SC
I can understand your point, but Simpson was in Iraq during a period of time in which attacks against coalition forces were occuring with increased frequency. To say that Simpson was not expecting to be bombed is, in all honesty, a little naive. There was an attendant risk with being an embedded reporter, working alongside the American and British troops within the region. Friendly fire incidents do occur, unfortunately. As you rightly point out, what made this instance different is the fact that this was a case of friendly fire.
Ben Brown has been fantastic this week, in comparison to his typical style of presentation. What you need to appreciate is that JT and MS have at least a decade of experience sat behind the anchor desk in Isleworth. Brown has been in the field for the majority of his career and only recently accepted an anchor role. It takes time to relax, develop a style, and so on. In that sense, Ben Brown is one of the few remaining examples of a true anchor, as Jon Snow highlighted a few weeks ago. He, like Snow, Mark Austin and the likes of Sissons, Buerk, Gall, Burnett before them, come to the anchor desk with a track record in foreign reportage.
That said, as I write, Ben Brown is discussing the present situation with Jeremy Bowen. This is where the BBC is fortunate. Bowen - as the Middle East Editor - has both the foreign affairs experience and the anchor experience. By drawing upon staff like this, the BBC is demonstrating the breadth and credibilty of its resources. With Bowen's expertise in the region, it is only natural that he should be dispatched. With his presence, it looks more like a specialist reporter with anchoring experience has been sent to the region, rather than an anchor.
I'm not certain if Emily Maitliss, however, would be used to anchor a story within the UK as you suggest. Ben Brown is a far more recognisable figure than Maitliss, whose experience extends to anchoring on BBC London and Newsnight, both with a limited level of viewership. It would be more likely that Jane Hill or somebody similar would be sent to cover the story, given the exposure they have received through the BBC's other outlets.
When all is said and done, though, does it really matter if coverage is anchored from a certain location by a big name? As themagicmonkey points out, the BBC is fortunate enough to have a large presence in the region, so suddenly appearing in the neighbouring country and filing a report is not a major achievement. For SKY, it is. Moreover, with the technology available today, including satellite uplinks, broadband connections, etc., providing coverage for continuous news channels is not as difficult as it once was. Broadcasts do not need to be anchored by a big name on location, but by a big name within the environment to which they have been promoted.
Moz posted:
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.
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.
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.
I can understand your point, but Simpson was in Iraq during a period of time in which attacks against coalition forces were occuring with increased frequency. To say that Simpson was not expecting to be bombed is, in all honesty, a little naive. There was an attendant risk with being an embedded reporter, working alongside the American and British troops within the region. Friendly fire incidents do occur, unfortunately. As you rightly point out, what made this instance different is the fact that this was a case of friendly fire.
Ben Brown has been fantastic this week, in comparison to his typical style of presentation. What you need to appreciate is that JT and MS have at least a decade of experience sat behind the anchor desk in Isleworth. Brown has been in the field for the majority of his career and only recently accepted an anchor role. It takes time to relax, develop a style, and so on. In that sense, Ben Brown is one of the few remaining examples of a true anchor, as Jon Snow highlighted a few weeks ago. He, like Snow, Mark Austin and the likes of Sissons, Buerk, Gall, Burnett before them, come to the anchor desk with a track record in foreign reportage.
That said, as I write, Ben Brown is discussing the present situation with Jeremy Bowen. This is where the BBC is fortunate. Bowen - as the Middle East Editor - has both the foreign affairs experience and the anchor experience. By drawing upon staff like this, the BBC is demonstrating the breadth and credibilty of its resources. With Bowen's expertise in the region, it is only natural that he should be dispatched. With his presence, it looks more like a specialist reporter with anchoring experience has been sent to the region, rather than an anchor.
I'm not certain if Emily Maitliss, however, would be used to anchor a story within the UK as you suggest. Ben Brown is a far more recognisable figure than Maitliss, whose experience extends to anchoring on BBC London and Newsnight, both with a limited level of viewership. It would be more likely that Jane Hill or somebody similar would be sent to cover the story, given the exposure they have received through the BBC's other outlets.
When all is said and done, though, does it really matter if coverage is anchored from a certain location by a big name? As themagicmonkey points out, the BBC is fortunate enough to have a large presence in the region, so suddenly appearing in the neighbouring country and filing a report is not a major achievement. For SKY, it is. Moreover, with the technology available today, including satellite uplinks, broadband connections, etc., providing coverage for continuous news channels is not as difficult as it once was. Broadcasts do not need to be anchored by a big name on location, but by a big name within the environment to which they have been promoted.