Manhunt in the North East

Since you ignored me, I'm going to assume you haven't seen any early rating figures and are simply making things up to try and artificially strengthen your point. So that doesn't really make you any better than those people you are describing...

When I was talking about the ratings Magoo posted that Sky beat the BBC in ratings. Sky have had witnesses etc. on and Jeremy Thompson had a school girl on yesterday claiming she saw Raoul moat. He treated it with caution and made sure when he referred to it later on it was un-confirmed etc. I dont think Sky's coverage has been in factual what so ever. They are all over the story, have their reporters in every significant location and are informing me what the developments and key stories regarding this story are.

So maybe you should read the thread before posting Lost the Remote.

I don't comment all that often but, when I do, I do so generally having thought about the issue under discussion. I cannot see how Sky's coverage yesterday was better than that of BBC News. The BBC is very fortunate to have a number of correspondents based in the region and in London that can be dispatched to report on the situation. This was evident yesterday; the coverage from Daniel Sanford, Nick Ravenscroft and Danny Savage offered far greater depth and insight than that put forward by Sky. Of particular note is the work by Savage who, by his own admission, had spent his day 'in lockdown' in Rothbury. Notwithstanding this, he was able to gather information from across the area, follow events and report on the situation. The BBC did not at any point yesterday feel the need to dispatch its anchors to the region to report on the situation.

Sky, on the other hand, seemed intent on fulfilling Mark Twain's adage that 'first get the facts... then you can distort them at your leisure'. The coverage was slow and exposed a distinct lack of resources; whilst Sky showed footage of the area in which the black Audi had been discovered, the BBC had followed specialist officers and were showing a live feed from a helicopter of a farmhouse that was under surveillance (it's notable that this feed was later delayed when the officers entered the property in case of any incident). Sky's coverage was based, for the most part, on confusion and speculation and any attempt to offer rational and balanced coverage was thrown to the side. The extent of Sky's insightful coverage was to ask a handwriting expert for their analysis of the letter obtained by the Sun and what it conveyed about the psychological condition of Moat. In all honesty, I think most people could have drawn the same conclusion without the need to analyse his handwriting. There will come a time, no doubt, when Sky will use a handwriting expert to offer insight into the mind of an individual based solely on the contents of a shopping list stuck to the door of the refrigerator. I'm reminded of an incident on Fox News a few years ago in which Brit Hume, their Managing Editor in Washington DC., made a remark about a Fox News Alert and cat up a tree. It is, in essence, the same principle.

The arrival of Kay Burley and Jeremy Thompson on the scene served only to reinforce the idea that Sky had opted for a more 'hysterical' approach to the story. What purpose was served by having Burley and Thompson at the scene? Was the coverage any better for having them live? Did they achieve any exceptional level of depth in their coverage that couldn't have been achieved with a stringer, an OB rig and a supply of earpieces and microphones? I'm confident that Kay Burley's interview with the father of a pupil at school in Rothbury could have been conducted from the comfort of Isleworth. Having both Kay Burley and Jeremy Thompson roam the countryside of the North East did not aid my understanding of the story nor convey any new detail. I'm fully convinced that Kay Burley would have attempted to conduct an interview with a police sniffer dog if given the opportunity yesterday.

This is, of course, part and parcel of a debate that has played out on this forum for a few years. Fuelled by coverage of events in the Middle East, the Asian Tsunami and of Sir Terry Wogan's recent comments about newsreading being easy, we've all discussed the merits of having a team of anchors relocate and descend on an area in the misplaced assumption that it adds to the breadth of coverage. It doesn't. It serves to reinforce only the misplaced belief within these people that they are correspondents cut of the same cloth as Ed Murrow, Richard Dimbleby, Bill Deedes and Martha Gellhorn. They are not; they are journalists who either have demonstrated an innate ability to listen to somebody talk to them through an earpiece whilst reading an autocue or they are correspondents who have decided to come in from the cold and sacrifice any integrity for a hike in their salary.

If it turns out to be the case that the viewing figures for Sky have increased and closed the distance between it and the BBC, or that for the first time in a long time it has overtaken the BBC News Channel, then it reveals more about the morality and standards of the public than it does of the quality of journalism put forth by Sky.

Over to you Live at five with Jeremy - enlighten the forum as to why Sky's coverage has excelled that of the BBC in covering this story.

I think The Daily Mash hit the nail on the head today:

Any chance you could do Kay Burley? Rothbury asks armed police

I've only saw a scheduled TV news bulletin yesterday, and heard radio news today - but I'd be really interested to hear what all these developments and 'key stories on the story' are.

As far as I can make out the guy has been on the run, police thought he was in Rothbury and they searched the village, still not tracked him down today but they are still searching.

Whilst some background on the person and some updates from the police are useful, essentially that is the whole story. The coverage you seem to want is that of endless speculation, gossip and reports of panic and hysteria. It seems to me you look to a news channel for entertainment more than news.

In my view, a good rolling news channel should allow me to dip in and out and give me a good overall summary of what's been happening in the world - not hours of "what a crazy man might do" storytelling.

To be honest I don't think the question here is whether or not anchors should be sent out to anchor the big stories on location - it's more about whether or not this is a big story in the first place. IMO it's regional news at best, and in making it something bigger than it is the Murdoch media especially are playing right into the hands of a maniac and certainly doing little too help the efforts to bring these events to a swift - and safe - conclusion.

If it's a big story to run around Cumbria waving a gun and shooting people, then surely the same applies if you do it in Northumbria?

The results are potentially the same: a bloodbath! The only difference at the moment is that the media have had enough time to 'set up shop' on location beforehand, rather than arriving after the event.

This all assumes that Moat is still in the area!

Could you *be* any more Burley?

Apologies, I wasn't trying to be sensationalist.

I haven't seen any of Ms Burley's latest ramblings, but I was pointing out that potentially, this is quite a dangerous situation, if the police reports are to be believed.

By most accounts the guy is allegedly a nutter, in which case he's more likely to start shooting at the police if he's cornered, rather than meekly hand over his weapon(s).

I don't agree with the minute-by-minute reporting on rolling news channels, but you can hardly blame them for wanting to be there.

Actually, by most accounts he's not. He was a "quiet living family man" - who plainly had some difficulties or violent episodes that put him inside. But not a "nutter" in the the common sense of the word.

That much has been said by all the news gatherers.



Think you might have misread the criticisms here. Its newsworthy - in as much as the limited facts, development and background allows you to report on - or you can send Burley in wearing a jump-suit and have her ask the locals how terrified they surely are, and continually refer to it as a "developing story" - when in fact very little has changed in 48 hours.

Sky's is getting ridiculous now - a live from woodland about whether or not he can survive without a tent!

So you wouldn't classify the location of his car, the location of his overnight stay which included a tent and a second letter addressed to his wife and numerous sightings of him as major developments in this story?