Sky is without a doubt giving us the best coverage of this latest crisis. Moments ago Martin was live as bombs exploded behind him, it was really terrifying. At the same time BBC World was bringing us the latest sport news. Not to mention CNN which is the worst. They 've been showing Eye on Africa all week long, and I expected the best from them.
Sky has it's top names and best reporters live, 24 hours a day on the battlefield where the danger is, giving us the real taste of things happening there.
Sky is without a doubt giving us the best coverage of this latest crisis. Moments ago Martin was live as bombs exploded behind him, it was really terrifying. At the same time BBC World was bringing us the latest sport news. Not to mention CNN which is the worst. They 've been showing Eye on Africa all week long, and I expected the best from them.
Sky has it's top names and best reporters live, 24 hours a day on the battlefield where the danger is, giving us the real taste of things happening there.
While I agree that this does make good TV, what does it actually tell us? We know there are bombings. We know what an explosion looks like. Do we need reporters where the bombs are going off?
Why are we constantly getting JT and Martin being bombed while they're on air (according to reports here, I've actually yet to see it happen), but Ben Brown hasn't been bombed once despite being in a city which is getting ten times more bombs being chucked at it.
Sky has it's top names and best reporters live, 24 hours a day on the battlefield where the danger is, giving us the real taste of things happening there.
Sending your 'top names' to anchor your broadcasts from the region really helps convey a sense of the danger? I don't really think that's fair. Admittedly, Martin Stanford was reporting live whilst the latest round of rockets hit Haifa, but any correspondent from any network could have been on screen at the time. Consider the wars in the Balkans throughout the 1990s - it was Martin Bell who was wounded by shrapnel after a mortar exploded close by. Similarly, it was John Simpson who was injured when a convoy was attacked in Iraq either last year or the year before. Whilst this event wasn't broadcast live, he was on air (with all the commotion around him) reporting within a few moments. If that isn't being 'where the danger is, giving us the real taste of things happening', I'm not really sure what is.
The BBC/ITV/Sky have a unique position - they are a triumvirate of networks that have retained and epanded the overseas bureaux, whilst others (notably the US networks) have downsized. They all have correspondents in the region who are more than capable of reporting directly from the field, demonstrating their knowledge in the region. Where extra support is needed, they can draw upon other correspondents from the World Affairs/International units. With his experience in reporting from both the Middle East and elsewhere around the world, Ben Brown is perfectly suited to act as interim anchor from the region. Some people on here might find that his mannner or presentation isn't necessarily as polished as Jeremy Thompson's, but then Brown hasn't been sat behind an anchor desk in West London for the last decade.
To put this in perspective, during the Television Critics Association Conference in the US this week, Charles Gibson of ABC World News asked "If I come in or Katie [Couric] comes in or Brian [Williams] comes in, does that necessarily increase how the good the coverage is?" Gibson continued "I think probably it calls more attention to the story, but I'm very mindful of the fact that the people who regularly cover the beat know it best, and I don't want to do anything in terms of anchor travel to preempt the prerogatives of those who really know the stories best." Gibson anchored last night's edition of World News from New York, having returned from the Middle East. Similarly, when asked why he didn't go to the Middle East to anchor coverage for CBS, interim CBS Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer said that he did want to go, but with network rebuiliding its news division following Dan Rather's departure "this was really a chance to showcase some of our younger correspondents and their experience in the region".
Sky has it's top names and best reporters live, 24 hours a day on the battlefield where the danger is, giving us the real taste of things happening there.
Sending your 'top names' to anchor your broadcasts from the region really helps convey a sense of the danger? I don't really think that's fair. Admittedly, Martin Stanford was reporting live whilst the latest round of rockets hit Haifa, but any correspondent from any network could have been on screen at the time. Consider the wars in the Balkans throughout the 1990s - it was Martin Bell who was wounded by shrapnel after a mortar exploded close by. Similarly, it was John Simpson who was injured when a convoy was attacked in Iraq either last year or the year before. Whilst this event wasn't broadcast live, he was on air (with all the commotion around him) reporting within a few moments. If that isn't being 'where the danger is, giving us the real taste of things happening', I'm not really sure what is.
The BBC/ITV/Sky have a unique position - they are a triumvirate of networks that have retained and epanded the overseas bureaux, whilst others (notably the US networks) have downsized. They all have correspondents in the region who are more than capable of reporting directly from the field, demonstrating their knowledge in the region. Where extra support is needed, they can draw upon other correspondents from the World Affairs/International units. With his experience in reporting from both the Middle East and elsewhere around the world, Ben Brown is perfectly suited to act as interim anchor from the region. Some people on here might find that his mannner or presentation isn't necessarily as polished as Jeremy Thompson's, but then Brown hasn't been sat behind an anchor desk in West London for the last decade.
To put this in perspective, during the Television Critics Association Conference in the US this week, Charles Gibson of ABC World News asked "If I come in or Katie [Couric] comes in or Brian [Williams] comes in, does that necessarily increase how the good the coverage is?" Gibson continued "I think probably it calls more attention to the story, but I'm very mindful of the fact that the people who regularly cover the beat know it best, and I don't want to do anything in terms of anchor travel to preempt the prerogatives of those who really know the stories best." Gibson anchored last night's edition of World News from New York, having returned from the Middle East. Similarly, when asked why he didn't go to the Middle East to anchor coverage for CBS, interim CBS Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer said that he did want to go, but with network rebuiliding its news division following Dan Rather's departure "this was really a chance to showcase some of our younger correspondents and their experience in the region".
