TW
Judging by Londoner 's comment last night about ITV News' poor prerecord offering, this seems to support your opinion. From what other posters have said in the past few days, Sky News appear to have provided the best coverage by far.
DialUpBorg posted:
IMO, I'm most impressed by the BBC News and Sky News coverage, ITV News faired poorly.
Judging by Londoner 's comment last night about ITV News' poor prerecord offering, this seems to support your opinion. From what other posters have said in the past few days, Sky News appear to have provided the best coverage by far.
WE
Looks like local DAB was totally knackered after having a flick round after 2am, with BRMB, Heart & Galaxy all on music. 5Live did appear on WM at 2am, but looks like it took an alternative 'local radio' feed, as at 6am.(Yes I only got about 4 hours kip! Yawn !), BBC Radio Leicester appeared on WM West Mids DAB, while WM FM came from Coventry with Paul Marriott & Reverend Mervyn Roberts between 6 & 7, then Ed Doolan, who had arrived in Coventry, took over from Mervyn until 9am, then the Mailbox & DAB got going finally with Les Ross until 12. News until 10am was Coventry only on frequencies.
Obviously didn't listen to BRMB's coverage on FM, but once WM got going at Worcester, they didn't do too bad IMO.
If there's going to be an 'inquest', lack of DAB certainly needs to be on the agenda, because the DAB listeners, like yours truly, probably only think DAB & FM are straight copies of one another most of the time!
My opinion : 10/10 for reporting, 0/10 for the technicals (DAB & the back up tape!)
Anyone tune into The Politics Show, to see how much sleep Goldie managed ?
tvmercia posted:
still listening to brmb this evening. on reflection they really have out-done wm in terms of coverage. better punters on the phone, better reporters and far far far far faster at breaking the news. lets hope this makes wm draw up an emergency plan that will allow them to be more than a bloke on a mic watching sky news and taking callers. its at times like this when people turn to local radio.
well done brmb.
well done brmb.
Looks like local DAB was totally knackered after having a flick round after 2am, with BRMB, Heart & Galaxy all on music. 5Live did appear on WM at 2am, but looks like it took an alternative 'local radio' feed, as at 6am.(Yes I only got about 4 hours kip! Yawn !), BBC Radio Leicester appeared on WM West Mids DAB, while WM FM came from Coventry with Paul Marriott & Reverend Mervyn Roberts between 6 & 7, then Ed Doolan, who had arrived in Coventry, took over from Mervyn until 9am, then the Mailbox & DAB got going finally with Les Ross until 12. News until 10am was Coventry only on frequencies.
Obviously didn't listen to BRMB's coverage on FM, but once WM got going at Worcester, they didn't do too bad IMO.
If there's going to be an 'inquest', lack of DAB certainly needs to be on the agenda, because the DAB listeners, like yours truly, probably only think DAB & FM are straight copies of one another most of the time!
My opinion : 10/10 for reporting, 0/10 for the technicals (DAB & the back up tape!)
Anyone tune into The Politics Show, to see how much sleep Goldie managed ?
JW
CNN's coverage has overtaken all the others in the last few days, IMO. Atlanta anchors, Zain Verjee and Jim Clancy appeared on the streets of London in what seemed like only minutes after the attacks (okay, it was 24 hours later, but still quite formidable nonetheless). They anchored YWT from London studios and from the scene.
Excellent back up from Rosemary Church and Hala Gorani back in Atlanta too, making up a triple headed bulletin at certain times, a la Sky News during the Tsunami. Well done CNNI.
You have left by beloved BBC World in the shadows over this one.
Excellent back up from Rosemary Church and Hala Gorani back in Atlanta too, making up a triple headed bulletin at certain times, a la Sky News during the Tsunami. Well done CNNI.
You have left by beloved BBC World in the shadows over this one.
JE
We don't know if Birmingham WAS targeted at all. It's quite possible it was a false alarm. Or maybe someone just decided Birmingham should be evacuated not because of a bomb threat but because... well, because it's Birmingham , for ****'s sake.
Jenny
Founding member
scottishender posted:
Why would they want to do this with Birmingham as they don't have Tony Blair or important people living there. It might be one of Britain's biggest cities but there's not much interesting things over there. I supose London was targeted cause TB, Govement and the Royals live there
We don't know if Birmingham WAS targeted at all. It's quite possible it was a false alarm. Or maybe someone just decided Birmingham should be evacuated not because of a bomb threat but because... well, because it's Birmingham , for ****'s sake.
