Conrad Murray - Sentencing

Fascinating though it may be for many people, but do ALL news outlets really need to carry this story live and continuously in the current manner?

There's a few other things going on in the world, you know. Global economic meltdown. Gadaffi on the run. Syrians being massacred (allegedly) by the score. Palestine and Israel at loggerheads over the formers application to join the UN. Philippine typhoon deaths. Boeing 787 being pressed into service.

And many many other things.

Do we all really need to see endless coverage of witnesses and people coughing and spluttering in the public gallery of a LA courtroom.

Oh for God's sake.

I agree for the most part. There's a lot of hype over in the US surrounding the trial, but I don't think we're as interested in hearing every single live second in Britain, so why should our 24h channels present rolling coverage?Sky has been worse; the EPG shows that they're carrying "The Jackson Trial" for most of the afternoon and evening. Even Fox and CNNi haven't stuck with proceedings that rigorously.

The thing I don't get is why stream continuous coverage when it's live on the red button anyway? To be honest, there are lots of other stories that deserve at least some airtime - this whole thing is starting to feel like a media orchestrated circus.

Showing endless coverage of the boring wittering American Legal proceedings is NOT NEWS.

The job of journalists is to provide us with a "report" on the news story, so I would expect that there would be 3 or 4 minutes in a news bulletin, and perhaps the odd interview, but to go to it live for hours at a time is ridiculous and lazy.

The News should not be allowed to carry live coverage of court proceedings or press conferences.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying the story shouldn't be covered. It should be, but by regular package updates from the scene or in filed reports. I agree with that.

But not endlessly live.

I agree with BBC World.

The coverage is well over-the-top.

It's not news, until there is a result.
THEN all I want is a report, not necessarily from a reporter on the spot. A ten second PTC from the studio would suffice.

CNNI has been surprisingly moderate with their live coverage.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was a ploy by some stations to save money, especially as not many people are going to be watching it here. I remember the Michael Jackson abuse trial several years ago, which I think was the last time British news channels featured wall-to-wall coverage from inside a courthouse. It's a shame, seeing as how many other stories deserve some airtime.

As said above, just tell us the outcome, and if necessary, highlights of the day's events.

I wish Sky World News would give it a rest!!!! How much do we really need to see of this trial? Is it because it's cheap television?

On BBC World, Tanya Beckett had barely read the headlines on World Business Report, before throwing live to the courthouse in Los Angeles. I guess this particular broadcast is the only one which viewers really need to see.