MP Robin Cook dies

A lot of big names have died this year.

Diana is slightly diffrent, for a start the accident didn't happen in some remote location, there was plenty of information about what happened.... not just reports from hikers. The BBC did hold back compared with some on that night, the news wasn't very well controlled (another consequence of it happening in a busy city), a french official announced it and PA broke the embargo on the story; release of information was totally out of control. (by strange co-incidence robin cook was kind of responsible for this - as foreign secretary he was to be the one that announced it)

The BBC would be more reticent if it happened today, but then for the BBC rolling news was very much uncharted teritory back then.





A very diffrent kettle of fish.. . a diffrent type of story and it was a pre-prepared piece of investigative journalism, not a live piece of 'breaking news'. The big problem with it was of course that he only had 1 well placed source when you need more and this was the case at the time. There is no way you'd get an official line confirming it, it's not that type of story, so you have to make it absolutely water tight

I'm getting confused here on why the BBC aren't allowed to 'break' news anymore. Surely if one source is stating that 'Robin Cook has been taken ill.' why aren't the BBC allowed to say that,'One unconfirmed reports states that Robin Cook has been taken ill.'

Surely the BBC hasn't gone so far down the politically correct route (and other routes) that the news organisation has the inability to report unconfirmed reports? If so, the BBC has actually gone down in my estimation. I do actually love the BBC News for being strong, authoritative and always reliable. But if they have this, in effect, gagging order around their necks; then surely this will only be worse for the viewers and make then turn over to ITV and SKY?

I was watching this story 'break' on the ITV News Channel and I don't even know the name of the presenter between 16:00-17:00 but it must have been her first weekend presenting and she did struggle. At 17:00 Carrie Frais was brought in and done a better job(not excellent) but it's all about experience. When the news of Robin's death was actually confirmed Carrie handled it well and interviewed one of Robin's close friends Frank Dobson in the studio. He was particularly moved by the whole experience and she used her own judgement on questions and when to end the interview. Frank seemed to be at ease with her and appreciated her approach.
At 18:00 Julie Gosh (haven't a clue about the spelling!!) presented on the ITVNC for an hour and spoke to many high profile politicians including Michael Howard and Claire Short. Was that red jacket appropriate?

Considering staffing levels are alledegelly less at the weekend I feel ITVNC done an okay job but I suppose they are always in the awkward position of,'do we instantly replace the inexperienced presenter with someone better immediately...or do we wait until the top of the hour so it doesnt look obvious?' Also this is the only way these younger presenters will gain experience! It's a catch 22 situation really.

These are my views and I don't really care how much red-tape the BBC has allowed itself to get ravelled up into - they need to change some of their policies!!!!

Do they? Really? Maybe 10 years ago. Despite being part of the Murdoch empire, Sky News has come a long way since then and must now be acknowledged as having a reputation worth preserving. They are setting their sights higher than the underfunded rolling news channel they were then. They provide radio news. They nabbed Channel 5 news from ITN, they compete in bids for the ITV News contract (and surely you must acknowledge that, even though ITN were reawarded the contract, that Sky's bid was a credible alternative), whilst their core channel has ballooned into something that could never be imagined when they started broadcasting from that tiny cheaply built set in 1989.

Whilst claims that Sky are still a bit tabloidy are not unfounded, and whilst I'm not saying that they command the authority of ITN or the BBC, they are certainly on the up, and are looking to stay that way. And they aren't in that position by fostering an attitude which leads to people dismissing their output as being irrelevant because it's 'only Sky'. That attitude is entirely misplaced, and is dying.


One must acknowledge however that only a couple of weeks ago Sky News were running with 'police foil attempted suicide bomber' when actually they had shot dead an innocent man.

But that said, I do have to agree with the viewpoint of those who feel that the BBC are getting so obsessed with making sure that output is entirely watertight in the aftermath of Hutton that it's getting in the way of them providing effective news coverage.

