MI
One of Sky News' better days today. Before the VA shootings, Julie Etchingham and Allan King were on-air, covering stories that involved politics more so than who Madonna may or may not be planning to adopt. The coverage from the US was generally quite good (up until 8pm anyway), a bit repetitve at times but that's the nature of rolling news I guess.
But whatever about the coverage, the important thing today is the human tragedy. It's such an awful story.
But whatever about the coverage, the important thing today is the human tragedy. It's such an awful story.
OV
Sky News just broadcast a live interview with the Head of Virginia Tech (via Fox News), which gave some interesting insight into the tragedy.
FU
Went in, shot a few people, killed himself. INTERESTING.
Not a very helpful comment.
I think the Head of the Tech would be one of the most important people to speak to about the situation.
fusionlad
Founding member
NerdBoy posted:
Orry Verducci posted:
Sky News just broadcast a live interview with the Head of Virginia Tech (via Fox News), which gave some interesting insight into the tragedy.
Went in, shot a few people, killed himself. INTERESTING.
Not a very helpful comment.
I think the Head of the Tech would be one of the most important people to speak to about the situation.
NB
Well yes and no. People only 'care' because it's one of the 'best' worst shooting. Stuff like this only makes the news because it's novel, 30 stories of one person being shot dead don't make the news. Since I can't/don't pay attention to those, it would be churlish of me to pay attention to a self contained event such as this. It effects little outside the immediate area, the gunmen is no longer alive hence it is not important to me. News channels simply feed on the morbid curiosity of it's viewers, as all news bulletins do. If they want to do that, okay, but I'd prefer them to admit it rather than dress it up as serious coverage.
I see no other reason for showing shaky camera phone footage or pictures of inside classrooms on television.
I see no other reason for showing shaky camera phone footage or pictures of inside classrooms on television.
IT
You are missing the point. The media is there to report the events of the day, no matter how big or small. The shootings yesterday were a major unfolding event, hence they covered it. Over 30 people died...you don't call that a major story? Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered. There are many people living in the UK who have relatives in the US and/or travel there frequently. Also, it isn't just the event but also the consequences, hence the debate over gun laws.
itsrobert
Founding member
NerdBoy posted:
Well yes and no. People only 'care' because it's one of the 'best' worst shooting. Stuff like this only makes the news because it's novel, 30 stories of one person being shot dead don't make the news. Since I can't/don't pay attention to those, it would be churlish of me to pay attention to a self contained event such as this. It effects little outside the immediate area, the gunmen is no longer alive hence it is not important to me. News channels simply feed on the morbid curiosity of it's viewers, as all news bulletins do. If they want to do that, okay, but I'd prefer them to admit it rather than dress it up as serious coverage.
I see no other reason for showing shaky camera phone footage or pictures of inside classrooms on television.
I see no other reason for showing shaky camera phone footage or pictures of inside classrooms on television.
You are missing the point. The media is there to report the events of the day, no matter how big or small. The shootings yesterday were a major unfolding event, hence they covered it. Over 30 people died...you don't call that a major story? Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered. There are many people living in the UK who have relatives in the US and/or travel there frequently. Also, it isn't just the event but also the consequences, hence the debate over gun laws.
NB
What defines a major event? That is the crux of this. It is 'major' because it's a bit different to usual and will hold an audiences attention. Which event has the best story or narrative? What coverage will keep people watching? 33 people dying certainly doesn't qualify for hours of coverage by itself -- otherwise Baghdad wouldn't be out of the news.
Didn't see 5 pages for unfolding coverage of the Baghdad university bombing? 65 killed there, did anyone care about that? I can't say I honestly did. I didn't read past the headline, and a headline is pretty much all it got on the television and radio news. Things like that happen too often for people to bother with it and there are too many events for people to actually care about in any meaningful way.
As much as this is a horrible event, it is chosen to be covered in such detail because it will entertain people. It's all for curiosity and unnecessary, most of the audience has no connection to that university or area. If it was a 30 second piece you could easily get the majority of the information gleaned from hours of pointless banter. Plus it was hardly on-going for the large part of the coverage, only very few events can claim to actually be on going. Past experience of these shootings shows little movement in gun law reform and this seems unlikely again, so it was effectively a self-contained event however much the media like to push it. In depth coverage for the surrounding area I could understand, not here or America-wide.
itsrobert posted:
You are missing the point. The media is there to report the events of the day, no matter how big or small. The shootings yesterday were a major unfolding event, hence they covered it. Over 30 people died...you don't call that a major story? Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered. There are many people living in the UK who have relatives in the US and/or travel there frequently. Also, it isn't just the event but also the consequences, hence the debate over gun laws.
