HO
True but does it need proper coverage? Couldn't something just be stuck on the ticker or occasionally mention it. Personally I felt the one/ N24 made too much of it all - how can 10 seconds of something experts say happens all the time deserve so much on-air time?
Jugalug posted:
I'm not sure which side I'm on at the moment, but surely your point about the time is silly, as people will be tuning in to get reassurance?
IT
You know, a country doesn't just stop overnight. Millions of people work shifts and are awake during the wee hours. If you've ever been in a large city at night then you'll definitely know not everyone goes to bed. The first time I went to New York, I was astonished at the amount of traffic and people knocking about at 3am! Furthermore, the earthquake woke people up and they proceeded to put the TV on. On that particular night, I wouldn't be surprised if more UK viewers than normal were watching TV.
itsrobert
Founding member
imnogoth posted:
Oh please...
It was a minor earthquake - yes perhaps a bigger one than the UK normally gets, but none the less it did no real harm...
A few chimneys collapsed
A man broke his hip
Yes it should get coverage, but at 2 in the morning when they are simulcasting it doesn't need hours of coverage. It's not as if they have many on-scene correspondents at that time.
And actually I would find it deeply offensive if I was involved in the Tsunami and heard all the coverage over a minor earth quake.
If you want N24 to broadcast 24 hours a day - a complete waste of resource - then fine... but other parts of the beeb will loose out, such as News resources, documentaries and even other departments like drama or sport.
The majority of viewers watching at this time must be watching World - after all it was 2 in the morning here - some could argue there isn't even a need for a 24 hour news channel [though this isn't necessarily my view]
It was a minor earthquake - yes perhaps a bigger one than the UK normally gets, but none the less it did no real harm...
A few chimneys collapsed
A man broke his hip
Yes it should get coverage, but at 2 in the morning when they are simulcasting it doesn't need hours of coverage. It's not as if they have many on-scene correspondents at that time.
And actually I would find it deeply offensive if I was involved in the Tsunami and heard all the coverage over a minor earth quake.
If you want N24 to broadcast 24 hours a day - a complete waste of resource - then fine... but other parts of the beeb will loose out, such as News resources, documentaries and even other departments like drama or sport.
The majority of viewers watching at this time must be watching World - after all it was 2 in the morning here - some could argue there isn't even a need for a 24 hour news channel [though this isn't necessarily my view]
You know, a country doesn't just stop overnight. Millions of people work shifts and are awake during the wee hours. If you've ever been in a large city at night then you'll definitely know not everyone goes to bed. The first time I went to New York, I was astonished at the amount of traffic and people knocking about at 3am! Furthermore, the earthquake woke people up and they proceeded to put the TV on. On that particular night, I wouldn't be surprised if more UK viewers than normal were watching TV.
BR
A minor correction (that doesn't really affect the rest of your point): Overseas viewers do fund BBC World. A part of my cable bill goes to fund the two BBC services I get on cable, BBC World and BBC Prime. They are subscription services, after all, not PSBs. They also show advertising.
That's true, but the channel at issue here is News 24, not World. By not covering the UK earthquake, the BBC were pandering to the global audience and letting down the domestic. My overall point is that the BBC is a British institution and should, at all times, give preference to UK viewers, not international. In an ideal world, News 24, World and BBC One would be separate all the time. Obviously, that can't happen financially. However, if placed in the position they were last week, I think the BBC should be more focussed on domestic viewers than global.
Exactly - and international viewers should accept they have chosen to watch the news from the "British Broadcasting Corporation", so really are in no position to complain if on occasions a breaking British story gets more coverage on BBC World than perhaps it otherwise would.
And the excuse about offending people affected by the Tsunami is political correctness gone mad.
itsrobert posted:
WW Update posted:
itsrobert posted:
British viewers who wanted to see coverage of the earthquake should not have been compromised because of viewers elsewhere in the world who don't even fund the BBC.
