TI
An Aljazeera news special on the floods yesterday - presented by their Bangkok correspondent Laura Kyle and another woman in KL. They also talked with two correspondents within the country who remained unnamed for their security.
Things got a little bit awkward since they did quite a few interviews from Bangkok where they only had one camera..otherwise it was done pretty well.
http://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/images/aje/coverage/myanmarfloods/01vlcsnap-5938463.jpghttp://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/images/aje/coverage/myanmarfloods/01vlcsnap-5931285.jpg
http://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/images/aje/coverage/myanmarfloods/01vlcsnap-5932194.jpghttp://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/images/aje/coverage/myanmarfloods/01vlcsnap-5934059.jpg
http://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/images/aje/coverage/myanmarfloods/01vlcsnap-5936799.jpghttp://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/images/aje/coverage/myanmarfloods/01vlcsnap-5945221.jpg
There are a few caps of Channel NewsAsia covering the same thing on the first page, just for good measure:
http://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/images/aje/coverage/myanmarfloods/01vlcsnap-5928800.jpghttp://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/images/aje/coverage/myanmarfloods/01vlcsnap-5928874.jpg
The entire gallery is at http://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/ajeimages.php?&gallery=aje/coverage/myanmarfloods (a bit mixed up it would seem, but all there).
Things got a little bit awkward since they did quite a few interviews from Bangkok where they only had one camera..otherwise it was done pretty well.
http://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/images/aje/coverage/myanmarfloods/01vlcsnap-5938463.jpghttp://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/images/aje/coverage/myanmarfloods/01vlcsnap-5931285.jpg
http://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/images/aje/coverage/myanmarfloods/01vlcsnap-5932194.jpghttp://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/images/aje/coverage/myanmarfloods/01vlcsnap-5934059.jpg
http://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/images/aje/coverage/myanmarfloods/01vlcsnap-5936799.jpghttp://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/images/aje/coverage/myanmarfloods/01vlcsnap-5945221.jpg
There are a few caps of Channel NewsAsia covering the same thing on the first page, just for good measure:
http://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/images/aje/coverage/myanmarfloods/01vlcsnap-5928800.jpghttp://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/images/aje/coverage/myanmarfloods/01vlcsnap-5928874.jpg
The entire gallery is at http://tvnewsroom.co.uk/nz/ajeimages.php?&gallery=aje/coverage/myanmarfloods (a bit mixed up it would seem, but all there).
MA
It's strange - he's being named sometimes and other times has to remain anonymous "for his own safety". Surely a unified line would be a good idea?
JW
A bit off topic, but it's not the first time a mainstream Newscaster has provided the VO (and even in-vision appearance) for natural disaster appeals.
Refers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufSlxpidyfI
PS: And before anyone else mentions it, the "natural disaster" in question is not the "big hair" adorning the newsreader!
Refers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufSlxpidyfI
PS: And before anyone else mentions it, the "natural disaster" in question is not the "big hair" adorning the newsreader!
MA
Does anybody know why some correspondents are being kept anonymous and others not? What would be the deciding factors - surely if they're in Burma they shouldn't be there and should all be anonymous? For example this morning the Times is naming its correspondent there but the Guardian isn't.
JR
I believe ITN has always used different appeal films to the BBC.
BBC WORLD posted:
A bit off topic, but it's not the first time a mainstream Newscaster has provided the VO (and even in-vision appearance) for natural disaster appeals.
Refers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufSlxpidyfI
PS: And before anyone else mentions it, the "natural disaster" in question is not the "big hair" adorning the newsreader!
Refers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufSlxpidyfI
PS: And before anyone else mentions it, the "natural disaster" in question is not the "big hair" adorning the newsreader!
I believe ITN has always used different appeal films to the BBC.
TI
Paul Danahar deported from Burma:
Concerning in and of itself, although I found the second half of the post in question even more interesting:
Quote:
Yesterday, Paul was deported from Burma - less than a week after Andrew Harding was also expelled after he'd also tried to enter the country. Despite the staggering numbers of dead and injured, the Burmese authorities had diverted significant numbers of people to try and find Paul - presumably, people who otherwise could have been deployed to bolster the aid effort. Is silencing those telling the world of the catastrophe unfolding inside Burma, really more important than helping those most in need?
Concerning in and of itself, although I found the second half of the post in question even more interesting:
Quote:
Paul was not alone in defying the wrath of the generals. A number of reporters are also operating inside Burma. But don't believe everything you see on television! While the BBC and most other UK broadcasters are reporting from Rangoon or the Irrawaddy delta, this weekend one news channel set foot across the Thai border, many hundreds of miles away from the areas worst hit by the cyclone, and claimed to be reporting from "inside Burma". It's not a lie - but it is misleading. Burma is a big place - "day-trippers" are allowed to go to some tourist parts of the country. But it doesn't equip those who travel there to comment on what's going on elsewhere. The truth is not always as it appears.
SP
I have wondered recently whether there's really any worth in some reports (especially the live ones) we've seen from the Burmese/Thail border, or in the case of Zimbabwe, from the border with South Africa - or in some cases from Johannesburg.
I understand the problems in reporting news of countries from where journalists are banned. But is there really any extra knowledge to be gained from being many hundreds of miles away from where the story is actually happening?
timgraham posted:
Quote:
Paul was not alone in defying the wrath of the generals. A number of reporters are also operating inside Burma. But don't believe everything you see on television! While the BBC and most other UK broadcasters are reporting from Rangoon or the Irrawaddy delta, this weekend one news channel set foot across the Thai border, many hundreds of miles away from the areas worst hit by the cyclone, and claimed to be reporting from "inside Burma". It's not a lie - but it is misleading. Burma is a big place - "day-trippers" are allowed to go to some tourist parts of the country. But it doesn't equip those who travel there to comment on what's going on elsewhere. The truth is not always as it appears.
I have wondered recently whether there's really any worth in some reports (especially the live ones) we've seen from the Burmese/Thail border, or in the case of Zimbabwe, from the border with South Africa - or in some cases from Johannesburg.
I understand the problems in reporting news of countries from where journalists are banned. But is there really any extra knowledge to be gained from being many hundreds of miles away from where the story is actually happening?
TI
I have wondered recently whether there's really any worth in some reports (especially the live ones) we've seen from the Burmese/Thail border, or in the case of Zimbabwe, from the border with South Africa - or in some cases from Johannesburg.
I understand the problems in reporting news of countries from where journalists are banned. But is there really any extra knowledge to be gained from being many hundreds of miles away from where the story is actually happening?
A lot of it has to do with image..we see a lot of pointless live crosses during news bulletins, and to me this is an extension of that. Although having someone in Thailand might allow easier access to aid agencies and other organisations based there I suspect that a lot of it is just about being seen to cover it from 'on the ground'.
Several Australian networks have gone to the (somewhat unusual) effort of sending reporters to cover things from the border (although the ABC already has a fulltime correspondent in Bangkok) and from what I've seen a lot of it is just for show.
Spencer For Hire posted:
I have wondered recently whether there's really any worth in some reports (especially the live ones) we've seen from the Burmese/Thail border, or in the case of Zimbabwe, from the border with South Africa - or in some cases from Johannesburg.
I understand the problems in reporting news of countries from where journalists are banned. But is there really any extra knowledge to be gained from being many hundreds of miles away from where the story is actually happening?
Several Australian networks have gone to the (somewhat unusual) effort of sending reporters to cover things from the border (although the ABC already has a fulltime correspondent in Bangkok) and from what I've seen a lot of it is just for show.