The Newsroom

Benazir Bhutto Killed

News Coverage (December 2007)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
BR
Brekkie
Jugalug posted:
Sorry, I shouldn't have said no sense, more no significance if that makes sense, and by that I mean to virtually anybody in the country. Therefore it seems silly to have one.


In which country - Pakistan? It's BBC World - not Pakistan.


Now, it could be justified as a mark of respect to their Pakistan viewers - but I'm sure even the most hardened muslim would know what a Christmas tree is and it's significance.
MA
Mancunian
mansoor posted:
nat210790 posted:
Edit: Tim Willcox appears on News 24


Why Mad Mad Mad Mad

Jonathan Charles knows alot about Pakistain, he interviewed her only a few months ago. So why take him off???
Just starting to read this thread, so am not aware of later comments, but I just wanted to say that face time on screen means that a journalist isn't able to make phone calls to useful contacts to confirm reports or get further information.

They do need some off air time to do some newsgathering, especially if they have particularly specialist knowledge, which would include contacts.
MA
themagicmonkey
Brekkie Boy posted:
Political correctness gone mad springs to mind!


Yes, the tree might be inappropriate when covering such a story - but to remove it just because it's simulcasting on BBC World is ridiculous.


As I said before, people are choosing to get their news from the BBC - and Britain is currently celebrating Christmas - and therefore a Christmas tree in the background is nothing to complain about.


Before we start rabbiting on about political correctness and silly furriners not respecting our Great British traditions...a woman has been murdered by extremists, leading to riots and more deaths. Has it not occurred to any of you that somebody probably thought it was inappropriate to have a Christmas tree merrily sparkling in the background, whatever the time of year is? Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, the death of the little boy killed by a rottweiler should have been announced with grins, the pulling of crackers and the wearing of silly hats.
MA
Mancunian
josh205 posted:
... AlJazeera Eng. had a correspondent in Rawalpindi and have been speaking to him a lot, and Darren Jordan has been anchoring for the last hour or so.
There's wasn't anyone actually in Rawalpindi at the time, so I think you're perhaps referring to Sohail Rahman (formerly of Granada News and CNN) out of Islamabad?
MA
Mancunian
gilsta posted:
... Would I be correct in thinking that when stories like this break we just see looping shots from the scene rather than the presenters because the presenters are ad-libbing and gathering information themselves from whatever sources they have, possibly with a producer on set, and obviously its easier to do this without having to worry about looking at the camera.
Yes, you're correct in your assumptions.

When the presenters are ad-libbing like that, they're often reading from a computer screen just out of view/under the desk top or wherever, reading the latest information directly off the wires.

The information on the wires isn't on autocue, so if they were in vision, they wouldn't be looking to camera, they'd be looking down or away at a computer screen, so it might look a bit odd.

Also, while ad-libbing, they might be multi-tasking and reading internal messages about the name and designation of the next live phone guest to be popping up, which again means they're not looking at the camera.
JO
Joe
themagicmonkey posted:
Brekkie Boy posted:
Political correctness gone mad springs to mind!


Yes, the tree might be inappropriate when covering such a story - but to remove it just because it's simulcasting on BBC World is ridiculous.


As I said before, people are choosing to get their news from the BBC - and Britain is currently celebrating Christmas - and therefore a Christmas tree in the background is nothing to complain about.


Before we start rabbiting on about political correctness and silly furriners not respecting our Great British traditions...a woman has been murdered by extremists, leading to riots and more deaths. Has it not occurred to any of you that somebody probably thought it was inappropriate to have a Christmas tree merrily sparkling in the background, whatever the time of year is? Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, the death of the little boy killed by a rottweiler should have been announced with grins, the pulling of crackers and the wearing of silly hats.


Brekkie Boy mentioned that reason in the quote you posted.

And as has already been mentioned, the tree is a symbol, not some happy decoration, or at least shouldn't be.
IT
itsrobert Founding member
themagicmonkey posted:
Brekkie Boy posted:
Political correctness gone mad springs to mind!


Yes, the tree might be inappropriate when covering such a story - but to remove it just because it's simulcasting on BBC World is ridiculous.