A minor correction (that doesn't really affect the rest of your point): Overseas viewers do fund BBC World. A part of my cable bill goes to fund the two BBC services I get on cable, BBC World and BBC Prime. They are subscription services, after all, not PSBs. They also show advertising.
That's true, but the channel at issue here is News 24, not World. By not covering the UK earthquake, the BBC were pandering to the global audience and letting down the domestic. My overall point is that the BBC is a British institution and should, at all times, give preference to UK viewers, not international. In an ideal world, News 24, World and BBC One would be separate all the time. Obviously, that can't happen financially. However, if placed in the position they were last week, I think the BBC should be more focussed on domestic viewers than global.
Exactly - and international viewers should accept they have chosen to watch the news from the "British Broadcasting Corporation", so really are in no position to complain if on occasions a breaking British story gets more coverage on BBC World than perhaps it otherwise would.
And the excuse about offending people affected by the Tsunami is political correctness gone mad.
AN
The very basic idea of what a news programme is about took place on Wednesday night. Something happens and people tune in to find out what
I like many millions of people woke up and after being shaken didn't know if it was a localised issue, was my house about to fall down, had a bomb gone off in the next street? It would have been reassuring to find out it was an earthquake
When I put BBC News 24 on BBC2 on, they were talking about the US Elections so I was none the wiser what had happened until 7am next morning
I can't help but feel that if the quake had been felt in London it would have got more coverage, the excuse given on Newswatch was pittiful to the extreme
BBC News 24 seems to be taking all the worst parts of the ITV News Channel that people used to rant about on a daily basis on here. I bet if they were still around, they would have covered it faster
Andrew
Founding member
imnogoth posted:
Oh please...
It was a minor earthquake - yes perhaps a bigger one than the UK normally gets, but none the less it did no real harm...
A few chimneys collapsed
A man broke his hip
Yes it should get coverage, but at 2 in the morning when they are simulcasting it doesn't need hours of coverage. It's not as if they have many on-scene correspondents at that time.
And actually I would find it deeply offensive if I was involved in the Tsunami and heard all the coverage over a minor earth quake.
If you want N24 to broadcast 24 hours a day - a complete waste of resource - then fine... but other parts of the beeb will loose out, such as News resources, documentaries and even other departments like drama or sport.
The majority of viewers watching at this time must be watching World - after all it was 2 in the morning here - some could argue there isn't even a need for a 24 hour news channel [though this isn't necessarily my view]
It was a minor earthquake - yes perhaps a bigger one than the UK normally gets, but none the less it did no real harm...
A few chimneys collapsed
A man broke his hip
Yes it should get coverage, but at 2 in the morning when they are simulcasting it doesn't need hours of coverage. It's not as if they have many on-scene correspondents at that time.
And actually I would find it deeply offensive if I was involved in the Tsunami and heard all the coverage over a minor earth quake.
If you want N24 to broadcast 24 hours a day - a complete waste of resource - then fine... but other parts of the beeb will loose out, such as News resources, documentaries and even other departments like drama or sport.
The majority of viewers watching at this time must be watching World - after all it was 2 in the morning here - some could argue there isn't even a need for a 24 hour news channel [though this isn't necessarily my view]
The very basic idea of what a news programme is about took place on Wednesday night. Something happens and people tune in to find out what
I like many millions of people woke up and after being shaken didn't know if it was a localised issue, was my house about to fall down, had a bomb gone off in the next street? It would have been reassuring to find out it was an earthquake
When I put BBC News 24 on BBC2 on, they were talking about the US Elections so I was none the wiser what had happened until 7am next morning
I can't help but feel that if the quake had been felt in London it would have got more coverage, the excuse given on Newswatch was pittiful to the extreme
BBC News 24 seems to be taking all the worst parts of the ITV News Channel that people used to rant about on a daily basis on here. I bet if they were still around, they would have covered it faster
IT
A minor correction (that doesn't really affect the rest of your point): Overseas viewers do fund BBC World. A part of my cable bill goes to fund the two BBC services I get on cable, BBC World and BBC Prime. They are subscription services, after all, not PSBs. They also show advertising.
