Manhunt in the North East

Thanks for your detailed reply. Always interesting to hear other views and why Sky News receives criticism in some parts. Obviously, I'm not here to defend them, but I think their argument that they aim to cover stories that appeal to a wide number of population is persuasive enough. The viewing figures from yesterday appear to back that up, so in that regard they will feel vindicated in the amount of coverage they have given to this manhunt.

Now, that's not to say that I think on location presentation was appropriate for this case necessarily. However, once the decision to commit so fully to a story has been made, I guess it's tough to go back on it, so they'll continue to have the presenters up there for the duration.

I wouldn't say the coverage has been hugely flawed though. Admittedly, not all channels will give it the same amount of coverage, but as long as people are watching, I guess it's fine for Sky to do this, at what is traditionally a quiet period of the year for news. At least they haven't been neglecting other news, as has happened in previous instances. Also, in this case, I may be alone, but I don't feel that there has been anything particularly sensationalised. The facts seem to be presented as they are.

I understand the criticisms you have raised, and also understand that if people don't like particular presenters that would be more than enough not to watch the coverage, however I still don't see what it is that makes you think Sky would be spending time on animating shotgun graphics or whatever was suggested. For all their faults, I see no evidence of them deliberating setting out to upset people in their coverage of their story.

With respect, I think you are missing the point of Gavin's post. He does not question that the story is relevant nor that there are developments in it that necessitate them being reported - he openly recognises that fact - but what he is questioning is the need for Sky to despatch anchors to the scene of a story and provide blanket coverage when the same could have been achieved from Sky Centre. Does it add to anybody's understanding of the situation to have Kay Burley 'ask the locals how terrified they surely are'?

How considerate of him - waiting for Kay Burley and co. to arrive before creating a bloodbath.

The facts are he hasn't gone on a rampage - there have just been two isolated incidents and a pretty empty threat to carry out more. This story really has very little in common with what happened in Cumbria, but the press are desperate to make the link and willing it to be far worse than what it actually currently is.

The fact is, if Sky actually HADN'T sent anyone to the "scene", we would all have been complaining about how long it is taking them to get someone there, for such a major story...........................sigh. They just can't win!!!

I found it a little strange though to watch a double-headed bulletin yesterday, one hour in duration, with the first 30 minutes entirely of JT in Rothbury, and the second 30 minutes entirely of Chris Skudder in Capetown.

There was some other news going on yesterday, you know! (Obama / Nethanyahu / BP collapse fears / Queen at NY / more troops killed in Afghanistan / UK troop pull out......................and so on.)

In fact, I am amazed that the "BP collapse fears" story isn't getting much coverage at all on tv. Not normal for the Government to convene a committee to plan for such an event and it's ramifications .

With respect, James, that isn't a fact - its just speculation on your part. If they hadn't sent their "big guns", they would have been just like the BBC - who are not receiving the same criticism here today. Ergo they could win - they just chose to go OTT.



All of those other stories were covered domestically on the BBC yesterday. All of them.

As to BP - the angle being pursued is more about the avenues they are exploring to mitigate against a share price collapse, and in turn how that has resulted in a subtle bounce in their share price.

An unexpectedly positive spin.

Perhaps, Gavin. But, on the other hand, I can't help but wonder if there would be as much criticism levelled at Sky if they had sent someone else along who wasn't quite as "big a gun". If Anna Botting or Lorna Dunkley were sent out, for example, would we be complaining as much, because it seems that Kay Burley's presence anywhere inflames everyone on here.

Not sure.

As I mentioned on the other thread, they should have sent Vivien Creegor instead..............

Vivien Creegor, eh?

That's good advice - for the past; the next time this happens, four years ago.

LOL. Exactly.

This is exactly the type of gravitas required. Vivien Creegor, backed up by Susan Osman.

On the subject of the manhunt, it warranted an eleven second mention on BBC World earlier! Somewhat less than Sky's coverage. Just a teenie bit.

A man has been escorted into a farm in the area where Moat is apparently based. Sky News showed pictures of the man going into the farm, but now they are blocking out his face.

Did they show them going in to the farm live? Without obscuring the man's face?

Contraire. It's entirely relevant in a discussion about how broadcasters are presenting the story.



You've described the narrative that Mr. Moat put forward and the media has swallowed it hook, line and sinker, just as he expected.

The true narrative is that he holds a grudge against the police for sending him to prison after he assaulted his daughter. The injuries she sustained during this brutal attack must have been very severe for the CPS to approve the case for trial. And of course, he was then found guilty. He also has a previous conviction for carrying a samurai sword and serrated knuckle-duster around in public. Two of his ex-girlfriends say he abused them behind closed doors.

There's your "family man".

Even Sky News has neglected to mention any of this information - they're going along with the narrative he's written. What Moat 'considers himself to be' is the polar opposite of what he actually is.



It's a fact that he's seeking attention.

I don't have the time or patience to articulate all of my thoughts about every minute detail of this case but Jesus, if you can't even see that then there's no point in trying really, is there? It's as plain as the nose on your face, for goodness sake.



Both scenarios involve a man shooting dead those who've 'wronged' them. In Bird's case, he felt wronged by quite a lot of people. In Moat's case, he only feels wronged by a few people - because he is a very different person to Bird. Would you think about crossing him? The other difference between the two cases will be the outcome - Bird shot himself, whereas Moat wants the police to shoot him. One, because he loves himself far too much to ever actually commit suicide, and two, he thinks it will reflect badly on the police and show them up for the 'scum' that they are. Moat believes himself to be a picture of injured innocence, remember. In his mind, the police will be shooting an innocent man. He expects others to believe so, too.



So were many other notable nutters from recent times. Whether or not somebody has a family isn't a very reliable way to judge their character, is it? Again, this should be obvious. You're like 40 or something, Gavin - have you learnt nothing?

Like I said - I prefer not to spend my time spelling things out for people. If YOU don't get what I'm saying, then you don't get it. Don't argue back at me and make out I'm talking **** just because YOU don't understand. OK?

The only surprise is Sky haven't given their reporters some Afghanistan-stylee bulletproof vests to really sensationalise it.

Also, what if he's not found, does it become Big Brother style "Day 42 in the Northumberland Manhunt" or will Sky just get bored and go home?