The Newsroom

London Terror Incidents

(June 2017)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
NE
newsman1
AlexS posted:
newsman1 posted:
Jon posted:
I don't agree with this if anything it's slightly less of news story because it happened in the capital, because people expect things to happen there. There wasn't the same callous targeting a specific set of victims. It has however evil as I said before you can't compare these things each one is a tragedy.


ITV/ITN were probably more ready this time with Manchester fresh in the minds and as you said it took a while to work out was happening in Manchester. However there may be some institutional bias and bigger sense of urgently as the news organisations are based in London. But in the long run this it's a not as big a story.


The differences are that the Manchester attack was over once Obeidi has blown himself up and the fact that last night's attack took place in London meant that there may have been fears for the safety of the government and the Royal family (There'll definitely be rolling coverage on ITV when Prince Philip and the Queen pass away). Therefore, I don't believe there was a bias in favour of London.

Sorry but the royals are probably the safest people in the country in times like this, closely followed by senior government members.

There are no guarantees.
AlexS posted:

Additionally no-one including the police knew whether Abedi was acting alone at that point.



But everyone definitely knew there was more than one perpetrator last night.
MA
mannewskev
newsman1 posted:
mannewskev posted:
newsman1 posted:

Because, unlike in London last night, there was relative certainty with a very short period of time that the Manchester attack was over. Bear in mind that it was a marauding attack in London.


It wasn't so far into the night that fatalities were reported in Manchester and the terror aspect was clarified, yet ITV did nothing.


Last night's incident was different not just because it wasn't clear whether or not the incident was ongoing but also because of the fact that it took place in the UK's capital city, i.e. proximity to government buildings.

Furthermore, it was initially thought by some people that the Manchester explosion was caused by malfunction of sound equipment. Furthermore, the Manchester attacker acted alone and, unlike last night's attackers, he actually was a suicide bomber.


The magnitude of Manchester became clear not so very late into the night, and yet ITV didn't come on air for 7 and a half hours.
MA
mannewskev
newsman1 posted:
Jon posted:
newsman1 posted:

Last night's incident was different not just because it wasn't clear whether or not the incident was ongoing but also because of the fact that it took place in the UK's capital city, i.e. proximity to government buildings.

I don't agree with this if anything it's slightly less of news story because it happened in the capital, because people expect things to happen there. There wasn't the same callous targeting a specific set of victims. It has however evil as I said before you can't compare these things each one is a tragedy.


ITV/ITN were probably more ready this time with Manchester fresh in the minds and as you said it took a while to work out was happening in Manchester. However there may be some institutional bias and bigger sense of urgently as the news organisations are based in London. But in the long run this it's a not as big a story.


The differences are that the Manchester attack was over once Obeidi has blown himself up and the fact that last night's attack took place in London meant that there may have been fears for the safety of the government and the Royal family (There'll definitely be rolling coverage on ITV when Prince Philip and the Queen pass away). Therefore, I don't believe there was a bias in favour of London.


ITV didn't know the Manchester attack was over at that point though, nor did the police.
PC
p_c_u_k
Previously I would have said shove the region on, but as I've said before having seen a Manchester reporter going on Facebook talking about "unconfirmed reports of two bombs" I'd rather network had all their reporters fully briefed, that they knew and were comfortable with them and they were ready to go rather than rushing on air.

Manchester was odd because it took a remarkable amount of time for us all to be able to confidently say "yep, it's definitely a terror attack". At the same time an attack in London will always get immediate coverage because the vast majority of the UK media is down here. There were BBC reporters who were out for the night who could say very early doors what was going on. It's another thing that's worth everyone examining once this is all over, which I'm sure all the broadcasters will be doing.
AN
Andrew Founding member
mannewskev posted:
newsman1 posted:
mannewskev posted:

It wasn't so far into the night that fatalities were reported in Manchester and the terror aspect was clarified, yet ITV did nothing.


Last night's incident was different not just because it wasn't clear whether or not the incident was ongoing but also because of the fact that it took place in the UK's capital city, i.e. proximity to government buildings.

Furthermore, it was initially thought by some people that the Manchester explosion was caused by malfunction of sound equipment. Furthermore, the Manchester attacker acted alone and, unlike last night's attackers, he actually was a suicide bomber.


The magnitude of Manchester became clear not so very late into the night, and yet ITV didn't come on air for 7 and a half hours.

No they didn't, and nobody will ever know why however many times you quote that sensationalised "OMG 7 and a half hours!!". Maybe you should email ITV's Head of News?
JO
Josh
The OB feed on BBC News froze before cutting to a still of the Shard then back to Mark Easton being interviewed.

EDIT: Thanks to Jay Lee for Identifying the man.
Last edited by Josh on 4 June 2017 6:57pm
MA
mannewskev
Andrew posted:
mannewskev posted:
newsman1 posted:

Last night's incident was different not just because it wasn't clear whether or not the incident was ongoing but also because of the fact that it took place in the UK's capital city, i.e. proximity to government buildings.

Furthermore, it was initially thought by some people that the Manchester explosion was caused by malfunction of sound equipment. Furthermore, the Manchester attacker acted alone and, unlike last night's attackers, he actually was a suicide bomber.


The magnitude of Manchester became clear not so very late into the night, and yet ITV didn't come on air for 7 and a half hours.

No they didn't, and nobody will ever know why however many times you quote that sensationalised "OMG 7 and a half hours!!". Maybe you should email ITV's Head of News?


It's worthy of being restated. This is a discussion. Calm down.
CU
Custard56
JoshX posted:
The OB feed on BBC News froze before cutting to a still of the Shard then back to the man interviewed.


Mark Easton, Home Affairs editor.
IS
Inspector Sands
Skygeek posted:

Is there a precedent for an ITV regional newsroom providing a network flash? Surely, given the timing of the arena atrocity, the late news team up there would still have been in the building (albeit putting their coats on), and they could have stuck someone - anyone - in the presenter's chair to throw to a reporter for a two-2-3 minute summary of what was going on before trailing ahead to 6am and signing off, and sod it if the viewers weren't familiar with who they saw. Or is it just me?

How many people do you think they have manning a late regional bulletin? My guess is 3 -
presenter, producer, director and probably an engineer/IT person in case everything falls over.


Going to be a bit of a task to pull everything together and do a summary in a situation that's changing constantly. And for what? A 2 minute bulletin that sends everyone over to rolling news on rivals.


This has been discussed endlessly in the other thread but the timings were unfortunate for both Granada and ITN. I've done more than my fair share of late bulletins and know that as soon as they finish everyone turns stuff off and goes home. There's last tubes/trams and last orders to catch. If the news on ITV came off air at what 10:28, the 'team' in Manchester are likely on their way home by the time the bomb happened. Let alone 20 minutes later when news breaks on the radio.

Good luck calling back all 3 of the people who were on shift, who weren't enough anyway
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 4 June 2017 8:16pm - 2 times in total
AN
Andrew Founding member
Mary Nightingale with the ITV News, live from London Bridge.
LL
London Lite Founding member
Andrew posted:
Mary Nightingale with the ITV News, live from London Bridge.


London was also at the same vantage point with Charlene White.
NE
newsman1
mannewskev posted:

ITV didn't know the Manchester attack was over at that point though, nor did the police.


As far as I know, there was no report that anyone said there were other terrorists attacking the Manchester arena. ITV wouldn't have had enough information to justify overnight TV coverage. Presumably, ITV believed - correctly - that there was no evidence that it was a marauding attack. Last night, evidence that there was a marauding attack in London was available relatively quickly.

Newer posts