That's true, but the channel at issue here is News 24, not World. By not covering the UK earthquake, the BBC were pandering to the global audience and letting down the domestic. My overall point is that the BBC is a British institution and should, at all times, give preference to UK viewers, not international. In an ideal world, News 24, World and BBC One would be separate all the time. Obviously, that can't happen financially. However, if placed in the position they were last week, I think the BBC should be more focussed on domestic viewers than global.
Exactly - and international viewers should accept they have chosen to watch the news from the "British Broadcasting Corporation", so really are in no position to complain if on occasions a breaking British story gets more coverage on BBC World than perhaps it otherwise would.
And the excuse about offending people affected by the Tsunami is political correctness gone mad.
Good point. If CNN International's "World" News can be so US-centred on a regular basis, I don't see why it matters if BBC World is a tad UK-centred every now and then. I'm sure the expats would have been interested in the earthquake, too.
itsrobert
Founding member
Brekkie posted:
itsrobert posted:
WW Update posted:
itsrobert posted:
British viewers who wanted to see coverage of the earthquake should not have been compromised because of viewers elsewhere in the world who don't even fund the BBC.
A minor correction (that doesn't really affect the rest of your point): Overseas viewers do fund BBC World. A part of my cable bill goes to fund the two BBC services I get on cable, BBC World and BBC Prime. They are subscription services, after all, not PSBs. They also show advertising.
That's true, but the channel at issue here is News 24, not World. By not covering the UK earthquake, the BBC were pandering to the global audience and letting down the domestic. My overall point is that the BBC is a British institution and should, at all times, give preference to UK viewers, not international. In an ideal world, News 24, World and BBC One would be separate all the time. Obviously, that can't happen financially. However, if placed in the position they were last week, I think the BBC should be more focussed on domestic viewers than global.
Exactly - and international viewers should accept they have chosen to watch the news from the "British Broadcasting Corporation", so really are in no position to complain if on occasions a breaking British story gets more coverage on BBC World than perhaps it otherwise would.
And the excuse about offending people affected by the Tsunami is political correctness gone mad.
Good point. If CNN International's "World" News can be so US-centred on a regular basis, I don't see why it matters if BBC World is a tad UK-centred every now and then. I'm sure the expats would have been interested in the earthquake, too.
AN
Just because millions of people didn't die because of it, doesn't mean it was not a newsworthy story. Like others have said, I was awake when it happened and turned onto the news channels to see if it was a local thing or not. Sky News handled it excellently - I'd be interested to see the viewing figures for both channels for that night because I stuck with Sky for most of it.
imnogoth posted:
Oh please...
It was a minor earthquake - yes perhaps a bigger one than the UK normally gets, but none the less it did no real harm...
A few chimneys collapsed
A man broke his hip
It was a minor earthquake - yes perhaps a bigger one than the UK normally gets, but none the less it did no real harm...
A few chimneys collapsed
A man broke his hip
Just because millions of people didn't die because of it, doesn't mean it was not a newsworthy story. Like others have said, I was awake when it happened and turned onto the news channels to see if it was a local thing or not. Sky News handled it excellently - I'd be interested to see the viewing figures for both channels for that night because I stuck with Sky for most of it.
HO
Just because millions of people didn't die because of it, doesn't mean it was not a newsworthy story. Like others have said, I was awake when it happened and turned onto the news channels to see if it was a local thing or not. Sky News handled it excellently - I'd be interested to see the viewing figures for both channels for that night because I stuck with Sky for most of it.
And that's fine, all I'm saying is that when at 2 in the morning an international news service is running, an event like the earthquake shouldn't take over coverage - most of the people in the UK won't have woken up/ turned on their TV, let alone all those around the world who really don't care. Come back to it every now and then, but otherwise keep your normal schedule. Help information for example could be stuck the ticker...
