DU
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.
That works only if you assume that other journalists are actually gathering the news for the studio-bound person to sift and collate. If you actually want to newsgather - then you still have to send your journalists to where events happen. Asking questions that generate new answers is a large part of what journalism is - not reading agency copy (that contains the answers to questions others have asked) out on camera.
If everyone stays in the studio - how do you know what is happening outside the studio?
Absolutely, there have to be journalists at the scene gathering information.
But too often on the 24 hour networks the opportunity to actually analyse a story is missed. To look at from a different angle to simply "Country A said this about Country B today".
It's "news-porn" to flash up "breaking news" straps with every little titbit of (often irrelevant) information from a story. There is the opportunity to really go into depth on a story because you're on a 24 hour news channel, making use of the correspondents who have background knowledge of interest....I'm talking about the Brian Hanrahans and Frank Gardners of the world.
noggin posted:
Dunedin posted:
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.
That works only if you assume that other journalists are actually gathering the news for the studio-bound person to sift and collate. If you actually want to newsgather - then you still have to send your journalists to where events happen. Asking questions that generate new answers is a large part of what journalism is - not reading agency copy (that contains the answers to questions others have asked) out on camera.
If everyone stays in the studio - how do you know what is happening outside the studio?
Absolutely, there have to be journalists at the scene gathering information.
But too often on the 24 hour networks the opportunity to actually analyse a story is missed. To look at from a different angle to simply "Country A said this about Country B today".
It's "news-porn" to flash up "breaking news" straps with every little titbit of (often irrelevant) information from a story. There is the opportunity to really go into depth on a story because you're on a 24 hour news channel, making use of the correspondents who have background knowledge of interest....I'm talking about the Brian Hanrahans and Frank Gardners of the world.