MP Robin Cook dies

Which, presumably, would've been either PA or Reuters.

So they aren't good enough either? Right.

So, when a plane crashes, for instance, and it hits Reuters or AP, or whoever, you're saying that the BBC will not report it, not even attribute it to another source, before they can find out if it's 100% watertight? And if they can't, as they couldn't today, they won't report on it even if it takes them hours?

Is this now going to be the case for every bit of news, or just when it takes the director's fancy?

Perhaps they should take a leaf out of CNN's book. Report this, attributing them to wires, making it 100% clear that CNN has not confirmed them. As soon as CNN is able to confirm them with its own journalists, they clarify it explicitly on air.

The BBC's approach seems to be almost like Downing Street - hush it up until we know how we're going to present it.

I have to go with cat's opinion here and agree that the performance of BBC News 24 was terrible.

If your two main competitors are confidently asserting a piece of information, it can be easily justified to run with the story.

As you all know, my disliking for mainstream news media is fairly equally spread, so this isn't a pro- or anti- stance of behalf of any organisation.

What all play follow the leader and all be wrong together! I thought you wanted more independent thought in the media, Jonnyboy?

The report was very vague. Something like a man who may be Robin Cook had been injured on a mountain in Scotland. The BBC were quite right to wait until it could be verified.

Oh and if you think the director has any say in when to break news you are sadly deluded

...here's a view of events from the other side of the glass at Television Centre. Kinda puts cat's anti-BBC hysteria into context and shows that she, with the greatest of respect, should stick to reading Heat magazine.

I understand that at around 16.00-ish the BBC had heard from an impeccable source that Robin Cook had died in some sort of accident while walking in Scotland.

Cook's family, friends, the Labour party, govt refused to confirm anything.
Then another source (who incidentally was the same source that Sky and ITN used) said that Robin Cook had collapsed while walking and was critically ill.

So - what do you do?
Two trusted sources - one saying one thing, another something else.
As is happened - the first source was correct.

You cannot criticise the BBC in any way for holding off. You're not dealing with NHS statistics or Government dossiers but with the life of one of the more outstanding MPs of our time.

Finally - when the BBC could get it confirmed by two sources that Cook was ill they went with that story - as PA did.
Sadly enough - we learn that they first suspected had happened was indeed correct.

And incidentally - the PA copy said "friends and family of the former Foreign Secretary are checking reports on Sky TV that he's ill" etc. PA, like the BBC - two of the trusted news organisations in Britain held off until they could report facts - not speculation.

All that aside though Robin Cook was a brilliant MP, principled and clever and I'll certainly miss him.

I think the fact that Sky and ITN were reporting the story with such confidence and belief counts for a lot.

And "independent thought" has nothing at all to do with this issue, Marcus. Where the hell did that gem come from?



When did I mention a director? Are you having your normal problems reading for content again, my friend?

Sky and ITN were initially reporting that he was "seriously ill", not in fact "dead".

Absolutely not, that is one of the things you absolutely can't do. Looking at what your rivals are saying and then saying the same is just asking for trouble. If not for accuracy reasons, then legally you could be in deep water - repeating a libel that someone else is broadcasting is no defense



it counts for bugger all

While I fully understand what you're saying, Inspector Sands, as mentioned in my post above, Sky and ITN's constant running with the story does strongly suggest something has happened.

Your point about 'libel' is well made, however I don't feel that would apply in this particular story.

Clearly I'm not the only one who relies on Heat as my main source of information...

Incidentally, ''timmy'', I have a subscription to the Economist.

That was cat in the post above yours.

Out of interest, does anyone know who the two BBC sources were?

Was one of them ITN or Sky?

I'm simply curious as to what counts as a source.

You're so keen to jump down my throat these days!

I thought we were now at peace!

The point about not reporting a story as fact until you know for sure is taken (although only partially agreed with). And I was unaware the wire report was quite so vague. I also know the BBC is not as free to take a 'flyer' with news as Sky and ITV.

But the fact remains that the BBC has been very late on a massive news story - and this is the sort of thing that should provoke inquiries, not correct reports about WMD.

I don't know - maybe I come from too tabloid a persuasion to sympathise with the BBC's situation here. I certainly do a lot of screaming at the blandness and box-ticking of Reporting Scotland, and I normally watch ITV News or Sky. So maybe I'm just the wrong person to give the BBC, which feels it does a different job, advice.

But as far as I'm concerned journalism sometimes involves taking flyers. Taking risks with stories that you know to be factually correct, but are unable to get official confirmation of. If you have good sources, then 99% of the time you'll be right and you'll get important news out which would not have been seen by the public otherwise.

What would have happened under the new guidelines on the night of Princess Diana's death? By the account in Piers Morgan's book, the royal press officer was unavailable. Would the BBC have held back?

Think about it - next time the BBC gets a well-placed source to tell them about WMD reports being 'sexed up', will they run it even if they know it to be true? Or do we have a farce of a situation where they refuse to run a significant story about intelligence being hyped until the government confirms it?

I said it before, and I still believe it holds true - if you're going to wait for government confirmation on everything, then you become state TV.

If they were in any doubt, they should have reported it as "Reports: Robin Cook ill after accident". Or something along those lines.