Fire in North London - What should news channels do?

It's about time it was possible and all the news channels should look to provide better coverage outside of London

Interesting how the thread on Digital Spy has the complete opposite view to people here
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=744774&page=1

People full of self importance trying to bring their own lives into something that doesn't effect them, that would never happen here

I am about 2 miles away (Caledonian Road), and it has been weird, because all day I have been smelling a burning smell and wondering where it was. This was hours ago, so not the fire itself, but weird eh?

Oi, stop being so London centric you.

This fire isn't anywhere near TV-AM is it? We don't want boiled eggs.

Looks like its just a fire in a local pub to me. Just because its London, doesn't make it any more important than a pub in rural wiltshire for example.

Associated Press Television News is very close by- not sure but think some of the live stuff is coming from there roof..

Opposite side of the canal, should be fine.

Though the eggs did get a mention from an eyewitness on News 24.

Its not important unless you...

- own The Hawley Arms.
- work in The Hawley Arms.
- are Amy Winehouse (thanks to Sky News for that one)
- planned to have your Sunday lunch in The Hawley Arms.
- live in Camden
- enjoy fire
- have an office across the road from The Hawley Arms.

A pub in rural wiltshire wouldn't get the same level of coverage because of a lack of resources not because of an editorial decision.

There are several large fires a week. If everytime smoke was spotted all the news channels sent crews out and went into full breaking news mode, nobody would watch. It's just not interesting, unless you a) know exactly where it's taking place, or b) know someone involved.

In the case of the Gatecrasher fire in Sheffield, BBC Radio Sheffield was on the border of the cordon. It was still developing when the 6.30 edition of Look North was on, but not only did they not have a reporter on scene (or even at the studio in Radio Sheffield), they didn't even mention it. It wasn't until after the event they even mentioned it had happened. They had the resources to cover it, but chose not to. I also believe this was the right decision - not enough people would have been interested in the actual event, while people do want to know what happened.

There were thousands of people watching the Gatecrasher fire (myself included), swapping rumours and news, just like they have been on TV tonight. It was boring for us being there - once you've got over the fact that a well known building was on fire and collapsing - we all lost interest. That was until the next day when we found out what the damage was, and that it was going to be demolished (i.e. actual news).

Report major fire in progress - ok. Break out of normal programming to broadcast pictures of flames in the distance while getting rumour and gossip from people who've been kicked out of the pub - not good. I'm sure if the story developed while Question Time was on, they would have abandoned it anyway.

- If you enjoy visiting Camden
- Tourists who have fond memories of visits
- Goths, as Camden seems to be their London mecca

Also, I live right near, and I am interested in knowing about it...

Well said, Greg.

Would you like me to go and set fire to one to see how the networks react?

Interesting to see it dumped to second/ third on tonight's BBC 1 news - the right decision if you ask me! Though something that caught me just then...

Ian Palmer: "The firebrigade and police aren't saying anything, so we... err... so we don't know what they are fighting..." - fire surely!