Why 1am? Why not 130 or 2. Maybe they think midnight is a good cut-off point.
Well the current set-up means that there is little scope for covering breaking stories after 11.30, which is only 30 minutes after the end of the late ITV1 bulletin, which always cross-promotes the News Channel.
I think 1am would be a more reasonable compromise if a full overnight service is impossible, though I guess it would play havoc with shift patterns etc.
It would also match News 24 which effectively ceases to be a UK rolling news channel at 1am.
I just think that with changing lifestyles etc 11.30 seems a bit early for a channel that markets itself as a 24-hour service of "breaking news for Britain" to shut up shop.
Why 1am? Why not 130 or 2. Maybe they think midnight is a good cut-off point.
Well the current set-up means that there is little scope for covering breaking stories after 11.30, which is only 30 minutes after the end of the late ITV1 bulletin, which always cross-promotes the News Channel.
I think 1am would be a more reasonable compromise if a full overnight service is impossible, though I guess it would play havoc with shift patterns etc.
It would also match News 24 which effectively ceases to be a UK rolling news channel at 1am.
.
Not really. News24 is live all night and will cover any breaking News
Not really. News24 is live all night and will cover any breaking News
I said "UK rolling news channel"...
Obviously it makes no difference to an international story like the Russian plane crashes, but it's a different matter for domestic breaking news.
You get the UK summary at :30, but the top half hour overnight has a completely different news agenda to daytime News 24.
I always remember watching News 24 at the time of the Soham kidnappings/murders, and after blanket coverage up to 1am it completely disappeared from the headlines.
Understandable for those who are aware of the remit of the overnight service, but not really a consistent product as far as the UK viewer is concerned.
Sky broke the news about 10:30pm
Sky News is also live 24 hours, there's no pre-records on Sky (unless maintenance is being carried out)
I agree, Sky broke this at about 10:30pm and frequently revisited the story until I went to bed at 11pm. The story was first broke as a plane crash in Russia with 54 passengers and 8 crew. That's all that was available at the time.
Well don't slag off a channels coverage unless you know for a fact that it was crap
If you would also read things properly, you would see that that wasn't me defending myself but someone else. I still maintain the news was significant enough for Sky to put a strap on screen to inform viewers who are not glued to their coverage but who are tuning in to find out what had happened. Both the BBC and ITV illustrated this with breaking news info on screen. And before you go criticising again, I NEVER said Sky's coverage was "crap" but just indicated surprise at what appeared to be a slow response. There is a bit of a difference in my books Marcus.
No BBC World broke it at 2301, right after the headlines. They updated the story at 2315. You can't have been watching properly
Well we're all human and I admit it is impossible to watch all the news channels simultaneously so maybe we do miss things now and again.
Well don't slag off a channels coverage unless you know for a fact that it was crap
Marcus, it was me who said about BBC World. I admit I wasn't glued to it all the time, but I remember that World went straight into the Abu Ghraib story after the headlines, and I didn't see any mention of the Russian planes. As I said, the first I saw was at 23.15. Anyway, even if I am wrong on this case, I'm still right in saying that World is always the last to break a story. News 24 always get it out first.
Well don't slag off a channels coverage unless you know for a fact that it was crap
If you would also read things properly, you would see that that wasn't me defending myself but someone else. I still maintain the news was significant enough for Sky to put a strap on screen to inform viewers who are not glued to their coverage but who are tuning in to find out what had happened. Both the BBC and ITV illustrated this with breaking news info on screen. And before you go criticising again, I NEVER said Sky's coverage was "crap" but just indicated surprise at what appeared to be a slow response. There is a bit of a difference in my books Marcus.
I didn't say it was you who made the statement Telly. I realize that no one can monitor all the channels all the time. I am just making a general plea to please check your facts before you make sweeping statements.
The News organizations you scrutinize so throughly would never allow such sloppy journalism.
itsrobert posted:
Marcus, it was me who said about BBC World. I admit I wasn't glued to it all the time, but I remember that World went straight into the Abu Ghraib story after the headlines, and I didn't see any mention of the Russian planes. As I said, the first I saw was at 23.15. Anyway, even if I am wrong on this case, I'm still right in saying that World is always the last to break a story. News 24 always get it out first.
Well I can assure you it was covered, with a 45 second read, just after the headlines at 2300.
As for World being last with Breaking News, then I'd agree with you. World still has a policy that two independent sources are needed before it will break a story. Both Sky and News24 will break a story with one source. But as World as about 2000 times as many viewers has News24 and Sky combined, it needs to be careful about protecting its reputation and the global reputation of the BBC, by not reporting False alarms
