Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe

Just a quick heads up to anyone who hasn't noticed that there's a Screenwipe special on Monday at 10PM on BBC2.

Yes, excellent I thought. Superbly exposed the TV coverage of the Raoul Moat story as the sensationalised hysteria that it indeed was.

Perfect, top-form Brooker as usual. IIRC this is the first time he's got a BBC Two premiere for a while now, surely? I'm surprised this wasn't on BBC Four.

Above all, the programme showed me how shockingly awful Sky News is. No wonder I never watch that channel!!

Much more Newswipe than Screenwipe. His Late Late Breakfast Show and Judy Garland gags had me in stitches.

I'm wondering is this due to them not being able to get clearance for clips from TV any more?

Probably more focused on news at the moment as so much more material to get from it. And it just highlighted again how the Rauol Moat story was just an isolated incident blown well out of proportion - and interesting and perhaps deliberate how the Cumbria shootings were left out.

I don't think they even attempt to get permission to show most of the clips, do they?

I'm glad this episode wasn't billed as Newswipe. The Newswipe format always felt unnecessarily restrictive to me. I much prefer Screenwipe even if most of it happens to be clips from news programmes.

I did like the fact that it covered both TV in general, news, video games AND films. Perhaps if he does a future series it should cover all of those rather than restricting himself to news.

I wouldn't have thought they would ever have done, hence they're recorded off air and have captions all the way through showing producer and broadcaster. You are allowed to use clips in such a way if it's for critique or review

Loved it.

Charlie could do a whole show just featuring Sky News! I'm surprised he didn't mention Gazza re the Raoul Moat story but brilliant all the same.

In the UK you don't need to get clearance to rebroadcast film/video content in the public domain for two purposes under 'Fair Dealing' :

1. Criticism or Review - where you criticise or review the actual clip (not the topic of the clip). So under criticism or review you can use a clip of Sky News to criticise or review Sky News's coverage, but not to comment on the event they were covering without commenting on Sky's coverage. You have to correctly attribute the author of the work - usually the programme title, production company and channel, and in the case of movies, the director. As a rule of thumb you need to use the shortest clip that it is required to make your point, and the review/criticism should last at least as long as the clip.

2. Reporting Current Events. Slightly greyer-area this - it effectively allows you to use content without permission to cover a 'current event'. This isn't a catch-all for any use of any content - most lawyers will want a cast iron reason why the clip is essential for reporting the event, rather than incidental.

This doesn't cover use of still images (which are covered by separate rules and are much trickier to use)

If ever you see a clip from a movie with the director credited you can be pretty certain it is being used under 'fair dealing'.

If you see clips from Youtube, iPlayer, ITVPlayer, 4oD, obvious VHS or DVD recordings etc., stuff from Sky+, then it is almost always being used under fair dealing. (Harry Hill and Screenwipe both obviously use non-broadcast copies of a lot of stuff) If the quality is better than off-air then the clip has probably been bought (but this can cost anything between £500 and £10,000 for 30")

Was Gazza actually on any of the TV news coverage, other than mentioned afterwards? I was sure he did an interview for Real Radio and it was that which was widely reported.