BBC News Mandela Coverage

Weather and news is just like weather and real conversation, it's only interesting when there is nothing else to talk about.

However, this particular case is unfortunate because it really highlights a north/south divide. Most of the severe storm damage last week was in Scotland and northern England. You can bet if the same amount of damage happened south of Watford there would have been more balance in coverage between Mandela and the weather.

It was a poor call on behalf of BBC News and the majority of what was broadcast about Mandela wasn't news, as much as it was retrospective reports and mini-documentaries. The storms were news, that affected communities in the UK and it was the BBC's duty to ensure it was regularly reported throughout the night.

Forecasts change. Look North on their 6.30 that night were trailing that their weatherman would be live at 10.25 with the latest forecast.


[/quote]

That isn't what I said. I clearly said a ticker stating that other news and the weather is available on the Red Button. This used to be there until some recent cuts, and use to be updated regularly.

Can you stop dismissing the lack of weather coverage as if it would only be required in the form of a public service announcement to those in danger and anyone not directly effected wouldn't be interested.

What next, if there was a train crash in Cornwall, you'd say coverage wasn't needed on the national news because if you were catching a train you'd check the travel news, nobody else would be directly effected, and in any case there would be coverage on Spotlight so that would do.

The vast majority Mrs Browns boys viewers according to the Guardian. Clearly most are not silly enough to get expect regional weather reports on a BBC World simulcast.

You do realise the NC overnights are not a simulcast don't you? There are lots of differences between the World and NC outputs.

1) How many BBC1 punters knew it was a World simulcast? How many would care that that was the case?

2) This wasn't just "a bit of rain" as some people have suggested, it was a tidal surge on a scale that most people haven't seen in their lifetime. Therefore there's plenty of scope for the forecast to be inaccurate just because there isn't a lot of experience in forecasting these events. Dismissing people who may be about to have their house flooded and want to know whether the forecast has been revised and refined (in the light of how the weather has panned out so far compared to the previous forecast) as "silly" is breathtakingly arrogant, bordering on ignorant. It's all well and good saying that people in that position should be listening to local radio, but weather is a lot easier to understand with the aid of maps and the like.

Sorry Steve, but I really don't agree.

I totally understand that the impact of the tidal surge has had a devastating effect on those people who were unfortunate enough to be directly effected by it. However, the truth is that in 5, 10, 15 years time from now, the only news story that everybody else will associate with December 5th is the death of Nelson Mandela. News channels and bulletins were only reflecting this.

The same goes for other major news events like 9/11 and the death of Princess Diana. I'm not sure anybody would be able to recall any other news stories from those particular dates, because certain events just blow everything else out of the water (no pun intended).

OK, let's go back to basics:

Explain to me why it would have been inappropriate for the News Channel to opt out of the rolling Mandela coverage for 10 minutes per hour to cover other matters, especially once Newsnight was on air with alternative in depth coverage.

What people will recall 10 years hence is, with respect, not really that relevant. And they would remember it just the same regardless of whether brief round-ups of other news were included.

And it's with that sort of thinking that the BBC got it wrong. Good news reporters shouldn't think how their work will be viewed in 15 years time. They should be thinking how it will impact on the viewers instantly.

Of course, this was an entirely different situation to the event 60 years ago - flood defences have vastly improved since then; and, as I have already mentioned, we now have the Environment Agency (which did not exist 60 years ago) to provide flood warnings. People in areas prone to flooding can receive text alerts to warn them of potential flooding, for example.


The police will have also warned people in danger to take the necessary precautions.

I refer you to Andrew's point further up this page.

Surely the vastly improved defence mechanisms makes it less of a story?