Osama Bin Laden Killed

But nothing so important that a reporter couldn't handle, surely? What is gained from having a presenter in the USA as opposed to a reporter/correspondent?

Don't discount an interesting backdrop as a reason. It is much more interesting for a news programme to be presented from the street than it is for it to come from a CGI newsroom.

All this is stuff that has already happened though. If the media knew about the whole operation from day 1, then it would be appropriate to fly the anchors out because it would be ongoing. I don't think they'll actually broadcast the photos of him though.

I don't understand how they're benefitting from being in New York. Pakistan I can just about get my head around, but New York has zero relevance to the current story. They should've just sent Mark down the road to Kings Cross station and saved on the flight money.

According to unconfirmed reports, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is also still dead.

New York was the city most scarred by Bin Laden and is a multifaceted "world capital" of sorts, so it's a good place to get various reactions and to capture the general mood in the wake of his death. Even here in Slovenia, we have frequent reports from and live crosses to New York.

this is a joke, right?

What is so beneficial about anchoring the programme from New York? I understand they're there to gauge reaction but that's really the extent of it and nothing a reporter couldn't have done. I stand by my point that New York is somewhat irrelevant to the story in question. There are obvious links that can't be ignored but nothing to warrant the senior anchors being flown over there.

Frankly, they should be looking for proper news rather than telling us what people think about the news.

Are you seriously saying you cannot see the relevance of New York City to Osama bin Laden's death?

Christ.

He's not saying that. He's saying that the link between New York and the death is the same as Kings Cross and the death. Sending a presenter to New York seems a bit silly really. It's not as if the death happened in New York.

That's right. Yes, New York is important to the broader story, but gauging opinions in NYC is something a reporter could easily have accomplished. There's nothing to gain from wasting a lot of money by sending a senior anchor there when there's little more to say. Even the BBC sending Mishal Husain to Pakistan was a waste of time and money. I watched Channel 4 News earlier; they only had reporters Lindsey Hilsum and Sarah Smith in Pakistan and New York respectively, and their coverage was excellent, anchored by Jon Snow in the studio as it should be.

Try reading my posts properly, I'm saying nothing of the sort. There was nothing significant on last nights ITV News at Ten about New York, I don't even remember it being referenced. They could've just projected a different background onto the studio and pretended he was in New York for all the use it is. So what benefits does it have? They even went on to have a live link up with Bill Neeley in Pakistan, so if they had to send someone out why did they not send Mark there to cover government reaction and Bill to New York for a few vox pops?

And it was best done on Sunday/Monday rather than 3 days later