Oslo Trial - TV News Coverage Comments

Apologies if this is already stated within one of the megathreads. I had a quick scan, but couldn't find anything.

Observation: some of Jon Sopel's remarks during live presentation and interviews yesterday was rather bizarre, to say the least. Tim Willcox was doing World News Today yesterday evening, but threw to Mr. Sopel for a live simulcast just after the opening headlines were read.

Now, don't all throw your hands-up and say that it's justified, as the accused (Breivik) is clearly of extreme mentality. That is clear for all to see. However, I don't feel it is the BBC's responsibility to go all *tabloid* and to tell us so. I feel their job is to be there, on the spot, and to deliver the story with impartiality and fact. In such cases - in fact, in all cases - the broadcaster is there to convey facts. And should refrain from slanting the story in any direction, even if it's plain for all to see where the issues are.

I'm referring specifically to Jon Sopel's comments such as "what's going on? Clearly, this bloke is a nutter?" and "he doesn't deserve vast amounts of self-indulgent airtime after the crimes he's committed", or words to that effect.

Had Sopel been quoting another source, then the above comments may be deemed to be acceptable in a certain context. But, they weren't quotes. They were put across as Jon Sopel's own views.

In total contrast, I watched an earlier interview conducted in London in N8 by Nik Gowing, speaking with the Norwegian Ambassador to the UK. Gowing managed to solicit the same "sentiments" about the status of the accused, but did so entirely diplomatically and without being partial in any manner. This is what is expected of the BBC. Is it not?

Or am I living in the dark ages?

No, I think you're right, James. Even though we probably all think he's a nutter, it's not the done thing - especially on the BBC - for a presenter to call him such. It sounds like Nik Gowing's greater experience came shining through there; I think he's one of the most underrated presenters. I've always enjoyed watching him on BBC World. Jon Sopel I'm not so sure about. Granted, he's an experienced correspondent and is very enthusiastic, but I feel he sometimes gets wrapped up in the moment/carried away and says things that he wouldn't ordinarily say. That's part of the reason I don't like watching afternoons on BBC News because he's often paired up with Emily Maitliss. They can sometimes get carried away and make it uncomfortable viewing.

When someone goes around murdering 70+ people, they are nuts!

Reporters are human, and no longer have the time to plan every word they will say in a live report, so whilst it may not be the done thing, it is understandable why he would say it, in these circumstances.

Maybe, but there's such a thing as Contempt of Court in English law.
You can report on what was said in court but not express an opinion whilst in preceedings.
It's a very dangerous area for reporters and I suspect they have similar contempt laws in other countries.
I don't know if the reporter is medically qualified to suggest such a thing either.

He has pleaded guilty, the trial is just a formality in deciding on the severity of the sentence.

It is a common thing i thought for people to say someone is 'nuts' when doing things out of the ordinary. If it was a trial in UK, I don't think he'd be making these comments. Coverage of this trial from all three is much more 'tabloid' because it's a trial not happening in this country and therefore more freedoms to express.

I would say it is fine for a reporter to use such phrases, but I would typically expect them to apply a similar slant from the opposite angle in order to balance the tone - admittedly this is not easy to do here, given the actions of Mr Breivik.

Then I'd conclude it just makes more sense to try and stick to use of neutral language for a statement that isn't fact, as best as possible. I don't think it is outright wrong not to do that - but I do feel it comes across better; to have a consistency in the way questions are posed, regardless of the events being reported and the country in which they are taking place.

He's actually pleaded not guilty, despite acknowledging that he commited the killings. Ultimately, the trial will revolve around deciding whether or not he is criminally insane, which will decide whether he goes to jail or a psychiatric hospital. Seeing as this is such a crucial element of the trial, it probably wasn't the best choice of language from Jon Sopel.

Norway's second-largest paper, Dagbladet, has introduced a "No-Breivik" button on it's website, for readers who don't want to see any references to the trial.

"Although he admits the bombing and attack on a youth camp, he has pleaded not guilty to terror and mass murder" - according to BBC online.
I'd still prefer reporters to report facts, than offer opinion.
You might as well get an entertainment reporter to do it otherwise.

Wholeheartedly agree with the quote above.

I didn't see the coverage, but these are the sort of points of view you would normally see a newscaster state to a guest for them to then both discuss, diasgree with, agree with or whatevever and go into more depth.

If not, I'd suggest you email the BBC and ask them to explain. Worth a shot - they've replied to me in the past when I've disagreed with how things have been covered.

What I have found disturbing the most is reporters interpreting Brevik's actions in court. He cried whilst watching one of his videos yeasterday and reporters from all the main channels somehow managed to get into the head of Brevik and tell us that he was crying in admiration of his own actions. It was grossly unfair to inform viewers that this is why he wept when they have no idea this was his reasoning for crying.