As I said before, people are choosing to get their news from the BBC - and Britain is currently celebrating Christmas - and therefore a Christmas tree in the background is nothing to complain about.


Before we start rabbiting on about political correctness and silly furriners not respecting our Great British traditions...a woman has been murdered by extremists, leading to riots and more deaths. Has it not occurred to any of you that somebody probably thought it was inappropriate to have a Christmas tree merrily sparkling in the background, whatever the time of year is? Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, the death of the little boy killed by a rottweiler should have been announced with grins, the pulling of crackers and the wearing of silly hats.


That can't be the reason. If that was the case, News 24 wouldn't have had a Christmas tree at all. N24 has had a Christmas tree for several years and, to my knowledge, it has never been removed before, despite terrible news stories over past Christmas periods. The only logical reason for the tree's removal is that it is because BBC World viewers are watching. After all, if the tree was removed solely because of the news story, they wouldn't have put it back when BBC World went its own way, would they?
TV
archiveTV
itsrobert posted:
themagicmonkey posted:
Brekkie Boy posted:
Political correctness gone mad springs to mind!


Yes, the tree might be inappropriate when covering such a story - but to remove it just because it's simulcasting on BBC World is ridiculous.


As I said before, people are choosing to get their news from the BBC - and Britain is currently celebrating Christmas - and therefore a Christmas tree in the background is nothing to complain about.


Before we start rabbiting on about political correctness and silly furriners not respecting our Great British traditions...a woman has been murdered by extremists, leading to riots and more deaths. Has it not occurred to any of you that somebody probably thought it was inappropriate to have a Christmas tree merrily sparkling in the background, whatever the time of year is? Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, the death of the little boy killed by a rottweiler should have been announced with grins, the pulling of crackers and the wearing of silly hats.


That can't be the reason. If that was the case, News 24 wouldn't have had a Christmas tree at all. N24 has had a Christmas tree for several years and, to my knowledge, it has never been removed before, despite terrible news stories over past Christmas periods. The only logical reason for the tree's removal is that it is because BBC World viewers are watching. After all, if the tree was removed solely because of the news story, they wouldn't have put it back when BBC World went its own way, would they?



BBC World is a commercial organisation competing against many home broadcasters throughout Pakistan and across the world. The tree just looks completly out of place and doesn't make sense to many of the viewers and broadcasters.
TV
archiveTV
Jugalug posted:
themagicmonkey posted:
Brekkie Boy posted:
Political correctness gone mad springs to mind!


Yes, the tree might be inappropriate when covering such a story - but to remove it just because it's simulcasting on BBC World is ridiculous.


As I said before, people are choosing to get their news from the BBC - and Britain is currently celebrating Christmas - and therefore a Christmas tree in the background is nothing to complain about.


Before we start rabbiting on about political correctness and silly furriners not respecting our Great British traditions...a woman has been murdered by extremists, leading to riots and more deaths. Has it not occurred to any of you that somebody probably thought it was inappropriate to have a Christmas tree merrily sparkling in the background, whatever the time of year is? Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, the death of the little boy killed by a rottweiler should have been announced with grins, the pulling of crackers and the wearing of silly hats.


Brekkie Boy mentioned that reason in the quote you posted.

And as has already been mentioned, the tree is a symbol, not some happy decoration, or at least shouldn't be.


A symbol of what? As far as I know the tree is a remnant of pagan times when the Winter solstice was celebrated.
IT
itsrobert Founding member
archiveTV posted:
itsrobert posted:
themagicmonkey posted:
Brekkie Boy posted:
Political correctness gone mad springs to mind!


Yes, the tree might be inappropriate when covering such a story - but to remove it just because it's simulcasting on BBC World is ridiculous.


As I said before, people are choosing to get their news from the BBC - and Britain is currently celebrating Christmas - and therefore a Christmas tree in the background is nothing to complain about.


Before we start rabbiting on about political correctness and silly furriners not respecting our Great British traditions...a woman has been murdered by extremists, leading to riots and more deaths. Has it not occurred to any of you that somebody probably thought it was inappropriate to have a Christmas tree merrily sparkling in the background, whatever the time of year is? Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, the death of the little boy killed by a rottweiler should have been announced with grins, the pulling of crackers and the wearing of silly hats.


