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.
Well, Sky reported ''official'' confirmation about 30 seconds later, so either way it doesn't compensate for it. I can forgive them a few minutes, because none of the channels are on the ball all of the time... but an entire hour is beyond a joke, it is actually an absolute disgrace.
Like I said, just as Sky and ITN were prepared to quote the BBC when they had new information, the BBC should have been prepared to quote its rivals... the same rivals their outgoing head recently commented: ''I salute our colleagues in ITN and Sky News for producing journalism that makes Britain home to some of the best news content in the world".
If the ''best'' isn't good enough, then christ knows what is.
Well I think we've got the answer as to why they were all speaking in the past-tense - he was declared dead at 4.05pm.
Shame really, as Cook is one of the few politicians in recent years who has stood up for something he believed in - ie his opposition to the Iraq war.
Only the good die young. What age is Margaret Thatcher again?
(On a side note: Intriguing that two people who have fallen out of favour with New Labour should have been in a bad condition recently - that and David Kelly's 'suicide' should keep the conspiracy theorists going for a while)
On the News 24 situation - the BBC has to sort itself out here. The point is taken that Sky is 'never wrong for long', that if it gets something wrong it ignores it. However the BBC is losing out on breaking stories because of its insistence of only reporting what can be confirmed beyond any possible doubt. It is ignoring stories that it knows to be true because it can't find God knows how many sources to confirm them. If all journalism worked like this no stories would ever come out. I know it's the Beeb, and the burden of proof has to be higher, but it's geting to a stage where the organisation appears to be one giant rabbit in headlights.
(Lest we forget of course that the BBC got the 45 minutes story completely RIGHT, that the Mirror's story about prisoner abuse in Iraq was correct (even if the pictures were allegedly 'false' - and there are all sorts of accusations as to where those pics came from), and the government either got the 45 minutes claim WRONG, or deliberately misled us. I'm not sure which is worse.)
Incidentally though, how come the BBC got the Robin Cook death announcement first? Did it break the embargo, did it bring BBC Scotland in to help them, did BBC Scotland tell them the news had already been broken on Scottish radio, or what? Because it sounded like the news had been embargo'd until a specific time.
Like I said, just as Sky and ITN were prepared to quote the BBC when they had new information, the BBC should have been prepared to quote its rivals... the same rivals their outgoing head recently commented: ''I salute our colleagues in ITN and Sky News for producing journalism that makes Britain home to some of the best news content in the world".
.
Because the BBC is a reliable source. The same can't be said for sky.
It wasn't a source exclusive to sky you know. The reports dropped on the wires late afternoon. The BBC decided to check them first before putting them to air. As soon as a senior party official confirmed the accuracy it got to air.
(Lest we forget of course that the BBC got the 45 minutes story completely RIGHT, that the Mirror's story about prisoner abuse in Iraq was correct (even if the pictures were allegedly 'false' - and there are all sorts of accusations as to where those pics came from), and the government either got the 45 minutes claim WRONG, or deliberately misled us. I'm not sure which is worse.)
Therefore the people to blame for BBC News being the way it is now are the Labour Government.
Alistar Campbell picked a fight with the BBC to cover up other stuff; ie there was no real fight to be fought.
Well I think we've got the answer as to why they were all speaking in the past-tense - he was declared dead at 4.05pm.
It was very obvious from very early on that this was the case
Quote:
On the News 24 situation - the BBC has to sort itself out here. The point is taken that Sky is 'never wrong for long', that if it gets something wrong it ignores it. However the BBC is losing out on breaking stories because of its insistence of only reporting what can be confirmed beyond any possible doubt. It is ignoring stories that it knows to be true because it can't find God knows how many sources to confirm them. If all journalism worked like this no stories would ever come out.
If more journalism worked like that a lot more of the public would have faith in it!
Why should it be that the most important thing for a rolling news channel is that it is first with a story?.... it's a rolling news channel, not a breaking news channel - the 2 aren't necessarily linked . Why does it matter if the BBC report something a bit after its 2 rivals? How did you cope before 24 hour news exsisted - moan because ITN broadcast a story at 5.45 whereas the BBC didn't mention it till 6?
News 24 are doing things absolutely right by checking, confirming and not speculating. TBH the best thing to do I think is watch Sky to find out about something 'breaking' and then turn to the BBC to get it confirmed
Big mistake putting Carrie Frais on the News Channel. How disrespectful, wearing those inappropriate clothes. She cannot handle breaking news, you could hear her mumbling while Peter Murphy was talking and while athepoor man she had been interviewing was practically in tears, she goes on to tell us about that submarine, and , oh yes, the report failed.
I *still* haven't seen or heard a senior or even 'junior' BBC political correspondent giving reaction to this yet so far (apart from the pre-recorded obit). Surely someone must be on duty.. That said 24 have had Michael White and Nick Jones on.
With regard to News 24 again - if the reports had dropped on the wires, then surely it would have been fair to report them, saying "According to PA" or whoever. It's not as if this is a story which has been given to the BBC by some anonymous nutter who's phoned them.
My point about waiting until something can be utterly proved without doubt has been misconstrued I think. My point with that is that if you are only going to report things which are confirmed by official bodies, or that people want to see reported, then you're going to have highly tedious reporting which only reports what the government wants it to, which is heading dangerously towards state TV. That's not where the BBC is now. But if it doesn't sort itself out, that's where it's headed.
And how did we cope before 24 news channels? Well surely the point is we don't need to any more. There's also a major difference between 'a bit' and 'reporting something which has been on agency wires an hour later'
Haven't seen the ITV News Channel yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're having problems. On previous occasions when big breaking news has come through young presenters with no experience have really struggled - Richard Whiteley being a great example. It does seem to be being used as a training ground, which normally is probably a good idea, but leaves them open to major vulnerability if something big happens.
(just had a look there - she desperately needs to change her jacket, and Claire Short's just fallen off the air. Eek)
I assume they did something during the athletics. Channel 4 news was on air at the time, not sure about the others.
Quote:
I *still* haven't seen or heard a senior or even 'junior' BBC political correspondent giving reaction to this yet so far (apart from the pre-recorded obit). Surely someone must be on duty..
I doubt it on a Saturday night, they'd be 'on call' , but getting them into work of course depends on where they are.