People cite the beeb's insistance on checking and double checking sources as being necessary to maintain their authority and protect the image which BBC News has, but this could be their undoing. Sky may make blunders (I even highlighted a big fat sticking-out-like-a-sore-thumb one above) but often their risk taking is calculated and pays off.

Even if the BBC are consumate professionals and Sky are sensationalist cowboys (a viewpoint I don't personally agree with, actually), if Sky and ITN are repeatedly running with what turns out to be an entirely factually correct story, and the BBC are repeatedly taking longer to get the same story out because of their insistance on having infallible sources, then the public perception will not be that the BBC is more accurate, it will be that the BBC is slow to respond. And in the modern media world where the public has become used to having on demand access to bang up to date news, that could well do more damage to the BBC's reputation than the occasional inaccurate story will.

I do firmly believe the BBC need to reconsider their stance, trying to run News 24 like an extended version of the 6 O'Clock news isn't working. When they haven't got the luxury of a whole afternoon to exhaustively research their stories, they're going to have consider taking the odd risk. And aswell as that, reconsider what risks are. At present, their attitude seems to be that 'BBC Television News in London must be personally presented with an irrefutable statement by a government official in London or it's not a fact' - and that's not necessarily so. Trustworthy sources do exist outside the M25 you know.


Because, much as I admired Robin Cook (particularly with his willingness to put his prinicples before his job and resign over the Iraq War - possibly one of the last MPs left with such morals) obitutaries do not belong on TV Forum. Where they are appropriate, you will not find me arguing about the relative merits of Sky News vs the BBC.

Even before the official announcement of his death, the BBC News Online story was saying that he "received 40 minutes of resuscitation on the way to hospital".

I hate to break any medical myths obtained from Casualty et al, but anyone receiving 40 minutes of resuscitation (even using equipment on an air-ambulance) is almost certainly clinically brain-dead.

I therefore think that even with this information alone, the tone of the presenters was understandably grim.

Because unreliable sourses are often wrong.

There has been no change of policy. The BBC has always checked facts before broadcasting them. It's been that way for 50 years and unlikly to change. It's why it is the most trusted news organisation in the world.

*ahem* sexed-up dossier, anyone?

Is the BBC in the news game or not? That's what it comes down to. If all you do is wait for official sources then you are in PR not news. It is shameful that a news organisation with the depth and breadth of the BBC could not stand this story up quicker than it did.

It seemed clear to me that the BBC reporters and presenters were unhappy that they could not break the news of Robin Cook's death when they clearly knew. One BBC reporter said that Deputy PM Prescott would be making a statement in about an hour and added: "read into that what you will" and Peter Sisson -- absolutely dreadful on breaking news -- kept using the past tense.

What sort of news organisation is it that can't stand up a story for an hour after its two main competitors did and then knew the news of Cook's death and didn't report it?

There's no point having a go at Sky and ITVNC when they were absolutely right. Do people on this forum really think Sky and ITVNC would report something like that without knowing that it was Robin Cook and that he was very seriously ill? As a former hospital PRO, it's exactly the sort of information you give to hacks off the record and as "guidance".

But they're not waiting for official sources (there are very few 'official' sources of news) they're just waiting for verified reliable sources.

Unlike most other stories it took place in a remote location, the only eye-witnesses or people who knew for definite what was going on were: Robin Cook (dead), his wife (distraught), the passer by who called the emergency services (not a reliable source and not really in a position to do anything) and the emergency services themselves (who can't release such information). If all you're hearing is rumour they aren't proper sources

It amazes me that people are still confused about the BBCs response when there is a concise description of how the news broke, from someone who was in the newsroom yesterday afternoon is on page 4 of this thread.

I still can't believe that the BBC couldn't stand this story up for an hour after when Sky and ITVNC could.

Also, when they knew he was dead why didn't they report it?

Sky and ITN couldn't stand up the story. They went with an unreliable source. It paid off this time.

However, remember Sky reported the Pope as dead 24 hours before he actually was. That was a similar type of source. You don't report a persons death unless you are absolutly sure.

you use "ill" first because it's easier to kill someone than bring them back to live.