BBC to delay sensitive news coverage

None of us none the wiser? That means we all notice then?

Tut tut.

good observation

... Contrary to what some thing - putting a delay during LIVE coverage of senstive events could actually bring the pictures to TV screens faster.

At the moment when sensitive pictures from incidents such as suicide bombings are fed into news outlets they are raw and uncut (and upsettingly gruesome).
What producers then have to do is get them edited which can take time, particularly when the edit is intricate at the cuts need to be made in an editing suite.

So with Output Editors being able to see 10 seconds ahead of what a feed is going to show - they can make a judgement call when to cut the feed and hence what is shown. So editors will be more willing to put feeds live-to-air.

And it's preposterous to say that Sky News or ITN will be quicker than the BBC as a result.
We're talking about 10 seconds - not half an hour!

As other people have pointed out, delayed feeds are not at all new.
Ironically, the first time I realised channels were using them, was Sept 11.
Many of use assumed that we were watching the event live "as it unfolded" but actually we didn't see a lot of the gruesome things that were included in TV feeds from the pavements below the World Trade Center, before it collapsed.
That was thanks to delayed feeds.

I grant the fact that many viewers, myself included, don't want to see a live image of someone being killed but there is always the option to look away. When on N24 the strap shows 'Suicide Bombing' with 'Latest Pictures' then it will be obvious (surely) that it may contain gruesome or disturbing scenes and therefore the viewer decides whether or not to look.
If the school I work at was to be taken hostage and then all the students were killed whilst escaping (shown on live television) I can understand why it might want to be cut out but the viewer has the right to the full story and if school children being shot is part of the story then the viewer is entitled to the images and therefore has the choice whether or not to watch. The same principal can be applied to reports classed as disturbing - if you don't think you'd like it, then don't watch.

And would you be happy for your Mother to learn of your death while sitting alone in her flat watching it live on TV?

I would hope that the cameras wouldn't zoom in so much as to show you who is being/has been killed.

THIS IS COMPLETE AND UTTER NONSENSE

I only hope this proves untenable in practice. I can decide for myself if I want to see a particularly harrowing news event or not. As for children, that is their parents responsibility, not editors.

Come on, that's just nonsense. In volatile situations, who knows when someone's going to be killed until it actually happens? Then it's too late to look away. By saying "many viewers" don't want to see someone being killed, you're also suggesting that there are a some viewers who actually do . Sorry, but who are they if they're not just sick voyeurs? The fact is no right minded people actually want to see that kind of thing.

Television news has a responsibility to deliver a story with sensitivity. Graphic footage of people being killed has never been acceptable in pre-packaged reports, so why should it be okay when it's live? It's not a case of sanitising the news, it's just about responsible broadcasting. A good reporter can always get across the impact and severity of a situation without resorting to gore, which in the end will only attract the voyeuristic element.

If you want to believe that, then fine. Think whatever you want to think.

Marcus... over to you.

No it's not. Why do you think it is? Did you read Timmy's post?

Because I work in television news...

None of the news channels "delay live footage"... ... if by that you mean somehow digitally add a few seconds between a feed coming in to the building before being tx'ed....

Yes of course sometimes we record footage, view it as it comes in, then play it out as fast as possible...

But that it just recording, then replaying... NOT quite the same as delaying live footage.

What the BBC is proposing to do is crazy... It won't work in practice... and instead will just mean inexperienced or junior staff at N24 being too scared to broadcast what they fear MIGHT be sensitive footage until it has been approved... thereby handing a small victory to Sky and ITVNC.