London Terror Incidents

No, the major difference last night was that they were still on air when the news came through. They weren't sitting around discussing whether someone was 'marauding' or not.


Anyway, at first it wasn't certain what had happened. It could just as well have been a truck career uni off the road for other reasons. Remember that happened in Times Square a few weeks back

A joyrider or drunk driver is more likely to use an ordinary car than a van. I've never heard of a van being used to deliberately knock down pedestrians in London before.

ITV had more than enough information, and at a relatively early stage, that a massive news event had occurred. That they broadcast nothing, absolutely nothing, for 7 and a half hours is appalling. Whether or not it was a marauding attack is neither here nor there. They got on air last night, they should have done so for Manchester.

I think the key thing that will have got ITV on air last night was the news of a confirmed incident in Vauxhall - if that had been related it would have meant a large area of London was under attack. I don't think it was coincidence that once it was discovered it was only one incident, and that was pretty much over, bar the investigation, there isn't much point staying on air.

In Manchester, it was only after everyone local had gone home that it was confirmed that there was a terror incident (as opposed to an accident) going on, and by that time the situation had already calmed down. Last night when they came on air it looked as if it might be the start of an ongoing series of incidents throughout the night.


I feel it's worth pointing out that a much bigger incident happened last night, due to the fear of terrorism - less deaths in Turin, but many more injured - this is the sort of incident that many believed had happened in Manchester in the early stages - but sadly because of the lack of the terror aspect, it will get much less coverage from the media.

Reged Ahmad. Auto correct going crazy.




I'm just coming from the American mind set that if you can get aerials you get them. Even if you don't see much. Flashing light will do.

It's an interesting point raised that there's a difference between an isolated attack that's under control - in as much as one can be - and an ongoing series of incidents across a wide area. And it's a fair one.

If I had any particular concern over this it would be that TV and radio stations are in a position to alert people to something that could put them or their loved ones in danger, not that there should be never-ending repetitive coverage. In that regard for both the incidents that have just taken place quick newsflashes through the night would have sufficed. But then I'm not the person who has to organise the logistics for that, I can basically jump back online and get on with it if something breaks.

If there should be a situation where there's an ongoing series of incidents with no sign of an end and a clear ongoing danger to the public, that's where I would hope ITV could go into rolling mode, or at least put information on screen. And if the logic of starting a show was that it looked like something bigger was going to happen (obviously I don't know that for sure), then that would reassure me to some degree that ITV would be in a position to at least do something about that.

As has been pointed out, the concept of regular updates in between the normal schedule doesn't really exist anymore, as people can keep up to date at their leisure on a news channel or on the internet. In the old days it was literally the only way to keep up to date by inserting quick updates between regular programming.

This will also be the reason why all the scheduled hourly bulletins on a day to day basis, during the daytime have all been scrapped by both BBC One and ITV.

With London Tonight having been done live from Borough tonight it must have be the first time in a while a regional ITV news programme on a weekend was done live on location.

- By the time it was known that something that wasn't an accident had occurred in Manchester, everyone had gone home

- It was probably decided that by the time they'd got a full team in to do a bulletin and got some content for it, it would have been so late everyone already knew from another source and the number of people who would have benefited would have been tiny so they didn't bother, instead focusing on good quality news when the majority woke up in the morning. Also news on TV has to be fairly polished and reliable, something on facebook can be any old rubbish and unsubstantiated.

- With the London attack, people hadn't gone home, it was just down the road, and maybe the above Manchester situation had been received negatively internally so they were able to do something. The same about everyone already knowing by the time they came on air probably also applied and I bet not many people actually watched. I bet that not many were watching BBC One either and I expect everyone was already watching a news channel.

Based on what exactly?

A van driving off the road into pedestrians could have been a get-away vehicle, someone going postal, someone collapsing at the wheel, technical failure, bad driving..... etc etc Remember what happened in Glasgow a couple of Christmasses ago


No, that's why it could have been any number of possibilities.

I do love how people with probably little or no experience in broadcast news feel they can criticise a broadcasters options.

There's so many factors, such as working hours, staff availability, resources, transport, satellite availability not to mention whether there's enough staff to crew a gallery, line up satellites / set up OSs.

That's even before you get to the actual editorial content. Who will pull clips off Facebook / twitter and load them, who will verify them and keep the programme on air .

You've also the fact more people are using mobile devices to check news sources than watch the television.

It is not as simple as just pressing a button and you're on air.

I'd say their decision to go on last night was based on the fact they got a camera and a reporter live, otherwise you could end up with someone reading twitter and showing videos.

I have 20 years in broadcast news, so your assumption is incorrect.