That can't be the reason. If that was the case, News 24 wouldn't have had a Christmas tree at all. N24 has had a Christmas tree for several years and, to my knowledge, it has never been removed before, despite terrible news stories over past Christmas periods. The only logical reason for the tree's removal is that it is because BBC World viewers are watching. After all, if the tree was removed solely because of the news story, they wouldn't have put it back when BBC World went its own way, would they?



BBC World is a commercial organisation competing against many home broadcasters throughout Pakistan and across the world. The tree just looks completly out of place and doesn't make sense to many of the viewers and broadcasters.


Yes, I understand the reasons behind BBC World not wanting a Christmas tree in the background. However, my problem is over the handling of the recent simulcasts. Why have poor souls been carrying the Christmas tree out of and into shot all week when they could just have used the BBC World studio for the simulcasts?
TV
archiveTV
itsrobert posted:
archiveTV posted:
itsrobert posted:
themagicmonkey posted:
Brekkie Boy posted:
Political correctness gone mad springs to mind!


Yes, the tree might be inappropriate when covering such a story - but to remove it just because it's simulcasting on BBC World is ridiculous.


As I said before, people are choosing to get their news from the BBC - and Britain is currently celebrating Christmas - and therefore a Christmas tree in the background is nothing to complain about.


Before we start rabbiting on about political correctness and silly furriners not respecting our Great British traditions...a woman has been murdered by extremists, leading to riots and more deaths. Has it not occurred to any of you that somebody probably thought it was inappropriate to have a Christmas tree merrily sparkling in the background, whatever the time of year is? Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, the death of the little boy killed by a rottweiler should have been announced with grins, the pulling of crackers and the wearing of silly hats.


That can't be the reason. If that was the case, News 24 wouldn't have had a Christmas tree at all. N24 has had a Christmas tree for several years and, to my knowledge, it has never been removed before, despite terrible news stories over past Christmas periods. The only logical reason for the tree's removal is that it is because BBC World viewers are watching. After all, if the tree was removed solely because of the news story, they wouldn't have put it back when BBC World went its own way, would they?



BBC World is a commercial organisation competing against many home broadcasters throughout Pakistan and across the world. The tree just looks completly out of place and doesn't make sense to many of the viewers and broadcasters.


Yes, I understand the reasons behind BBC World not wanting a Christmas tree in the background. However, my problem is over the handling of the recent simulcasts. Why have poor souls been carrying the Christmas tree out of and into shot all week when they could just have used the BBC World studio for the simulcasts?


Well that's probably down to the fact News24 was better staffed over christmas with more resources available and the gallery being better equiped.
NG
noggin Founding member
Mancunian posted:
gilsta posted:
... Would I be correct in thinking that when stories like this break we just see looping shots from the scene rather than the presenters because the presenters are ad-libbing and gathering information themselves from whatever sources they have, possibly with a producer on set, and obviously its easier to do this without having to worry about looking at the camera.
Yes, you're correct in your assumptions.

When the presenters are ad-libbing like that, they're often reading from a computer screen just out of view/under the desk top or wherever, reading the latest information directly off the wires.

The information on the wires isn't on autocue, so if they were in vision, they wouldn't be looking to camera, they'd be looking down or away at a computer screen, so it might look a bit odd.

Also, while ad-libbing, they might be multi-tasking and reading internal messages about the name and designation of the next live phone guest to be popping up, which again means they're not looking at the camera.


The other reason for showing pictures rather than the studio is that showing the pictures of the event gives you something visual to look at which helps tell the story, rather than presenters in London (and we know what they look like after all) who don't really add anything by being in-vision.

The argument goes that people flipping channels are far more likely to stay and watch if they see real news pictures, rather than a pretty tedious talking head. Yes they get repetitive when continuously looped - but even when looped they are more useful at telling the story than a two shot of presenters looking at copy.

One of the first rules of breaking news coverage on any news network is show the first pictures you get, and keep showing them until you get something better. If you are surfing news channels and see CNN have pictures of a breaking news event and Sky just have a presenter in London, then most people will watch CNN...

Newer posts