Also, bare in mind that the majority of nights not enough people are watching and there isnt enough really important breaking news to produce different bullitens, so I agree with their decision to simulcast. How many science correspondents are around at 2 in the morning? The only meterologists (if they're the right people) awake for the earthquake aren't going to be appearing on news 24 - they're going to be investigating.
all new Phil posted:
imnogoth posted:
Oh please...
It was a minor earthquake - yes perhaps a bigger one than the UK normally gets, but none the less it did no real harm...
A few chimneys collapsed
A man broke his hip
It was a minor earthquake - yes perhaps a bigger one than the UK normally gets, but none the less it did no real harm...
A few chimneys collapsed
A man broke his hip
Just because millions of people didn't die because of it, doesn't mean it was not a newsworthy story. Like others have said, I was awake when it happened and turned onto the news channels to see if it was a local thing or not. Sky News handled it excellently - I'd be interested to see the viewing figures for both channels for that night because I stuck with Sky for most of it.
Also, bare in mind that the majority of nights not enough people are watching and there isnt enough really important breaking news to produce different bullitens, so I agree with their decision to simulcast. How many science correspondents are around at 2 in the morning? The only meterologists (if they're the right people) awake for the earthquake aren't going to be appearing on news 24 - they're going to be investigating.
IT
Just because millions of people didn't die because of it, doesn't mean it was not a newsworthy story. Like others have said, I was awake when it happened and turned onto the news channels to see if it was a local thing or not. Sky News handled it excellently - I'd be interested to see the viewing figures for both channels for that night because I stuck with Sky for most of it.
And that's fine, all I'm saying is that when at 2 in the morning an international news service is running, an event like the earthquake shouldn't take over coverage - most of the people in the UK won't have woken up/ turned on their TV, let alone all those around the world who really don't care. Come back to it every now and then, but otherwise keep your normal schedule. Help information for example could be stuck the ticker...
Also, bare in mind that the majority of nights not enough people are watching and there isnt enough really important breaking news to produce different bullitens, so I agree with their decision to simulcast. How many science correspondents are around at 2 in the morning? The only meterologists (if they're the right people) awake for the earthquake aren't going to be appearing on news 24 - they're going to be investigating.
Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. The earthquake (love it or hate it) was a big domestic news story. Like it or not, as Andrew said, it's the sort of story that prompts people to watch the news. The fact is that there was a demand from the British public, who directly fund News 24, for coverage of the event. The timing of it shouldn't be an issue. Whether it is 2am or 2pm makes absolutely no difference. There should be a mechanism in place to allow for serious domestic news without international ramifications to be covered in depth on News 24. If that means World viewers have to put up with a bit of UK news for a while, then so be it. They aren't directly funding BBC News 24 so should not have any part to play in the editorial decisions of News 24. Would it not have been a more sensible idea to repeat the last BBC World bulletin on World to allow News 24 to break away? Surely World viewers could have made do with a recorded bulletin for an hour so British viewers could be brought up to speed?
The situation that night is going to happen a lot more often now that BBC One bulletins are going to be simulcast on News 24. Unless the breaking news is of earth-shattering proportions (i.e. September 11th) BBC One is not going to want to roll with breaking news. Their viewers demand a round-up of the news. They can't just abandon the One O'Clock News because a verdict has come through from the High Court. News 24 viewers, on the other hand, will expect such rolling coverage. This situation is going to lead to a lot of missed opportunities for News 24 unless a mechanism can be put in place to split the channels. Otherwise, viewers will just jump ship - they aren't that loyal.
itsrobert
Founding member
imnogoth posted:
all new Phil posted:
imnogoth posted:
Oh please...
It was a minor earthquake - yes perhaps a bigger one than the UK normally gets, but none the less it did no real harm...
