Maybe this is an argument for the BBC Regions to make sure that their regional news presenters are of sufficient calibre that should the need arise for somebody to anchor News24 from the scene of something big that's happening on their patch they were up to the job? Not sure the likes of Peter Levy and Alex Lovell would really cut it in such a situation.
For example, the excellent Jackie Bird when that factory in glasgow blewup/fell down/caught fire (whatever it did, I can't remember)
It's not just the fact that today was handy for the news organisations, but London is the most populated part of the UK. More people live in London than in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put together - why shouldn't the media cover us more?
Incidently the line that amused me was on BBC London where the reporter said:
'Who would have believe that this could happen in Central London'
The answer is me - I don't believe it happened in Central London... because it didn't!
Leaving aside this particular event (because I think it was genuinely newsworthy), are you saying that a minor event affecting a large number of people is of higher priority than a major event affecting a smaller number of people?
I guess it's difficult to be specific without examples.
I'm not disagreeing in particular, just asking the questions.
I think what people "Out of London" find irritating is that if 6 inches of snow falls in the south-east then it will be top of the national news. If 6 inches of snow falls across Scotland and Northern Ireland (for example) you might be lucky to see one OOV half way down the bulletin.
It is the *National* news after all, and I expect it's editorial values to be as relevant to a person living in Belfast, Newcastle or Glasgow as much as someone in Ealing.
Leaving aside this particular event (because I think it was genuinely newsworthy), are you saying that a minor event affecting a large number of people is of higher priority than a major event affecting a smaller number of people?
No, both could be of higher priority, the deciding factor is the uniqueness of the event itself.
There is also the factor that the more densely populated an area, the more big stories will come from there
Quote:
I think what people "Out of London" find irritating is that if 6 inches of snow falls in the south-east then it will be top of the national news. If 6 inches of snow falls across Scotland and Northern Ireland (for example) you might be lucky to see one OOV half way down the bulletin.
That is very true, I'm not a fan of weather stories - a programme I worked on until fairly recently used to irritate me by doing stories every summer about a heatwave and every winter about the cold (a bit like the Daily Express in fact). Don't think anyone had heard of seasons.
There is the factor that snow in some parts of Scotland is common therefore it won't go reported unlike the south-east where it is rarer. The same goies the other way - a fatal stabbing in Scotland will be a bigger story than a fatal stabbing in London, which is so common it often just gets an oov
Quote:
It is the *National* news after all, and I expect it's editorial values to be as relevant to a person living in Belfast, Newcastle or Glasgow as much as someone in Ealing.
Correct, but then it doesn't just carry 'national' news.... not every story will be relevant to the whole country. There is a point when what would normally be a local story is big enough for national news. This will mean that there more london stories purely because of population density - imagine all the stories that happen in a day Belfast, Newcastle, glasgow and several other cities all in one metropolis
In other cases it is lazyness on the behalf of london based journos
For example, the excellent Jackie Bird when that factory in glasgow blewup/fell down/caught fire (whatever it did, I can't remember)
yeah, that's the only example I could think of, and BBC Scotland is a nation rather than a region - I'm not sure that any of the BBC English Regions would have been able to do that, either in terms of resources or politics.
Naturally I sympathise with everyone whose been affected by this incident. I'm not criticising for criticising's sake the coverage BUT I do consider that it's had more than it's deserved air-time - especially considering that at the same time there was a rather important meeting twixt Blair and Bush in the US.
It just seemed that a local difficulty was over covered in the context of the day.
The only reason that they stayed with the story for so long is because of the practicality of it; presenters could be shifted to the scene within a reasonable time of the event occurring. It would be impractical to shift a presenter up to Birmingham, as by the time everything there is set up, the story has broke, and there would inevitably be less interest than if the story was jut developing.
Maybe this is an argument for the BBC Regions to make sure that their regional news presenters are of sufficient calibre that should the need arise for somebody to anchor News24 from the scene of something big that's happening on their patch they were up to the job? Not sure the likes of Peter Levy and Alex Lovell would really cut it in such a situation.
Only Nick Owen I could think of at BBC Birmingham, unless our BBC Brum regulars have got any ideas.
Suzanne Virdee, if anyone remembered her from her newsreading stint on 'Breakfast', prior to the last revamp, otherwise IMO.
When Brum was evacuated 9/7/2005, Adrian Goldberg anchored the BBC WM coverage, albeit from Worcester, but he's no longer working for the Beeb.
Don't know who would do it now, apart from Doolan & he won't go on forever.
Who are the senior presenter(s) TV & Radio at BBC Brum?
It is quite important IMO for the BBC (and ITV) to integrate their regional news teams into the national bulletins for exactly those reasons - not neccessarily so much with presenters, but certainly with reporters.
I know people see it as purely job cutting and cost saving, but streamlining the news teams so that the chief correspondent for each regional programme is also the regional correspondent for the national news is surely common sense!
The Birmingham tornado covered a much greater area and damaged many more properties than the recent one in London. The TV coverage was about the same though I think, although London's was often the first item on most bulletins, Birmingham's tornado was further down the running order - this was due to the extra-ordinary events around last year's London bombings though as I recall.
A better comparison for the amount of coverage is the Boscastle flood about a year before the Birmingham tornado . As devestating and dramatic as the flood was, there was so much coverage of this disaster which seemed to go on for weeks, yet far more homes and properties were destroyed in Birmingham, more people and many businesses affected across several miles, hitting a fairly poor area of the city hardest - yet there was no Royal visit, no aid and assistance, no special programmes etc. Through the pages of the Birmingham Post, and general word on the street, there was a feeling that the media had treated Birmingham poorly in comparison, which resulted in the subsequent lack of Government aid or recogniton of the impact of the disaster with visits from prominent Cabinet ministers or Royals (or TV makeover shows etc). I think this left many feeling that the scale of the situation here was underplayed by the media - usually so keen to over-egg these things.
I agree about getting more regional presenters out there... perfect example during the tornado thing was itv news.... Katie Derham anchored from the scene for London Tonight but yet they got someone different to cover for the national news.... makes no sense on sending two people from the same company to cover the same thing :s