Saif Al Islam Gadaffi Captured

But my point is those people will just want a round-up of the day's news, which can be done by editing what's been on the News Channel. Leave the correspondents in the field to concentrate on providing coverage for NC & World.

I can't believe that even World took the 6 last night, leaving no rolling news on the BBC at all.

I worry that BBC journalists on the ground now feel that they have to take excessive risks to get footage. Whilst Alex Crawford did some excellent reporting it seems there was also an element of luck. Does the BBC possibly feel they have to go "bigger and better" but ultimately take more sisks? Are these risks worthwile?

No, I think that's the point. The BBC would never and will never ask its journalists to put themselves in harms-way for the sake of a story. Frankly I suspect the likes of Matthew Price, Rupert Wingfield-Hayes and Alex Crawford see the public's take on this, at this moment in time, as a useless anomaly. They are there to report on a story and they will do so in the best, safest way they can. And ultimately that's all anyone, broadcaster or members of the public, can ask of them.

I'm not asking them to take more risks, just manage their time better. Cover the story, let London put the package together!

I agree that it is more important to get the news out rather than mae it look pretty for the 6 or 10 and I also agree that they are also taking a risk by being in Tripoli at such a dangerous time. I'm simpyl wondering whether the ongoing conversation/debate over the BBC's lack of lives and Sky's courageous coverage will influence either the journalists or other staff at the BBC. Will they feel like they have to take extra risks to get one over on Sky?

I wonder if that's compatible with the cultre of self-edit journalism that is prevalent at the BBC.

Aside from packages for the bulletins, one assumes they're doing reports for radio, world and the web - it'd be interesting to know if there's a senior story producer/team assigned for this kind of event, and indeed, what criteria constitutes an "event".

Didn't see much of Alex on Sky, bit and pieces. Enough to know that I'd have been swept up in the story, given the positions she found herself in.

But it did cross my mind - had she perished by sniper fire or worse - would her contribution of live pictures in perilous situations have been worth it?

Struggling with that one.

I managed to glean a pretty full understanding from the BBC despite them not being first or having pictures.

And of course it would be the likes of Sky, the Daily Mail (who won't miss an opportunity to write how bad the BBC's coverage has been) who lobbied for the BBC to cut costs on their news coverage.



No it definitely wouldn't, no story is worth dying for.

I do have reservations over Sky's coverage, the fact she was in places that no other broadcaster was in means that she/Sky was either courageous or reckless. She did put herself in some very dangerous and unpredictable situations, even amongst the rebels the risk of being hit by 'celebratory gunfire' was very high.

Mind you yesterday (Tuesday) Alex and the other male Sky reporter who were in the compound were more protected than AJE's James Bays who was reporting live from a similar location - without a helmet, and then gave up early because he was worried about getting hit.


The thing to remember is that very few people watch rolling news and a single event will be watched by very few people. A wrap package in a bulletin or at the top of the hour is probably better at conveying what has actually happened than live coverage of the same events - sorry for the inappropriate phrase but, it's all killer and no filler!

I cant believe people are having a go at Sky. Throughout the conflict in Libya none of the Sky personnel have been injured or killed so to say what they did is reckless is just plainly untrue. They were extremely well protected when showing the world the first live pictures from martyr square and from inside the compound. I think its just a cast that some people have sour grapes because Sky comprehensively outdone the BBC and others on this story as they continue to do more frequently now.

I don't get "sour grapes" over trivialities like one broadcaster gaining an exclusive over another.

I'm more concerned about someone being shot dead.

I'm sure you're also above such pettiness as championing your favourite broadcaster, "Live at five with with Jeremy".

er, they've been praised for their coverage continuously in this thread for the last 4 days, and rightly so


Just because no-one got hurt doesn't mean it's not reckless, and there's a fine line between couragousness and recklessness


As I said in the post above. Although of course you can never be fully protected against gunfire or explosions


Sour grapes? What are you on about? This isn't a case of 'team Sky' and 'team BBC'.... if you want that sort of nonsense go to Digital Spy! The discussion on here has been perfectly objective, Mr 'Live at Five with Jeremy'

I hear that The Brilliant Konnie Huq is on her way to Tripoli as we speak.

Is this to add some much needed heavyweight gravitas to the situation? Good thing if so, at least we'll no longer have to struggle on by with complete no-hopers such as Alex Crawford, Lyse Doucet and John Simpson.... Definitely need somebody like Konnie Huq or possibly even Ellie Crisell out there. Which news organisation will she be representing? BBC, ITN or AFP?

(I am being sarcastic. LOL)