Best for US Attack Coverage

I thought the BBC handled the event absolutely brilliantly, as best as you can get! I just want them to know that all presenters/crew etc, have done very well in bringing us, the UK and World public the best news!

Gary.

I was switching between BBC One, BBC Two, BBC News 24 and BBC World. All of which was an excellent service!

Gary.

I stuck with the BBC all through the after noon after school and didn't bother changing channels, except for a few mins on CNN.
I thought, without comparing channels that the BBc coverage was to the top standard and the presenters and correspondents did a first class job in such difficult conditions.

Sky News utilising regional reporters in the UK to report on US events (mike mcarthy, north of england corresp & hazel westwood, midlands - for example)

I'm sorry if I'm spoiling everyone's fun here but to me a vote on who was 'best' on the day is actually quite sickening.

What do you want? A vote on which plane was 'best' to kill 10,000 people?
Yes, this is a TV presentation forum but for heaven's sake this is not the time nor the place to be voting on how 'excellent' the coverage was.
And to correct all of you - none of the UK networks have the resources to match their US counterparts, indeed if you were watching the BBC you would've been watching a combination of ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN etc etc.
People vote for the BBC and say that it was the only channel they watched - well I'm sorry but how on Earth can you claim to have a view if you only watched the BBC and just occasionally flicked about?

This thread should certainly be dealt with eventually but not now, and in such a tasteless fashion that suggests that broadcasters were offering 'good' coverage of such a sickening event.

wheres the ANANOVA.com video channel - where you are in control???

Well I've listened to what you have said, and to some extent I actually agree, but the true fact is that many of us just want to try an put the whole event to the back of our minds, and get on with our daily routine.

I know and understand that yesterday, today and many more to come will be horrific to those who have known someone in that building, but we all do have to continue, and I'm sticking up for those who have felt the need, including myself, to say something in this post. But again this forum is all to do with television presentation, and you will just have to take what members have said here today as i'm sure they feel with deepest sympathy for all those who have been lost in America.

If you do not like reading some of the post that members have put in, then I suggest that you should leave for a couple of days! I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but believe me, it's not supposed to be!

Thanks
Gary.

Actully the paers didn't do a bad job.

Look at all of this:

http://www.tvhome.f2s.com/ikonboard/upload/newspapers.jpg

Or click to:

http://www.ananova.com/images/news/papersAP410x277.jpg if it is too slow

(Edited by khlo at 8:06 pm on Sep. 12, 2001)

I would suggest quite the opposite. Members who wish to vote on TV coverage of this can feel free to do so, but not now. Not when there are 1,000's of people dead and dying in New York and Washington. To me it's the height of insensitivity to seemingly forget about all of the people who've died and then say how great you thought the coverage was.

There's been a serious falling out about these sorts of comments in other forums (as Whataday well knows).

And as for that last comment about 'look at all of this'. It's just pathetic.
Look at all of what? Look at all of the people jumping out of windows? Look at all of the people being crushed?

Grow up.

I know of at least one newsroom which celebrated their coverage with champagne. Which I thought was increadibly sick and tasteless. The trouble is that Journalists working on a story often get so caught up in covering the story they forget the human cost of it all.

No-one has forgotten what has happened but many people see these images on tv and have no sense of losing loved ones, seeing people dying around them etc.. and are trying to carry on as normal.

I'm afraid Chesh, that if 'most of the posts in there have sickened me today' then you shouldn't be reading the forum. The idea of including a poll in this topic was highly inappropriate but the topic has stayed open because of the posts. This is a tv presentation forum and will continue as such.

Everyone in this forum understands that presentation will be talked about during this time and AFAIK, there's been no falling out between members over this. You seem to be provoking an argument which isn't necessary.

However, can I ask members not to create new polls on this situation or include images from news sites. They're available elsewhere.

Asa

Necessary? I think that remembering that many 1000's of people have died is necessary. Not brushing it aside and talking about how nice it was to see CNN using their dark blue breaking news aston, which actually hadn't been mentioned.

Granted, TV news has played a massive part in this event - it's probably the largest event in history to be carried on live TV.
There is a place for a thread to talk about TV coverage, I'd fully accept that. But there isn't a place for a thread which allows people to vote on who was better at showing pictures of people dying, it's just very distasteful.

This seems to have been treated as a one day event - both by people here and on the TV (infact CNN even called it 'the day after') - not realising that this 'situation' will continue for months and possibly years to come. There are people dying in NY as you read this, just think about that the next time you get concerned about the BBC's annoying breaking news graphics.

As I've said this is probably the largest event ever to be covered on live television and without a doubt media coverage plays a massive part. It's an interesting issue to explore - who covered what - but at this point in time, when there are actually still people dying under the rubble, it seems very insensitive to ask people who was best.