SJ
Rafael Behr of The Observer having a bit of rant about Sky's coverage of the London Bombings:
It's such a small comment that it's hardly worth mentioning, but I'd have thought The Observer would be praising Sky and berating the BBC for being too slow. I didn't see much of Sky's coverage, so I can't personally comment in any great detail, but this just surprised me.
ObserverBlog posted:
If you have never reported a disaster before, you get trigger happy and start unwittingly spreading falsehood. If you are trained and experienced (goes the argument) you know that all sorts of rubbish swarms into the vacuum between the event and the emergence of a clear picture and you hold back from reporting unsubstantiated rumour, as the BBC did on Thursday. (Unless, of course, you have a commercial incentive to get the maximum audience during a disaster, as Sky did on Thursday.)
It's such a small comment that it's hardly worth mentioning, but I'd have thought The Observer would be praising Sky and berating the BBC for being too slow. I didn't see much of Sky's coverage, so I can't personally comment in any great detail, but this just surprised me.
JO
I read something on here about the BBC slowing down on their own terms, due to the fact that they want to add some sensitivity to the delivery of news.
tillyoshea posted:
Rafael Behr of The Observer having a bit of rant about Sky's coverage of the London Bombings:
It's such a small comment that it's hardly worth mentioning, but I'd have thought The Observer would be praising Sky and berating the BBC for being too slow. I didn't see much of Sky's coverage, so I can't personally comment in any great detail, but this just surprised me.
ObserverBlog posted:
If you have never reported a disaster before, you get trigger happy and start unwittingly spreading falsehood. If you are trained and experienced (goes the argument) you know that all sorts of rubbish swarms into the vacuum between the event and the emergence of a clear picture and you hold back from reporting unsubstantiated rumour, as the BBC did on Thursday. (Unless, of course, you have a commercial incentive to get the maximum audience during a disaster, as Sky did on Thursday.)
It's such a small comment that it's hardly worth mentioning, but I'd have thought The Observer would be praising Sky and berating the BBC for being too slow. I didn't see much of Sky's coverage, so I can't personally comment in any great detail, but this just surprised me.
I read something on here about the BBC slowing down on their own terms, due to the fact that they want to add some sensitivity to the delivery of news.
CA
Commercial incentive? That does not follow logically with Sky dropping advertising for about 24 hours. It is amazing how many uninformed idiots write for newspapers, isn't it.
The BBC's coverage was, I felt, atrocious. They were about ten minutes behind Sky and five behind ITV in reporting just about everything. They couldn't even make a decent job of breaking the news in the first place - putting up a strap, taking it down, then mentioning it ten minutes later as a minor detail. They opted into News 24 on BBC1 only to opt out again and then have to opt in again 20 minutes later when they thought that perhaps it was vaguely important.
Whenever I turned over they had that black map up, which wasn't very helpful, and god only knows why it took them about 6 hours to come up with any ''recognisable'' faces to front coverage. A very, very poor effort, I thought.
The BBC's coverage was, I felt, atrocious. They were about ten minutes behind Sky and five behind ITV in reporting just about everything. They couldn't even make a decent job of breaking the news in the first place - putting up a strap, taking it down, then mentioning it ten minutes later as a minor detail. They opted into News 24 on BBC1 only to opt out again and then have to opt in again 20 minutes later when they thought that perhaps it was vaguely important.
Whenever I turned over they had that black map up, which wasn't very helpful, and god only knows why it took them about 6 hours to come up with any ''recognisable'' faces to front coverage. A very, very poor effort, I thought.
SJ
Of course it does - when a big story breaks, there's a much greater opportunity to bring in viewers, and dropping ad breaks helps that. Then when it comes to selling air time for ads for future periods, they have much greater average viewing figures and much higher peaks, and so can sell for more cash. If you think Sky do this kind of thing because they're nice cuddly blokes who just want to do the best thing for the country, then I think you're being unrealistically naive.
cat posted:
Commercial incentive? That does not follow logically with Sky dropping advertising for about 24 hours.
Of course it does - when a big story breaks, there's a much greater opportunity to bring in viewers, and dropping ad breaks helps that. Then when it comes to selling air time for ads for future periods, they have much greater average viewing figures and much higher peaks, and so can sell for more cash. If you think Sky do this kind of thing because they're nice cuddly blokes who just want to do the best thing for the country, then I think you're being unrealistically naive.