BBC News Mandela Coverage

Flood defences have improved since then - this was a lesser tidal surge in any case. With the Environment Agency's excellent flood predictions and warnings, and much improved communications, there really was little need for coverage overnight in public service terms - it would also be very unlikely there would be developments or developments reported at that time.

There was enough coverage at the appropriate times.

Fact 1: severe storms left thousands displaced from their homes. The impact on those and their families and friends was considerable.
Fact 2: the Chancellor's Autumn Statement directly affects 63 million people.
Fact 3: Mandela's death, whilst sad and a time for reflection, has no immediate impact. He's no longer president and has been a grandee/father figure at the most for quite some time.

Now, on a bog standard news day, Mandela should quite rightly have had significant coverage. But not - I would argue - when there were 2 important domestic stories of the day. No one here is saying Mandela should have received NO coverage. But it should have been balanced.

The Autumn Statement coverage was repeated on BBC Parliament, and Question Time was shown on BBC Two, which would doubtless have debate about the Autumn Statement. It's not as if the implications of it would not be discussed later.

Mandela's death has an effect on a great many South Africans, black people, and many who were inspired by one of the greatest people of the last century.

Consider the OP posted this within hours of Mandela's death, didn't listen to reasonable explanations of why that decision had been taken, ratcheted up the rhetoric on this, and basically dismissed every reasonable thought on this, I have a serious issue with the whole thread. Saying you know better than people who have been trained in and paid well to make these kinds of editorial decision, is someone who has a serious issue with reality, imho. Yes, we all have opinions about it, but that doesn't make any of us right, nor does it mean that the BBC should do what we want them to do.

I would want them not to give airtime to the BNP and UKIP. But at the end of the day, I know the BBC has to cover stories that I don't want to know about simply because other people do want to know about these stories. The BBC is not there for my personal gratification nor anybody else's and to post that you want them to do what you want, and then in the same breath to deny it, well, it is frankly unbeliveable.

I'm a busy person - I didn't want to watch verbatim coverage of the Autumn Statement on BBC Parliament, nor did I want to wait up half the night to try and unpick the salient points from questions and answers on Question Time. What I wanted was to watch the Ten O'Clock News and to find a report summing up the points and Nick Robinson et al with some analysis. That does not mean to say that I wasn't interested in Mandela; quite the contrary, I watched some of the obituaries but is it so unreasonable to expect the BBC to give some balanced coverage to the news of the day. What was gained by showing Mandela coverage for 8 hours straight? Except to piss off people who wanted to hear other news?

Up here in Sheffield, about as far from the coast as you can get, generally I couldn't care less about a storm surge.

But for my parents, living three miles away from the sea in the middle of rural Norfolk, its a different matter. I know people who were evacuated last night, and I wanted to know that they and their homes were safe. My parents wanted to know that there wasn't a flood heading towards their village. My friends wanted to know the scale of the damage to their land. All simple things which a few minutes every half an hour would have covered satisfactorily. For them and many others the coverage was far from sufficient.

Then they should have been listening to BBC local radio, not watching the national BBC News at Ten. The right tool for the right job, the right place for the right information.

I've said it more than once, and I'll say it again - it wasn't 8 hours of straight coverage. Other news was covered at 00:30 on the News Channel.


If you really wanted to hear about other news (which you say was so important), you wouldn't be so impatient and lazy.


Up here in Filey, I was rather concerned with the tidal surge. The Met Office and the Environment Agency gave me all the information I needed to put my mind at rest. The BBC aren't going to be the first people to tell us that the town is going to be flood.

Do you really think a few minutes every half hour would cover specific villages or very specific areas?

Pretty much, yes. A flood heading three miles into Norfolk would be pretty big news (but luckily didn't happen). On any other night, the destruction of the sea wall at Cromer would have gotten NC coverage, as would the sweeping of seven homes out to sea.

Like you say, specific local information is better served with other mediums, but for getting a general overview of the story, there are few better options than broadcast television.

Considering I have to get up at 6.30 am in order to go to work and don't get home until after the Six O'Clock News, then what exactly is 'lazy' about expecting there to be some coverage of other news during the usual 10.00-10.30 pm slot? Most people cannot watch television until 12.30 am and hold down a job.

But for one night, where there is such important news as you say, you could get away with it.

But there was no guarantee that there would be other news at 0030. What if it had been postponed again until 0130? How long do you stay up waiting for the news which was promised at 2200?