The Newsroom

Armed Insurrection at US Capitol Building

Split from US ELECTIONS 2020 Coverage

JE
Jeffmister World News
There seems to be a school of thought that if you are watching the telly, then you wish to be informed of important events instantly. It may come as a shock to a few, that many folk switch on the TV to escape from all the crap that's going on, and not be subjected to even more of it. There's not much that can't wait until later, or the next day as information, and the Capitol events fitted that category (for UK viewers)

If someone is watching one of the 'main' channels (ie; BBC One, ITV, etc) and a significant newsworthy event happens, viewers should be notified about it. Of course the way which that notification happens (eg; on-screen banner, newsflash during an adbreak/between programs or interrupting programming) should depend on the nature of the event/story. However, suggesting that viewers shouldn't be notified about important events when they happen is just absurd.
MA
Markymark Meridian (Thames Valley) South Today
There seems to be a school of thought that if you are watching the telly, then you wish to be informed of important events instantly. It may come as a shock to a few, that many folk switch on the TV to escape from all the crap that's going on, and not be subjected to even more of it. There's not much that can't wait until later, or the next day as information, and the Capitol events fitted that category (for UK viewers)

If someone is watching one of the 'main' channels (ie; BBC One, ITV, etc) and a significant newsworthy event happens, viewers should be notified about it. Of course the way which that notification happens (eg; on-screen banner, newsflash during an adbreak/between programs or interrupting programming) should depend on the nature of the event/story. However, suggesting that viewers shouldn't be notified about important events when they happen is just absurd.


It's what the definition of 'important' is that's the crucial factor. I think the broadcasters have it about right at present (Hence no newsflashes required for the Capitol event)
--
Avatar credit: © BBC, ITA, BREMA 1967
RK
Rkolsen World News
There seems to be a school of thought that if you are watching the telly, then you wish to be informed of important events instantly. It may come as a shock to a few, that many folk switch on the TV to escape from all the crap that's going on, and not be subjected to even more of it. There's not much that can't wait until later, or the next day as information, and the Capitol events fitted that category (for UK viewers)

If someone is watching one of the 'main' channels (ie; BBC One, ITV, etc) and a significant newsworthy event happens, viewers should be notified about it. Of course the way which that notification happens (eg; on-screen banner, newsflash during an adbreak/between programs or interrupting programming) should depend on the nature of the event/story. However, suggesting that viewers shouldn't be notified about important events when they happen is just absurd.

There’s a big difference with UK TV vs US. Here we expect national networks to break in during significant events because outside of a few isolated communities CNN/MSNBC/FNC aren’t carried OTA. Where as the BBC could easily either do a push back/ticker on BBC One (or all their channels really) directing viewers to BBC News Channel as it’s available on Freeview, Freesat and on every cable and satellite platform.

Probably the only political events when it comes to the US getting major BBC One coverage would be the inauguration, a death, an assassination or impeachment guilty verdict. Now probably they could have done hourly 30 second news flash as well for insurrection as it was a significant deal.
Don’t let anyone treat you like you’re a VO/SOT when you’re a PKG.
NE
neonemesis London London
All this debate brings me to an interesting question - How do news organisations decide on what is newsworthy - and to what extent?

It's clear that we laypeople aren't able to come to a solid conclusion amongst us. Notwithstanding the opinions that have been as strong and as well crafted as they have been. However, the UK news organisations all made the same call.

Is it simply an editors gut? The art of news? Or are there a set of editorial tests that flow to particular decision points?
MA
Markymark Meridian (Thames Valley) South Today
All this debate brings me to an interesting question - How do news organisations decide on what is newsworthy - and to what extent?

It's clear that we laypeople aren't able to come to a solid conclusion amongst us. Notwithstanding the opinions that have been as strong and as well crafted as they have been. However, the UK news organisations all made the same call.

Is it simply an editors gut? The art of news? Or are there a set of editorial tests that flow to particular decision points?


The extra factor is that news editors can't suddenly decide to break into one or more of their organisation's non-news channels with a Newsflash. There's a chain of command via the channel's controller or head.
--
Avatar credit: © BBC, ITA, BREMA 1967
LO
Londoner London London
Extended Media Show podcast interview with ITV's Robert Moore and his producer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p093x09w
623058 posted:
boogy men new stuff is coming to get us

Newer posts