenter. When the press officer came out, someone was playing what sounded like the Imperial March from Star Wars.
What and who were doing the finger gestures, and who was the person playing the music ?
Did ITN use the same BBC provided feed on their report ?
Did ITN use the same BBC provided feed on their report ?
The finger gestures were put down to the cameraman adjusting the camera by the Sky News presenter. When the press officer came out, someone was playing what sounded like the Imperial March from Star Wars.
MA
The finger gestures were put down to the cameraman adjusting the camera by the Sky News presenter. When the press officer came out, someone was playing what sounded like the Imperial March from Star Wars.
Well, yes Sky also implied it was their camera, which it seems it wasn't. Very odd, mind you it's odd all the News channels seem to think it's acceptable to have a camera that's still being lined up, or fixed on an empty chair etc put to air !
What and who were doing the finger gestures, and who was the person playing the music ?
Did ITN use the same BBC provided feed on their report ?
Did ITN use the same BBC provided feed on their report ?
The finger gestures were put down to the cameraman adjusting the camera by the Sky News presenter. When the press officer came out, someone was playing what sounded like the Imperial March from Star Wars.
Well, yes Sky also implied it was their camera, which it seems it wasn't. Very odd, mind you it's odd all the News channels seem to think it's acceptable to have a camera that's still being lined up, or fixed on an empty chair etc put to air !
BR
Exactly. Although with any top job it is expected that the boss knows everything ultimately they can't - John Humphreys seems shocked that the DG might have a life outside work and not sit in watching every single broadcast just in case something happens.
Although perhaps the BBC provided the smoke and in hindsight once they'd decided not to name the politician they probably shouldn't have run the investigation (though completely understandable why they did in light of recent events) it was Twitter users who provided the fire. I don't see Twitter's management being held to account for it.
IMO Twitter is one of the worst things to happen to free speech in history - the idea may be brilliant, but the freedom people feel they have on Twitter, all in one place, to share their thoughts and conspiracies means the thought police are very much alive in the 21st century. Indeed it was probably the BBC tweeting that they had this story to run which meant they couldn't back track on it in the end and had to run it even if in the meantime they'd been advised they didn't have the evidence to name and shame.
Disappointing but understandable in some respects. The question that remains is who approved that piece for broadcast and didn't see the need to refer it upward to the DG in the circumstances?
Will that individual be taking responsibility for their actions or lack of?
Will that individual be taking responsibility for their actions or lack of?
Exactly. Although with any top job it is expected that the boss knows everything ultimately they can't - John Humphreys seems shocked that the DG might have a life outside work and not sit in watching every single broadcast just in case something happens.
Although perhaps the BBC provided the smoke and in hindsight once they'd decided not to name the politician they probably shouldn't have run the investigation (though completely understandable why they did in light of recent events) it was Twitter users who provided the fire. I don't see Twitter's management being held to account for it.
IMO Twitter is one of the worst things to happen to free speech in history - the idea may be brilliant, but the freedom people feel they have on Twitter, all in one place, to share their thoughts and conspiracies means the thought police are very much alive in the 21st century. Indeed it was probably the BBC tweeting that they had this story to run which meant they couldn't back track on it in the end and had to run it even if in the meantime they'd been advised they didn't have the evidence to name and shame.
WO
The finger gestures were put down to the cameraman adjusting the camera by the Sky News presenter. When the press officer came out, someone was playing what sounded like the Imperial March from Star Wars.
Well, yes Sky also implied it was their camera, which it seems it wasn't. Very odd, mind you it's odd all the News channels seem to think it's acceptable to have a camera that's still being lined up, or fixed on an empty chair etc put to air !
Does anyone have any video of the said incident and what happened with the News channel?
I didn't see the said incident, but were the finger gestures not a countdown to the gallery to know how long it would be until the start of the press conference, or when the camera operator was happy to go live?
Was it not a pooled live being sent out? Quite often during weekends most broadcasters pool live shots of press conferences etc due to resources being at a minimum (and they all take turns). Did it not make sense due to it happening on the BBC's own doorstep, for them to pool the footage?
The BBC did have another camera shot, to the right (our left) of Entwistle and Patten which wasn't cut to during the live conference, but has been used in reports showing the ex-DG and Lord Pattern coming out the revolving doors at NBH. It showed only two television cameras broadcasting the press conference. Sky might very well have been caught off guard and not had chance to get a team down to NBH.
What and who were doing the finger gestures, and who was the person playing the music ?
Did ITN use the same BBC provided feed on their report ?
Did ITN use the same BBC provided feed on their report ?
The finger gestures were put down to the cameraman adjusting the camera by the Sky News presenter. When the press officer came out, someone was playing what sounded like the Imperial March from Star Wars.
