Manhunt in the North East

Amazing.

I thought that at first, the pictures did look very similar but at one point they were both showing the night-vision pictures and one of them, BBC I think, tilted the camera up to show the police helicopter whereas the other didn't, so they did both have their own cameras there last night. I guess one green picture not really showing much looks pretty similar to another green picture not really showing much.

ITV were unlucky last night, they had the first moving pictures of Moat during the stand off at 10pm but they would have had the first pictures of any kind if it wasn't for Sky getting a still picture to air just before 10pm.

Thanks for the support, Jugalug. Sadly this isn't the first occasion on this thread that others have ignored what I think are valid posts and questions; I'm still waiting for Live at five with Jeremy to enlighten the forum as to why he believes that Sky's coverage excelled that of BBC News. It's become noticeable in recent months how posts are either ignored and not responded to or are being used as launchpads to attack fellow members of the forum. It makes me question what value can be gained from contributing to the forum.



I don't doubt that there were some people in Rothbury who 'didn't really care' but the majority of the interviews and the coverage belies this. Whilst the media may have sought out actively interviews with people who were concerned by the situation, the public meeting held on Thursday evening would suggest the contrary.



A bit unfortunate your choice of example. In August 1987, Michael Ryan went on the rampage through Hungerford in Berkshire, killing 16 people. As I remember, the media did cover it with the schedules disrupted on a number of occasions before special bulletins were produced for both the BBC and ITV. Much of the ITV coverage was provided by TVS and reporters from all broadcasters and newspapers arrived on the scene very rapidly. You might wish to read this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/inside-story-20-years-on--how-the-hungerford-massacre-was-reported-461394.html

I accept that there are differences between the cases: no rolling news channel existed in the UK in 1987 (although it would be only 2 more years until the launch of Sky News) but the coverage by regional and network broadcasts and the print media is comparable; and the events in Hungerford transpired over the course of one day as opposed to the week long duration of the Rothbury incident.



This is an interesting point in light of a) the press conference on Thursday in which Northumbria Police announced that the threat had been widened towards the general public, and b) the details revealed today by both the police and the IPCC regarding various media blackouts and the meeting between the police and representatives of the media. Some of the questions to which Brekkie alludes in all probability can - and will - be answered and will have to feature in the conclusions offered by the IPCC. For the benefit of those that did not (or indeed did) see the press conference on Thursday morning, the first question put to the police queried that the threat was directed more specifically at the media. The reporter asking the question cited sources in Northumbria Police and the investigation.

Brekkie refers to 'serious questions on the role the media played'; those questions have largely been the basis of this thread. Should Sky and the BBC have covered the story? Was it even a story? (Which is your own position on the matter, Brekkie). Was some of the coverage excessive or tabloid-esque? Perhaps if some members of this forum had the decency to engage in balanced, meaningful and thoughtful debate they might find some of those answers.

I do stand by what I've said from the start. Obviously the story did grow into something more, but as I stated earlier the media were very much responsible for feeding the story too IMO, and certainly tried to create a climate of fear in the local area amongst residents and the police force.


And Jugalug - how about you actually post an opinion on something related to TV for once rather than just being the self-appointed TV Forum police popping their head in to criticise how others post! I posted all I had to say on the matter and had read and considered Schwing's post, along with the others, in my reply - to which Schwing has replied without the need for you to interfere. So why don't you post your opinion on the matter being discussed rather than on the posters discussing it!

"Feeding the story" implies that the coverage somehow influenced or perpetuated the event; but as the key player was, apparently, hiding in derelict shops and undergrowth for days, you have to question how much of it he actually saw.

I know there are lots of examples these days of "non stories" annoyingly lingering in the headlines, but this doesn't strike me as one - certainly not with the events of Friday night. Catching up on this thread, I did wonder why you made your remark after such a dramatic conclusion.

Seems to me like you'd rather entrench yourself to your original assessment than be open to the view that, in the end, this story was *actually* a story, and not a non-story as you thought.

And that's fair enough. I disagree, but we're all here to have our say.

For the record I disagree just as much about your assessment of Jugalug, who makes many interesting and salient contributions to threads, and he's also open to responding to other's opinions. An ideal type of contributor to a forum, you might say.

In regard to the coverage, I can't add more to what I said previously. Sky verged on hysteria early, and made the mistake of mobilising their biggest face and simultaneously their biggest flaw. The BBC played it well with low-key faces and 'little and often' updates; and had the benefit of Jon Sopel for the final thrust.

All very interesting.

I do find this unfair. It annoyed me that Schwing had clearly taken the time to respond thoughtfully to something you said but you seemed to completely ignore it. I don't care if you agree or disagree, I just wish you'd posted something , however brief, to indicate that it was worthwhile Schwing bothering. Of course I'm interested in TV presentation - why else would I belong to this forum? It's hardly mainstream, is it?

Of course Schwing doesn't need a 'knight in shining armour' - but I thought that he was perhaps too polite to say that he expected a response. In any case, why shouldn't I say how I feel about members' posting? If someone came up to a group of people talking and said this, of course I would pull them up on it. Maybe you wouldn't, but we're different. (And yes, I deliberately chose that post to show that I'm not simply anti-Brekkie, if you were thinking that!)



I'm glad you agree - I enjoyed your post and just felt it was was a shame that it (appeared to have) fell on deaf ears. Thank you Gavin also for your kind words.

I'd better reply otherwise I might get told off! I have got nothing else to say on the matter though, so I'll shut up now.

What are you on about?

Oh, man! I see what you mean. Did she actually say that? How ridiculous, if so.

Oh yes. You can see her thought process - "these people are in the north , so I'll say Corrie ".

Mind like a rapier. Its frightening.

Only had access to Sky News on Friday night but some observations I made:

At one point a reported was describing the scene he could see, and said he had a map of Rothbury in front of him; would have been a perfect opportunity for Sky to put a map on the screen to break away for a bit from the continuous camera shot of the police line.
Pictures of Raoul Moat in B&Q were at one point described as "dramatic".
One Sky reporter described Gazza as "clearly intoxicated" on air.
Kay Burley just ten minutes after coming on air described the "latest pictures" which had been on hours before and were clearly taken in daylight.
Martin Stanford drew a circle on a picture around something already circled, despite this he is very undervalued at Sky, I'm surprised he's happy doing what he does there.
Why oh why oh why did Sky feel it vitally important to get Kay Burley back on air?

She probably threw some sort of temper tantrum that she was missing out and threatened to leave for GMTV unless she was given a comfy chair, an iPad and an ISDN link.