BA
The way some people are going on here, you'd think the BBC coverage was unwatchable.
A press conference, which was largely a rehash of a tweet and with little new information, wasn't shown live. No real issue there.
Yes, there was no useless tower cam shot. And yes, early live coverage was off a phone. But there were decent eyewitness accounts, reliable US sources were quoted, and the made up figures floating around Twitter (along with false images and video) were ignored. Barring the top of the hour camera issues, and the long delay at one point (which was well handled by not having constant questions punctuating proceedings), I think the coverage has been good.
A press conference, which was largely a rehash of a tweet and with little new information, wasn't shown live. No real issue there.
Yes, there was no useless tower cam shot. And yes, early live coverage was off a phone. But there were decent eyewitness accounts, reliable US sources were quoted, and the made up figures floating around Twitter (along with false images and video) were ignored. Barring the top of the hour camera issues, and the long delay at one point (which was well handled by not having constant questions punctuating proceedings), I think the coverage has been good.
NE
Not really. Compare it to what CNN pulled out of the bag. Max Foster in the studio, Paul Cruikshank at the London studio within an hour of it happening. A huge number of specialists, guests throughout the night. I'm not sure the BBC managed any specialists at all. It has been pretty dire.
The way some people are going on here, you'd think the BBC coverage was unwatchable.
A press conference, which was largely a rehash of a tweet and with little new information, wasn't shown live. No real issue there.
Yes, there was no useless tower cam shot. And yes, early live coverage was off a phone. But there were decent eyewitness accounts, reliable US sources were quoted, and the made up figures floating around Twitter (along with false images and video) were ignored. Barring the top of the hour camera issues, and the long delay at one point (which was well handled by not having constant questions punctuating proceedings), I think the coverage has been good.
A press conference, which was largely a rehash of a tweet and with little new information, wasn't shown live. No real issue there.
Yes, there was no useless tower cam shot. And yes, early live coverage was off a phone. But there were decent eyewitness accounts, reliable US sources were quoted, and the made up figures floating around Twitter (along with false images and video) were ignored. Barring the top of the hour camera issues, and the long delay at one point (which was well handled by not having constant questions punctuating proceedings), I think the coverage has been good.
Not really. Compare it to what CNN pulled out of the bag. Max Foster in the studio, Paul Cruikshank at the London studio within an hour of it happening. A huge number of specialists, guests throughout the night. I'm not sure the BBC managed any specialists at all. It has been pretty dire.
MW
Didn't know the LUL had a line all the way to Manchester!
LATEST: Manchester attack was conducted by a suicide bomber, two U.S. law enforcement sources tell CBS News https://t.co/s7joCRfrxq pic.twitter.com/xJCQcKehku
— CBS News (@CBSNews) May 23, 2017
Didn't know the LUL had a line all the way to Manchester!
BA
Not really. Compare it to what CNN pulled out of the bag. Max Foster in the studio, Paul Cruikshank at the London studio within an hour of it happening. A huge number of specialists, guests throughout the night. I'm not sure the BBC managed any specialists at all. It has been pretty dire.
Specialists in what? Speculation?
The way some people are going on here, you'd think the BBC coverage was unwatchable.
A press conference, which was largely a rehash of a tweet and with little new information, wasn't shown live. No real issue there.
Yes, there was no useless tower cam shot. And yes, early live coverage was off a phone. But there were decent eyewitness accounts, reliable US sources were quoted, and the made up figures floating around Twitter (along with false images and video) were ignored. Barring the top of the hour camera issues, and the long delay at one point (which was well handled by not having constant questions punctuating proceedings), I think the coverage has been good.
A press conference, which was largely a rehash of a tweet and with little new information, wasn't shown live. No real issue there.
Yes, there was no useless tower cam shot. And yes, early live coverage was off a phone. But there were decent eyewitness accounts, reliable US sources were quoted, and the made up figures floating around Twitter (along with false images and video) were ignored. Barring the top of the hour camera issues, and the long delay at one point (which was well handled by not having constant questions punctuating proceedings), I think the coverage has been good.
Not really. Compare it to what CNN pulled out of the bag. Max Foster in the studio, Paul Cruikshank at the London studio within an hour of it happening. A huge number of specialists, guests throughout the night. I'm not sure the BBC managed any specialists at all. It has been pretty dire.
Specialists in what? Speculation?
NE
Not really. Compare it to what CNN pulled out of the bag. Max Foster in the studio, Paul Cruikshank at the London studio within an hour of it happening. A huge number of specialists, guests throughout the night. I'm not sure the BBC managed any specialists at all. It has been pretty dire.
Specialists in what? Speculation?
Experts, specialists, crime/terrorist/ correspondents, etc.... The kind of people you'd expect to pop up between the hours of 6am and 11pm on BBC News. It fell short of delivering what it should. I'm English and live in the states, I've been watching it, and others throughout the night.
The way some people are going on here, you'd think the BBC coverage was unwatchable.
A press conference, which was largely a rehash of a tweet and with little new information, wasn't shown live. No real issue there.
Yes, there was no useless tower cam shot. And yes, early live coverage was off a phone. But there were decent eyewitness accounts, reliable US sources were quoted, and the made up figures floating around Twitter (along with false images and video) were ignored. Barring the top of the hour camera issues, and the long delay at one point (which was well handled by not having constant questions punctuating proceedings), I think the coverage has been good.
A press conference, which was largely a rehash of a tweet and with little new information, wasn't shown live. No real issue there.
Yes, there was no useless tower cam shot. And yes, early live coverage was off a phone. But there were decent eyewitness accounts, reliable US sources were quoted, and the made up figures floating around Twitter (along with false images and video) were ignored. Barring the top of the hour camera issues, and the long delay at one point (which was well handled by not having constant questions punctuating proceedings), I think the coverage has been good.
Not really. Compare it to what CNN pulled out of the bag. Max Foster in the studio, Paul Cruikshank at the London studio within an hour of it happening. A huge number of specialists, guests throughout the night. I'm not sure the BBC managed any specialists at all. It has been pretty dire.
Specialists in what? Speculation?
Experts, specialists, crime/terrorist/ correspondents, etc.... The kind of people you'd expect to pop up between the hours of 6am and 11pm on BBC News. It fell short of delivering what it should. I'm English and live in the states, I've been watching it, and others throughout the night.
AA
I'm sure if they could have done a bulletin, ITV would have. However, there will have been very few staff at ITN so early in the morning. Moreover, there would have been very few people (tens of thousands) actually watching.