The Newsroom

London Terror Incidents

(June 2017)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
TV
TVNewsviewer
p_c_u_k posted:
I think we're in the middle of a generational switch here.

For those who have grown up in the social media era, they'll have generally found out about it through Twitter and switched to a news channel as a result. However, for my parents' generation who have shown no interest in that side of things, the first they'll know is if they happened to go past a news channel or if there's been a newsflash. And given the average age of someone who watches TV is now over 60, we shouldn't forget this generation.

Accepted there's no way you could break into 800 different Sky channels (I suspect newsflash means something very different on Babestation) but ITV is one of the big two TV channels in a decent-sized country. It should have some capacity to at least throw a caption up to start with, and do news reports through the night if it's a big enough story.


Do people born in the social media generation even watch the News Channel? Do some of them even watch TV? Or maybe they stream TV, but not by conventional means - in other words they watch TV via their mobile phone? Why watch TV if you have social media? Why go away from social media to watch TV, when social media already provides you with news and often much quicker than TV, whether the news it provides is unconfirmed or 'fake' or not?

Many people over 60, who are watching TV, will not happen upon a News Channel and will only know about the news if they've seen a newsflash or there is a simulcast. Aren't the audiences for News Channels minuscule and therefore, at least before people know of the news via a mainstream channel, only a tiny minority will be watching News Channels to know of the news? Those watching mainstream channels won't know to switch to the News Channel unless a mainstream channel tells them or simulcasts the news so would not see the news unless it was reported or at least referred to on the mainstream channel.

It's only people on this forum, that are obviously interested enough in TV and, in this case, news presentation to post here that would know of news from news channels or even be watching them at the outset.
Last edited by TVNewsviewer on 5 June 2017 8:06pm - 4 times in total
LL
London Lite Founding member
Aaron_2015 posted:


Um no, they didn't. ITV's special coverage got 0.37m (4.7%).


It really wasn't worth it and justifies why ITV didn't bother for the Manchester attack.

I found during all three incidents this year, I found out on Twitter than stuck with a single channel, in all three cases Sky News.
MA
mannewskev
London Lite posted:
Aaron_2015 posted:


Um no, they didn't. ITV's special coverage got 0.37m (4.7%).


It really wasn't worth it and justifies why ITV didn't bother for the Manchester attack.

I found during all three incidents this year, I found out on Twitter than stuck with a single channel, in all three cases Sky News.


It doesn't justify it at all. There is no justification for the country's biggest commercial PSB to give no airtime whatsoever to the year's biggest news event for 7 and a half hours.
AN
Andrew Founding member
Maybe not the "social media generation" if you are classing that as teens and twenties, but the generation after that, the 30-50 year olds are probably well versed to know to watch a news channel. Those who grew up when News 24 started and was heavily advertised and pushed in your face by the BBC for a few years.

I know people in their 60s who have BBC News alerts on their smart phones so will find out that way, and then if they are interested in the story, would watch a news channel.
tmorgan96 and TROGGLES gave kudos
LL
London Lite Founding member
mannewskev posted:
London Lite posted:
Aaron_2015 posted:


Um no, they didn't. ITV's special coverage got 0.37m (4.7%).


It really wasn't worth it and justifies why ITV didn't bother for the Manchester attack.

I found during all three incidents this year, I found out on Twitter than stuck with a single channel, in all three cases Sky News.


It doesn't justify it at all. There is no justification for the country's biggest commercial PSB to give no airtime whatsoever to the year's biggest news event for 7 and a half hours.


You're basing your thoughts based on what exactly? Tradition? ITV as a commercial channel in addition to being a PSB does more than enough news minutes and at other times has commercial priorities.

Viewers had the choice of the BBC, Sky, RT and HD viewers also had Al Jazeera English on DTT. Some would have also had the option of streaming other channels via IPTV. This isn't 1997 where terrestrial viewers had just BBC1 and ITV to find out the tragic death of Princess Diana.

We live in a multi-platform and multi channel environment where it is justified for ITV to not bring in resources for an overnight news programme. Both attacks had resources when more viewers would be watching.
MA
mannewskev
London Lite posted:
mannewskev posted:
London Lite posted:

It really wasn't worth it and justifies why ITV didn't bother for the Manchester attack.

I found during all three incidents this year, I found out on Twitter than stuck with a single channel, in all three cases Sky News.


It doesn't justify it at all. There is no justification for the country's biggest commercial PSB to give no airtime whatsoever to the year's biggest news event for 7 and a half hours.


You're basing your thoughts based on what exactly? Tradition? ITV as a commercial channel in addition to being a PSB does more than enough news minutes and at other times has commercial priorities.

Viewers had the choice of the BBC, Sky, RT and HD viewers also had Al Jazeera English on DTT. Some would have also had the option of streaming other channels via IPTV. This isn't 1997 where terrestrial viewers had just BBC1 and ITV to find out the tragic death of Princess Diana.

