NE
http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/huwtall.jpg
And here was me thinking Huw was a smaller(ish) man. Unless he's the one on the soapbox.
And here was me thinking Huw was a smaller(ish) man. Unless he's the one on the soapbox.
HA
They had the headlines and the title sequence, then they announced they would be joining Huw in Rome.
ohwhatanight posted:
When and HOW did BBC News 24 join the BBC One news? I watched the TOTH at 22:00 and they weren't simulcasting. I turned over about 5 minutes later and then the John Simpson report was simulcast. The Zimbabwe report was also simulcast before BBC News 24 left the BBC One news to return to rolling news on News 24.
Did anyone see how they joined and left the BBC One feed?
Did anyone see how they joined and left the BBC One feed?
They had the headlines and the title sequence, then they announced they would be joining Huw in Rome.
IT
No, Huw is in fact a very tall man. He has presence in a room.
itsrobert
Founding member
Noelfirl posted:
http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/huwtall.jpg
And here was me thinking Huw was a smaller(ish) man. Unless he's the one on the soapbox.
And here was me thinking Huw was a smaller(ish) man. Unless he's the one on the soapbox.
No, Huw is in fact a very tall man. He has presence in a room.
W1
Huw's over 6'.
But you're right - a box would have been a useful accessory. Then again, they must have been pretty high up on a Vatican roof. Asking a guest to stand on a box that far off the ground isn't likely to inspire a fluent, confident live performance from someone who isn't a professional.
Noelfirl posted:
http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/huwtall.jpg
And here was me thinking Huw was a smaller(ish) man. Unless he's the one on the soapbox.
And here was me thinking Huw was a smaller(ish) man. Unless he's the one on the soapbox.
Huw's over 6'.
But you're right - a box would have been a useful accessory. Then again, they must have been pretty high up on a Vatican roof. Asking a guest to stand on a box that far off the ground isn't likely to inspire a fluent, confident live performance from someone who isn't a professional.
LO
April 1 doesn't have the same connotations in other parts of Europe.
For example, in Spain (and quite possibly in Italy and elsewhere), 28 December (Holy Innocents Day) is the day that practical jokes are played and spoof stories appear in newspapers.
Edited to add www.123greetings.com/events/april_fools_day/info/celebrations.html
Dr Sigmund Mohammad posted:
a cynic might say the vatican are trying to string this out so the pope doesn't die on april fools day
April 1 doesn't have the same connotations in other parts of Europe.
For example, in Spain (and quite possibly in Italy and elsewhere), 28 December (Holy Innocents Day) is the day that practical jokes are played and spoof stories appear in newspapers.
Edited to add www.123greetings.com/events/april_fools_day/info/celebrations.html
W1
I think that the BBC have given up on trying to be first to break news and this has lead them to become overcautious. However, in this case they should be saying something - if he's not dead yet then it is simply a matter of hours and possibly minutes.
What's to be gained by quoting questionable sources, who've been wrong before, and are likely to have to retract later?
Everyone knows that eventually, all the claims that he's died will come true. Everyone knows that the time is probably only a few hours away. But the only statement that really means anything is the one that comes from the Vatican itself.
That is a good point. But they wont say anything for hours.
A couple of decades ago, that would probably have been true. But over the past 24 hours, we've had numerous updates from the Vatican, in great detail. They've never been so free with information, and I don't think there's any reason to think they'll delay in making a statement when he finally does die.
All broadcasters think about the credibility of any reports before putting them on air. Today we've seen a few stories where an Italian news agency/TV channel quotes a "Vatican Source". Other Italian media scramble to report the same thing. Then a more credible agency (AP/Reuters/AFP) report that "Italian media" are reporting something - which then goes onto some news channels as "REUTERS/AP - POPE IN COMA". And all because someone in the Vatican said something to someone, who told someone else, who told someone else, who told someone else and was overheard by a reporter, who breathlessly phoned their desk with a huge "exclusive". Today we've had the Pope in a coma, with no brain activity, with no heart activity, and dead - all apparently untrue at the time.
Different broadcasters have different thresholds for reliability - Sky's is probably the lowest, N24's probably the highest - although the rule doesn't always hold true! But the BBC - rightly - never wants to put something untrue on air. And even if you quote your source explicitly, and question that source's credibility, by broadcasting the story you're putting your own credibility behind it. That's why News24 often seems to be holding back - they still want to be first to break news, but want to be certain. (And they did put out the morning "coma" story....).
For what it's worth, I reckon the Vatican are going to be pretty open about his death this time. But I may be wrong.....
AdamP posted:
gregmc posted:
AdamP posted:
scottish posted:
Equidem posted:
News 24 are always ridiculously behind with breaking news.
It just isn't their strong point, whereas in-depth analysis is the BBC's very strong point.
It just isn't their strong point, whereas in-depth analysis is the BBC's very strong point.
I think that the BBC have given up on trying to be first to break news and this has lead them to become overcautious. However, in this case they should be saying something - if he's not dead yet then it is simply a matter of hours and possibly minutes.
What's to be gained by quoting questionable sources, who've been wrong before, and are likely to have to retract later?
Everyone knows that eventually, all the claims that he's died will come true. Everyone knows that the time is probably only a few hours away. But the only statement that really means anything is the one that comes from the Vatican itself.
That is a good point. But they wont say anything for hours.
A couple of decades ago, that would probably have been true. But over the past 24 hours, we've had numerous updates from the Vatican, in great detail. They've never been so free with information, and I don't think there's any reason to think they'll delay in making a statement when he finally does die.
All broadcasters think about the credibility of any reports before putting them on air. Today we've seen a few stories where an Italian news agency/TV channel quotes a "Vatican Source". Other Italian media scramble to report the same thing. Then a more credible agency (AP/Reuters/AFP) report that "Italian media" are reporting something - which then goes onto some news channels as "REUTERS/AP - POPE IN COMA". And all because someone in the Vatican said something to someone, who told someone else, who told someone else, who told someone else and was overheard by a reporter, who breathlessly phoned their desk with a huge "exclusive". Today we've had the Pope in a coma, with no brain activity, with no heart activity, and dead - all apparently untrue at the time.
Different broadcasters have different thresholds for reliability - Sky's is probably the lowest, N24's probably the highest - although the rule doesn't always hold true! But the BBC - rightly - never wants to put something untrue on air. And even if you quote your source explicitly, and question that source's credibility, by broadcasting the story you're putting your own credibility behind it. That's why News24 often seems to be holding back - they still want to be first to break news, but want to be certain. (And they did put out the morning "coma" story....).
For what it's worth, I reckon the Vatican are going to be pretty open about his death this time. But I may be wrong.....
