This subject has been raised a number of times recently in various threads. It doesn't apply to any particular news broadcaster, as they all seem equally guilty of conducting pointless live reports from unneccessary locations.
Reporting from outside 10 Downing St is a favourite
Tonight we have the Six with a reporter outside Jill Dando's former home in Gowan Avenue.
In view of BBC News' budget cuts surely this was an unnecessary expense. Are we to believe she was gathering information almost 8 years on? How will the new owners of the property feel about this?
This subject has been raised a number of times recently in various threads. It doesn't apply to any particular news broadcaster, as they all seem equally guilty of conducting pointless live reports from unneccessary locations.
Reporting from outside 10 Downing St is a favourite
Tonight we have the Six with a reporter outside Jill Dando's former home in Gowan Avenue.
In view of BBC News' budget cuts surely this was an unnecessary expense. Are we to believe she was gathering information almost 8 years on? How will the new owners of the property feel about this?
1. Downing Street has a plug-in point so doesn't require a sat truck and is a bit cheaper.
2. Gowan Avenue is the centre of the story. The whole case is about whether or not Barry George was at that place at that time, so in this case is relevant. The cost would be little, I would assume the crew are on shift anyway and satellite time block booked.
I agree with the OP on this - what exactly is the point? Now it's 'now we're going live to' practically everywhere. I mean, have people forgotten the art of using taped reports (or E-mailed reports played off the server, if you want to be pedantic)?
I reckon it's just so that they can look 'impressive' - as if to say "look, we're reporting live from the scene while ITN are stuck in their studio!"
I myself consider the quality of the reporting to be more important than the technology behind it.
Gowan Avenue is the centre of the story. The whole case is about whether or not Barry George was at that place at that time, so in this case is relevant.
That's about as credible as numerous OBs from Portugal in the McCann story. Although now they appear to have de-camped to the War Memorial in Leicestershire.
It's not necessary to be "at the scene". They can easily illustrate with graphics where necessary. It's just the case of an unnecesary trip out of the News Centre.
If they want to save money then keep the expenses for when they actually need them.
This subject has been raised a number of times recently in various threads. It doesn't apply to any particular news broadcaster, as they all seem equally guilty of conducting pointless live reports from unneccessary locations.
Reporting from outside 10 Downing St is a favourite
Tonight we have the Six with a reporter outside Jill Dando's former home in Gowan Avenue.
In view of BBC News' budget cuts surely this was an unnecessary expense. Are we to believe she was gathering information almost 8 years on? How will the new owners of the property feel about this?
You're not alone in thinking this...
Private Eye
runs a column called "Going Live" highlighting pointless OBs. You might get a crisp tenner if you submit a good example
Though these days using lives before and after reports is a cheap way of filling air time, and reduces the need to update and re-edit packages to keep them accurate...
Even cheaper if you cover the story as a two-way and don't cut a package at all...
I think historically having a live OB "from the scene" was a point of interest in itself; something special that grabbed the attention of the viewer.
In the age of 24 hour news it simply isn't.
Conversely and somewhat ironically, I think channels like News 24 and Sky News would grab the attention of the viewer far more by bringing the reporters back into the studio.
Having a "go-to reporter" in the studio for major crime stories, transport stories, foreign affairs etc. is used far too little.
By NOT being "from the scene" of the story but instead at the heart of a hi-tech newsgathering operation almost always leads to a better briefed reporter and therefore makes the analysis more worthwhile.
It would certainly make me watch for longer if I saw specialist reporters in the studio, analysing the major stories, and making sensible use (i.e. not OTT) of in-studio graphics such as newswalls.
Isn't the BBC's solution to budget cuts going to be filling even more time with pointless OBs in the future?
It is common sense - there are defiantly some stories where coverage is added too by the use of a live OB - but in others it adds very little to the story, though in there defence if it's a developing story and something does break, it's better to have someone at the scene than in the newsroom.
And then of course there are the other stories which don't warrant being reported at all, especially the non-news stories where it's reported that's nothing happened. You all know exactly what I'm talking about!
Reporting from outside 10 Downing St is a favourite