We live in a multi-platform and multi channel environment where it is justified for ITV to not bring in resources for an overnight news programme. Both attacks had resources when more viewers would be watching.


If ITV could manage it for Saturday's attack, they should have done so for Manchester. There is no justification in them not doing so. They are the country's biggest commercial PSB.
LL
London Lite Founding member
mannewskev posted:
London Lite posted:
mannewskev posted:

It doesn't justify it at all. There is no justification for the country's biggest commercial PSB to give no airtime whatsoever to the year's biggest news event for 7 and a half hours.


You're basing your thoughts based on what exactly? Tradition? ITV as a commercial channel in addition to being a PSB does more than enough news minutes and at other times has commercial priorities.

Viewers had the choice of the BBC, Sky, RT and HD viewers also had Al Jazeera English on DTT. Some would have also had the option of streaming other channels via IPTV. This isn't 1997 where terrestrial viewers had just BBC1 and ITV to find out the tragic death of Princess Diana.

We live in a multi-platform and multi channel environment where it is justified for ITV to not bring in resources for an overnight news programme. Both attacks had resources when more viewers would be watching.


If ITV could manage it for Saturday's attack, they should have done so for Manchester. There is no justification in them not doing so. They are the country's biggest commercial PSB.


At least come up with another reason that just being a PSB! In any case, the UK's main PSB dedicated hours upon hours of rolling news on BBC1 and the BBC News channel, but you still wanted ITV to waste resources on a rolling news programme when viewers had a selection of rolling news output elsewhere. Being the second biggest PSB isn't a justifiable excuse in 2017, especially when the story didn't break until late night on a Saturday when ITV viewers are more likely to be gamblers.
MA
mannewskev
London Lite posted:
mannewskev posted:
London Lite posted:

You're basing your thoughts based on what exactly? Tradition? ITV as a commercial channel in addition to being a PSB does more than enough news minutes and at other times has commercial priorities.

Viewers had the choice of the BBC, Sky, RT and HD viewers also had Al Jazeera English on DTT. Some would have also had the option of streaming other channels via IPTV. This isn't 1997 where terrestrial viewers had just BBC1 and ITV to find out the tragic death of Princess Diana.

We live in a multi-platform and multi channel environment where it is justified for ITV to not bring in resources for an overnight news programme. Both attacks had resources when more viewers would be watching.


If ITV could manage it for Saturday's attack, they should have done so for Manchester. There is no justification in them not doing so. They are the country's biggest commercial PSB.


At least come up with another reason that just being a PSB! In any case, the UK's main PSB dedicated hours upon hours of rolling news on BBC1 and the BBC News channel, but you still wanted ITV to waste resources on a rolling news programme when viewers had a selection of rolling news output elsewhere. Being the second biggest PSB isn't a justifiable excuse in 2017, especially when the story didn't break until late night on a Saturday when ITV viewers are more likely to be gamblers.


It's reason enough. Being the country's biggest commercial PSB is justification. Also, Manchester didn't break late on a Saturday night, it was late on a Monday night. On Saturday, ITV did what it should have done, for Manchester, it did not. For 7 and a half hours.
SK
Skygeek
mannewskev posted:
London Lite posted:
mannewskev posted:

If ITV could manage it for Saturday's attack, they should have done so for Manchester. There is no justification in them not doing so. They are the country's biggest commercial PSB.


At least come up with another reason that just being a PSB! In any case, the UK's main PSB dedicated hours upon hours of rolling news on BBC1 and the BBC News channel, but you still wanted ITV to waste resources on a rolling news programme when viewers had a selection of rolling news output elsewhere. Being the second biggest PSB isn't a justifiable excuse in 2017, especially when the story didn't break until late night on a Saturday when ITV viewers are more likely to be gamblers.


It's reason enough. Being the country's biggest commercial PSB is justification. Also, Manchester didn't break late on a Saturday night, it was late on a Monday night. On Saturday, ITV did what it should have done, for Manchester, it did not. For 7 and a half hours.

I happen to agree with you overall, but what rotation are we on now in this entirely-circular discussion?
MA
mannewskev
Skygeek posted:
mannewskev posted:
London Lite posted:

At least come up with another reason that just being a PSB! In any case, the UK's main PSB dedicated hours upon hours of rolling news on BBC1 and the BBC News channel, but you still wanted ITV to waste resources on a rolling news programme when viewers had a selection of rolling news output elsewhere. Being the second biggest PSB isn't a justifiable excuse in 2017, especially when the story didn't break until late night on a Saturday when ITV viewers are more likely to be gamblers.


It's reason enough. Being the country's biggest commercial PSB is justification. Also, Manchester didn't break late on a Saturday night, it was late on a Monday night. On Saturday, ITV did what it should have done, for Manchester, it did not. For 7 and a half hours.

I happen to agree with you overall, but what rotation are we on now in this entirely-circular discussion?


Have I mentioned ITV did nothing for 7 and a half hours..? Oh...

Newer posts