BBC News Channel: Presentation

Noisy protesters behind presenters on BBC News Channel.

I'm sick of Leveson and Co, I thought it was the News channel not the Leveson channel. Is it ever going to end ? Is it right that we get hours of it during the day and just a few snatches of News ? Just a thought

On the other hand, is it right that people miss out on important information that is being said at the Leveson Inquiry? It would be the channel to go to for those who want to watch it. They do news updates during the breaks so they do cover over stories.

Although I agree the News Channel are sometimes excessive with their live coverage, I think they definitely should be including the Leveson Inquiry and I'm sure any decisions to dip in/out of the coverage are done by experienced staff.

I think in cases like this it would be better to have live coverage available on the Red Button. Leaving the News to just dip in and out when there were major revelations.

I agree. I think it's a risky decision to stream it live all day. I actually think the BBC News Channel will probably take a dip in viewers on days such as this. The vast majority of people are not interested in Leveson at all. Of those who are interested, I suspect a large number of them only have a mild curiosity - certainly not to the extent of watching it live all day. It'll only be a very small number - probably already involved in politics - who wish to avidly watch every moment live. And for those, there's the red button. Most people today probably switched to the NC, saw Cameron wittering on and prompty left. I think they'd serve their whole audience better if they put Leveson on the red button and carried on with a normal news schedule, dipping into Leveson occasionally.

I actually switched to the online feed at levesoninquiry.org.uk because it is free of any on-screen graphics - not that the graphics aren't helpful, it's just to stop any screen burn from having it on the same channel for the whole day - and free of any interruptions into other coverage, or weather etc.

I would have said that they could dip in and out but leave the uninterrupted coverage to BBC Parliament - however BBC Parliament were broadcasting House of Commons.

I think with Leveson, it is fast becoming one of those stories the media is more interested in (what with it being the media reporting about the media) than the general public actually are.

Raymond Snoddy needs to come into play.

Furthermore, when I was actually looking for a report of what was happening at Leveson none of the news channels were doing any such thing this afternoon. They told me what was happening at that moment, but for a summary of proceedings, I had to go to Al Jazeera, who were as an international channel, reporting on it but not streaming it.

At ponts today Leveson was being shon live on:
* BBC News Channel
* BBC World
* Sky
* Aljazera
* CNN

It would suggest there must be an appetite otherwise why would so many cover it in depth.

I'd be interested to know how often the international channels dip into the Leveson Inquiry, as it would seem likely that today was a special case as it was Mr. Cameron in attendance.

But I do think the wider issue is valid... news channels and in particular the UK's two domestic channels do all too often have vast chunks of the day taken over by live coverage, most of which is not news. Ive watched a lot of the Leveson Inquiry waiting for proper news to come on, the news channels usually get bored of it because nothing being said is new to them. They then switch back to their usual business. I'm not saying there wont be days like today were it is important to show live coverage, but i do believe there should be a Live option for those that want, and a news option for those not interested.

The job of a journalist is to REPORT the story, not to provide the unadulterated drivel of the actual event. This is not dumbing down, it is Delivering Quality First. Live coverage is not quality... not by a long chalk.

Not really. Like Andrew says, the media just love stories about themselves. It also has the advantage of being rather long-winded and ongoing, so it's provided them with hours and hours of material. And I wouldn't agree that just because all the channels are showing it means there's an appetite for it. News channels are like sheep. I've lost count of the times over the years when BBC News has dipped into some live press conference and I've switched to Sky News only to find the same thing on there. I'd be interested to hear how many people outside of the media and Westminster Village you've heard talking about Leveson. I can only think of one person in my circle of friends/colleagues who's mentioned it in passing. And that person is a librarian, so well-educated and aware of issues/current affairs.

I really don't think the vast majority of people care about it at all - especially not live coverage. Maybe when it reaches a conclusion then there might be more widespread interest. At the moment, though, I'd argue it's only people involved in the media and/or politics or those with a strong interest in those areas. I'd like to think I'm politically aware and even I can't be bothered watching all the witnesses in full. It only piques my interest when someone like Murdoch, Blair, Brown, Major and Cameron attend, and even then I only really watch the summary during the news at the end of the day.

You raise a good point, and one that is consistent with comments made by John Major and David Cameron at Leveson (ironically). They said that part of the problem for newspapers is that because of 24 hour TV news channels, news is too immediate nowadays. In years gone by, journalists would attend these types of things and craft a report for the evening news bulletins which conveyed in broad terms what happened. Newspapers came out the next day with more detailed reports and analysis. Now, 24 hour news channels just take the lazy option of streaming these things all day long. I appreciate the journalists still put together reports for evening bulletins which draw various threads together, but for most people once they've seen it live and again in the news bulletins, they're reaching a point of saturation. Hence why the newspapers need to constantly resort to printing garbage just to get people to buy their papers the next day. But hey, maybe I'm just cynical.