A few chimneys collapsed
A man broke his hip
It was a minor earthquake - yes perhaps a bigger one than the UK normally gets, but none the less it did no real harm...
A few chimneys collapsed
A man broke his hip
Just because millions of people didn't die because of it, doesn't mean it was not a newsworthy story. Like others have said, I was awake when it happened and turned onto the news channels to see if it was a local thing or not. Sky News handled it excellently - I'd be interested to see the viewing figures for both channels for that night because I stuck with Sky for most of it.
Also, bare in mind that the majority of nights not enough people are watching and there isnt enough really important breaking news to produce different bullitens, so I agree with their decision to simulcast. How many science correspondents are around at 2 in the morning? The only meterologists (if they're the right people) awake for the earthquake aren't going to be appearing on news 24 - they're going to be investigating.
Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. The earthquake (love it or hate it) was a big domestic news story. Like it or not, as Andrew said, it's the sort of story that prompts people to watch the news. The fact is that there was a demand from the British public, who directly fund News 24, for coverage of the event. The timing of it shouldn't be an issue. Whether it is 2am or 2pm makes absolutely no difference. There should be a mechanism in place to allow for serious domestic news without international ramifications to be covered in depth on News 24. If that means World viewers have to put up with a bit of UK news for a while, then so be it. They aren't directly funding BBC News 24 so should not have any part to play in the editorial decisions of News 24. Would it not have been a more sensible idea to repeat the last BBC World bulletin on World to allow News 24 to break away? Surely World viewers could have made do with a recorded bulletin for an hour so British viewers could be brought up to speed?
The situation that night is going to happen a lot more often now that BBC One bulletins are going to be simulcast on News 24. Unless the breaking news is of earth-shattering proportions (i.e. September 11th) BBC One is not going to want to roll with breaking news. Their viewers demand a round-up of the news. They can't just abandon the One O'Clock News because a verdict has come through from the High Court. News 24 viewers, on the other hand, will expect such rolling coverage. This situation is going to lead to a lot of missed opportunities for News 24 unless a mechanism can be put in place to split the channels. Otherwise, viewers will just jump ship - they aren't that loyal.
DO
I think they should have interrupted the international coverage for a few seconds just to say "we are recieving reports of a minor earthquake around the UK, we'll bring you updates as we get them", and then use the ticker to state a full report will come soon. When it happened, there wasn't anything to report, so there's no point dropping the schedule and running with such a minor (in a global scale) event. The half an hour between the earthquake and them reporting the details should have allowed them long enough to get some info on what / how / where.
One of my problems with Sky News is how happy they are to drop everything and run with breaking news, even if 30 minutes later it's decided it's a non-event and they go back to where they are. I'd much rather be informed that something has happened and that there will be regular updates as they find out more.
I'm getting the impression that with all the changes happening to BBC News, the people at the sharp end are either not quite as on the ball, or they're not getting as much support from above as they were a few months ago, and that's a shame. I'm hoping that once they all get the chance to settle down again, the standards will rise back up to what they were, and we expect of BBC News.
One of my problems with Sky News is how happy they are to drop everything and run with breaking news, even if 30 minutes later it's decided it's a non-event and they go back to where they are. I'd much rather be informed that something has happened and that there will be regular updates as they find out more.
I'm getting the impression that with all the changes happening to BBC News, the people at the sharp end are either not quite as on the ball, or they're not getting as much support from above as they were a few months ago, and that's a shame. I'm hoping that once they all get the chance to settle down again, the standards will rise back up to what they were, and we expect of BBC News.
BR
I see with the rugby and FA Cup dominating the BBC1 schedules, the news and regional news has been moved to BBC2 at teatime on Saturday - which probably does make sense for the national bulletin (though it could have fitted in around 7.30pm on BBC1) - but considering for the regional news viewers in England will have to switch to analogue, I'm surprised they're still allowed to do that.