What defines a major event? That is the crux of this. It is 'major' because it's a bit different to usual and will hold an audiences attention. Which event has the best story or narrative? What coverage will keep people watching? 33 people dying certainly doesn't qualify for hours of coverage by itself -- otherwise Baghdad wouldn't be out of the news.
Didn't see 5 pages for unfolding coverage of the Baghdad university bombing? 65 killed there, did anyone care about that? I can't say I honestly did. I didn't read past the headline, and a headline is pretty much all it got on the television and radio news. Things like that happen too often for people to bother with it and there are too many events for people to actually care about in any meaningful way.
As much as this is a horrible event, it is chosen to be covered in such detail because it will entertain people. It's all for curiosity and unnecessary, most of the audience has no connection to that university or area. If it was a 30 second piece you could easily get the majority of the information gleaned from hours of pointless banter. Plus it was hardly on-going for the large part of the coverage, only very few events can claim to actually be on going. Past experience of these shootings shows little movement in gun law reform and this seems unlikely again, so it was effectively a self-contained event however much the media like to push it. In depth coverage for the surrounding area I could understand, not here or America-wide.
IT
What defines a major event? That is the crux of this. It is 'major' because it's a bit different to usual and will hold an audiences attention. Which event has the best story or narrative? What coverage will keep people watching? 33 people dying certainly doesn't qualify for hours of coverage by itself -- otherwise Baghdad wouldn't be out of the news .
Didn't see 5 pages for unfolding coverage of the Baghdad university bombing? 65 killed there, did anyone care about that? I can't say I honestly did. I didn't read past the headline, and a headline is pretty much all it got on the television and radio news. Things like that happen too often for people to bother with it and there are too many events for people to actually care about in any meaningful way.
As much as this is a horrible event, it is chosen to be covered in such detail because it will entertain people. It's all for curiosity and unnecessary, most of the audience has no connection to that university or area. If it was a 30 second piece you could easily get the majority of the information gleaned from hours of pointless banter. Plus it was hardly on-going for the large part of the coverage, only very few events can claim to actually be on going. Past experience of these shootings shows little movement in gun law reform and this seems unlikely again, so it was effectively a self-contained event however much the media like to push it. In depth coverage for the surrounding area I could understand, not here or America-wide.
You shot your whole argument down in the sentence that I have emboldened. Iraq is in the news every day, and since the conflict began, there has been plenty of rolling news coverage on the international channels on many, many bombings and shootings there.
itsrobert
Founding member
NerdBoy posted:
itsrobert posted:
You are missing the point. The media is there to report the events of the day, no matter how big or small. The shootings yesterday were a major unfolding event, hence they covered it. Over 30 people died...you don't call that a major story? Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered. There are many people living in the UK who have relatives in the US and/or travel there frequently. Also, it isn't just the event but also the consequences, hence the debate over gun laws.
What defines a major event? That is the crux of this. It is 'major' because it's a bit different to usual and will hold an audiences attention. Which event has the best story or narrative? What coverage will keep people watching? 33 people dying certainly doesn't qualify for hours of coverage by itself -- otherwise Baghdad wouldn't be out of the news .
Didn't see 5 pages for unfolding coverage of the Baghdad university bombing? 65 killed there, did anyone care about that? I can't say I honestly did. I didn't read past the headline, and a headline is pretty much all it got on the television and radio news. Things like that happen too often for people to bother with it and there are too many events for people to actually care about in any meaningful way.
As much as this is a horrible event, it is chosen to be covered in such detail because it will entertain people. It's all for curiosity and unnecessary, most of the audience has no connection to that university or area. If it was a 30 second piece you could easily get the majority of the information gleaned from hours of pointless banter. Plus it was hardly on-going for the large part of the coverage, only very few events can claim to actually be on going. Past experience of these shootings shows little movement in gun law reform and this seems unlikely again, so it was effectively a self-contained event however much the media like to push it. In depth coverage for the surrounding area I could understand, not here or America-wide.
You shot your whole argument down in the sentence that I have emboldened. Iraq is in the news every day, and since the conflict began, there has been plenty of rolling news coverage on the international channels on many, many bombings and shootings there.