Well, yes Sky also implied it was their camera, which it seems it wasn't. Very odd, mind you it's odd all the News channels seem to think it's acceptable to have a camera that's still being lined up, or fixed on an empty chair etc put to air !
Does anyone have any video of the said incident and what happened with the News channel?
I didn't see the said incident, but were the finger gestures not a countdown to the gallery to know how long it would be until the start of the press conference, or when the camera operator was happy to go live?
I'm surprised no one noticed that Sky were using the same camera feed as the BBC ?
Was it not a pooled live being sent out? Quite often during weekends most broadcasters pool live shots of press conferences etc due to resources being at a minimum (and they all take turns). Did it not make sense due to it happening on the BBC's own doorstep, for them to pool the footage?
The BBC did have another camera shot, to the right (our left) of Entwistle and Patten which wasn't cut to during the live conference, but has been used in reports showing the ex-DG and Lord Pattern coming out the revolving doors at NBH. It showed only two television cameras broadcasting the press conference. Sky might very well have been caught off guard and not had chance to get a team down to NBH.
Last edited by Worzel on 11 November 2012 1:31pm - 11 times in total
IT
Exactly. Although with any top job it is expected that the boss knows everything ultimately they can't - John Humphreys seems shocked that the DG might have a life outside work and not sit in watching every single broadcast just in case something happens.
Although perhaps the BBC provided the smoke and in hindsight once they'd decided not to name the politician they probably shouldn't have run the investigation (though completely understandable why they did in light of recent events) it was Twitter users who provided the fire. I don't see Twitter's management being held to account for it.
IMO Twitter is one of the worst things to happen to free speech in history - the idea may be brilliant, but the freedom people feel they have on Twitter, all in one place, to share their thoughts and conspiracies means the thought police are very much alive in the 21st century. Indeed it was probably the BBC tweeting that they had this story to run which meant they couldn't back track on it in the end and had to run it even if in the meantime they'd been advised they didn't have the evidence to name and shame.
I pondered the same thing this morning when watching Lord Patten's interview on Andrew Marr. I've wondered for a long time when the immediacy and freedom of the Twitter era would catch up with the BBC (or any media outlet for that matter). It's all well and good having free speech, but it comes with responsibility, a point often forgotten. For a few years now the BBC has been promoting Twitter here, there and everywhere and I thought right at the outset that it was potentially dangerous for them. Their rigorous and thorough fact-checking requirements just don't sit well with Twitter. I appreciate that in this case Twitter wasn't the main cause - the BBC should have double checked their story with the victim - but it's the culture of immediacy caused by the Internet, and in particular Twitter, that creates a sloppiness in journalistic standards. Media outlets are too concerned with being first with a story and not focused enough on getting the facts correct. I wonder whether it would have blown up in quite the same way 30 years ago?
itsrobert
Founding member
Disappointing but understandable in some respects. The question that remains is who approved that piece for broadcast and didn't see the need to refer it upward to the DG in the circumstances?
Will that individual be taking responsibility for their actions or lack of?
Will that individual be taking responsibility for their actions or lack of?
Exactly. Although with any top job it is expected that the boss knows everything ultimately they can't - John Humphreys seems shocked that the DG might have a life outside work and not sit in watching every single broadcast just in case something happens.
Although perhaps the BBC provided the smoke and in hindsight once they'd decided not to name the politician they probably shouldn't have run the investigation (though completely understandable why they did in light of recent events) it was Twitter users who provided the fire. I don't see Twitter's management being held to account for it.
IMO Twitter is one of the worst things to happen to free speech in history - the idea may be brilliant, but the freedom people feel they have on Twitter, all in one place, to share their thoughts and conspiracies means the thought police are very much alive in the 21st century. Indeed it was probably the BBC tweeting that they had this story to run which meant they couldn't back track on it in the end and had to run it even if in the meantime they'd been advised they didn't have the evidence to name and shame.
I pondered the same thing this morning when watching Lord Patten's interview on Andrew Marr. I've wondered for a long time when the immediacy and freedom of the Twitter era would catch up with the BBC (or any media outlet for that matter). It's all well and good having free speech, but it comes with responsibility, a point often forgotten. For a few years now the BBC has been promoting Twitter here, there and everywhere and I thought right at the outset that it was potentially dangerous for them. Their rigorous and thorough fact-checking requirements just don't sit well with Twitter. I appreciate that in this case Twitter wasn't the main cause - the BBC should have double checked their story with the victim - but it's the culture of immediacy caused by the Internet, and in particular Twitter, that creates a sloppiness in journalistic standards. Media outlets are too concerned with being first with a story and not focused enough on getting the facts correct. I wonder whether it would have blown up in quite the same way 30 years ago?