Indeed, just a point of reference, despite waiting an hour to broadcast any report on it, the BBC still got it wrong.
They were reporting an ''accident'' when they first broke the report, whereas when I checked Sky at the same time they were reporting he had been ''taken ill''. As it now appears he suffered a heart attack it seems that even though they sat on their backsides for 60 minutes they still made a mess of it.
If it happens, it happens there. Just a bit later, and not necessarily all that accurately.
I wonder who we might hear from later thsi evening - has Nick Robinson officially taken over from Andrew Marr as BBC political correspondent yet - or are we in a sort of holding period because of the holiday season?
I don't really have any broadcast comments on any of this, but I'm very keen to hear what the two of them and Adam Boulton make of it all. Could continue to be a difficult period given Mo Mowlam's present condition (currently exactly the same as it was when it was first revealed she was ill, as far as I know).
I don't think the BBC should be criticized for not breaking the news instantly. I always think it's better to follow the phrase "better to be safe than sorry". I don't think it is worth the risk for the BBC to break news stories without it being clearly credible.
SO WHY ARE THEY SPENDING MONEY RUNNING A 24 HOUR NEWS CHANNEL?!
My lord.
To offer accuracy.
Why are you so scared of Murdoch having competition.
Goog grief
But Marcus, they are constantly bleating about how ''when things are unfolding quickly we can't be accurate, so we don't report things that the other networks do'', so why bother at all?
What they're essentially saying is that they aren't going to report information if they don't know it's accurate - fine, absolutely. But if you're going to do that then what realistic hope do you have of putting together a decent rolling news service? They may as well just leave it up to the regular bulletins on BBC One and wait a couple of hours until they know for certain what is going on, rather than running a channel that has a remit of not pioneering or fearless journalism, but which instead spends all of its time on the defensive because it's so terrified.
Sky and ITN have been 100% accurate on the build up to the story, so let again the Beeb look stupid. I'm not sure what it says about them when they acknowledge publicly that their two main rivals can confirm major stories that are happening there and then, but they can't.
With sky and ITN it was guesswork biased on a unconfirmed source. Sky and ITN can get away with this. The BBC can't. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. The Stockwell shooting was a case in point where Sky got it wrong, condemning the poor guy as a suicide bomber on the basis of an eyewitness seeing wires in his backpack.
Numerous times my colleagues and I have pointed out to the bosses a story breaking on Sky, only to be told we can't confirm it so we are not going to do it. And magically a few minutes later the story goes away, never to be heard of again.
The reason News24 exists is to break accurate news quickly. Why is accuracy and rolling News a separate issue?
About ten seconds before, compared to the entire hour it took them to even acknowledge that something had even happened? Yes, really redeems them, doesn't it.
The reason News24 exists is to break accurate news quickly. Why is accuracy and rolling News a seperate issue?
Which they didn't do, as I have pointed out to you.
They claimed he had had ''an accident'', when Sky were saying he had been ''taken ill'', so they were still wrong. Don't kid yourself, Marcus.
Do the people at the BBC not believe in reliable sources any longer? Have hundreds of years of journalistic principle gone out of the window? Where do you think Sky got the information from, a psychic? Jesus.
About ten seconds before, compared to the entire hour it took them to even acknowledge that something had even happened? Yes, really redeems them, doesn't it.
It was only 10 seconds before because the other channels were reporting that the BBC was saying that he'd died.
The reason News24 exists is to break accurate news quickly. Why is accuracy and rolling News a seperate issue?
Which they didn't do, as I have pointed out to you.
They claimed he had had ''an accident'', when Sky were saying he had been ''taken ill'', so they were still wrong. Don't kid yourself, Marcus.
Do the people at the BBC not believe in reliable sources any longer? Have hundreds of years of journalistic principle gone out of the window? Where do you think Sky got the information from, a psychic? Jesus.