Very interesting. I particually see the points relating to the US Media. I watched ABC's 'World News Tonight' when Charlie Gibson anchored from the 'Middle East'. It was infact a boat in Cyprus. Make of that what you will.
Alot of the US networks have really found reporting this difficult, namely because of their reductions in international correspondents. But really all I have found, watching the American coverage, is a reinforcement of how effective British, whether that be BBC, Sky or ITN, coverage is.
For most anchors/presenters, (don't forget the term anchor is simply a person who holds a newscast together), are reporters and journalists. The only difference is that they are at the very pinnacle of their career. Having said this, they still have the taste for a big story, and more often or not, perform better in the field, than sat in a studio brewing with jealousy.
For most anchors/presenters, (don't forget the term anchor is simply a person who holds a newscast together), are reporters and journalists. The only difference is that they are at the very pinnacle of their career. Having said this, they still have the taste for a big story, and more often or not, perform better in the field, than sat in a studio brewing with jealousy.
Pinnacle of their career? If that's the case, why did John Simpson agree to anchor the Nine O'Clock News in the early 1980s alongside John Humphrys before accepting a demotion to World Affairs Editor? By the way, I have three degrees and work in the industry, so understand all too well the definition of 'anchor'. If that is all the anchor does, then the decision by CBS not to send Bob Schieffer is a perfect example of how one should operate - providing the synopsis of the news, providing the links to correspondents in the field, etc.
Similarly, it was John Simpson who was injured when a convoy was attacked in Iraq either last year or the year before. Whilst this event wasn't broadcast live, he was on air (with all the commotion around him) reporting within a few moments. If that isn't being 'where the danger is, giving us the real taste of things happening', I'm not really sure what is.
This was a bit different to the current situation of having anchors/reports where bombs are predicably falling. Simpson wasn't expecting to be bombed, and it was a huge story as it was 'friendly fire'. Extremely fortunate for Simpson, he was just - as in most of his career - in the right place at the right time.
Schwing posted:
With his experience in reporting from both the Middle East and elsewhere around the world, Ben Brown is perfectly suited to act as interim anchor from the region. Some people on here might find that his mannner or presentation isn't necessarily as polished as Jeremy Thompson's, but then Brown hasn't been sat behind an anchor desk in West London for the last decade.
I think Ben Brown has been OK this week, but not as good as JT or Martin. However he will get better as he spents more time on the 6.30-10 slot on News 24.
It's probably why they've picked him and Emily to host this. It gives them national anchor experience, and I presume that in the same way that Ben has been used in the Middle East, Emily would be used to anchor a major UK story.
Pinnacle of their career? If that's the case, why did John Simpson agree to anchor the Nine O'Clock News in the early 1980s alongside John Humphrys before accepting a demotion to World Affairs Editor?
Simpson was sacked from the Nine (after some embarrasement when he gave some unbiased coverage that was seen to be sticking up for the Argies during the Falklands Conflict) and the role of Foreign Affairs Editor (as it was then) was created for him.
For most anchors/presenters, (don't forget the term anchor is simply a person who holds a newscast together), are reporters and journalists. The only difference is that they are at the very pinnacle of their career. Having said this, they still have the taste for a big story, and more often or not, perform better in the field, than sat in a studio brewing with jealousy.
Pinnacle of their career? If that's the case, why did John Simpson agree to anchor the Nine O'Clock News in the early 1980s alongside John Humphrys before accepting a demotion to World Affairs Editor? By the way, I have three degrees and work in the industry, so understand all too well the definition of 'anchor'. If that is all the anchor does, then the decision by CBS not to send Bob Schieffer is a perfect example of how one should operate - providing the synopsis of the news, providing the links to correspondents in the field, etc.
Quote:
By the way, I have three degrees and work in the industry, so understand all too well the definition of 'anchor'.
Well there is no need to arsey, I was simply giving my opinion, and it was not directly pointed at anyone, so no need to take offence of your education or position in the media world.
To be honest, if this is what I should expect from posting in TV Forum, I won't bother giving my opinion, gone are the days of the early 2000's when this place respected views and weren't all on high-horses.
"Rant Over", Martin Stanford, Jeremy Thompson, and to an extent Tim Marshall have been giving excellent coverage from the region, and I think that it shows the level of professionalism they all convey at Sky News in the time of heightened and regular breaking news.
Well there is no need to arsey, I was simply giving my opinion, and it was not directly pointed at anyone, so no need to take offence of your education or position in the media world.
I know this doesn't happen too often aound here, but I'm sorry if you thought I was being arsey. My point was that those people who browse this site have a knowledge and an understanding of the terms used in the industry, so there was no need to state the obvious. Again though, my apologies.
Also, Sky's coverage often looks more impressive because London-based anchors and reporters from around the world pop up in Israel and Lebanon (or wherever the story is). The speed of their arrival might be impressive - as it was with the tsunami - but they have to do this as, unlike the BBC, they don't have many reporters in the region. It doesn't look quite so impressive when a Jerusalem correspondent turns up a couple of hours drive from their base.