Why wouldn't I? Isn't that what news is all about?
The news is about what's happened, not how quickly it can be delivered to you. See Sky News' "announcement" about Harold Pinter.
But you have to admit that immediacy is a vital component of news coverage. Without it, you're left with analysis, reportage, commentary, etc., all of which are important journalistic genres, but they don't really constitute "news."
And besides, what's the point of 24-hour news channels if not immediacy?
But doesn't the viewer have the right to learn about the latest news as soon as that news is verified?
Why ever would you think that?
Why wouldn't I? Isn't that what news is all about?
The death of an entertainer, however respected and cherished, doesn't carry the same urgency as the death of a former head of state, to cite the example you gave.
Indeed, because that entertainer may have close connections with that broadcaster, a short delay not only gives the family a pause, but allows that broadcaster time to prepare a proper response to acknowledge that entertainer's contribution to their own output as well as wider cultural life. Sometimes it's about giving one of your own a proper send-off.
A bumpy, sudden bit of breaking news about the death of a senior politician would probably go unnoticed as time went on. But if the BBC had messed up Wogan, you'd still be hearing about it today. Those 45 minutes bought it time to arrange a proper and respectful response to a man who made a small but significant difference to the lives of millions in Britain and Ireland - and a huge difference to the BBC itself.
The death of a public figure through illness is a private event, which should be marked accordingly.
But again, in most cases, the family is aware of the death before the media are. Why have any further embargoes?
Perhaps you would have been happier had Lady Wogan tweeted the news several seconds after his death?
There was nothing to gain from a more immediate announcement other than to satisfy your apparent thirst for such news. An agreed time of announcement is far more respectful and dignified rather than having news agencies scrambling for information in an attempt to reveal it first.
I'll reiterate, death through natural causes is not something that needs publicity immediately. It's simple decency, a word frequently ignored, that demands news management regardless of the status of the newly deceased. That decency needs to be respected, and any rites or wishes requested by the deceased or next of kin, performed accordingly before news is released. To deny this option at such a time for the family concerned would be seen as being cruel and uncaring by most in society today. Indeed many would consider the opposite, immediate publicity, ghoulish, too.
Why wouldn't I? Isn't that what news is all about?
The death of an entertainer, however respected and cherished, doesn't carry the same urgency as the death of a former head of state, to cite the example you gave.
Indeed, because that entertainer may have close connections with that broadcaster, a short delay not only gives the family a pause, but allows that broadcaster time to prepare a proper response to acknowledge that entertainer's contribution to their own output as well as wider cultural life. Sometimes it's about giving one of your own a proper send-off.
A bumpy, sudden bit of breaking news about the death of a senior politician would probably go unnoticed as time went on. But if the BBC had messed up Wogan, you'd still be hearing about it today. Those 45 minutes bought it time to arrange a proper and respectful response to a man who made a small but significant difference to the lives of millions in Britain and Ireland - and a huge difference to the BBC itself.
Now knowing they had 45 minutes notice why on earth did the News Channel go with the normal ToTH headlines at 9am to immediately ditch those stories .
Given that Breakfast had broken the story about 10 seconds before going off air I had just assumed the Headlines had been recorded about 855am prior to the news breaking .
Most embargoes are simply Gentlemen's Agreements and nothing else, there's no legal requirement to honour them but it works better in the long term if they are honoured.
Not a great career move to break embargoes, of course, if you rely on being privy to embargoed material in the future.
I think I read that the bbc introduced a policy of its journalists waiting for bbcbreaking to announce deaths after incidents where somebody has got some information and tweeted it with more enthusiasm than thought.
Now that news doesn't all go via a news editor there's plenty of scope for cockups and accidental breaking of embargoes.
An embargo on the death of anyone is completely understandable. Indeed I would argue that perhaps they should have more time to grieve privately and a 24 hour embargo wouldn't be unreasonable, although clearly circumstances range from case to case and for some it might be a comfort to release it publicly ASAP and get see the tributes.
There are other stories which are strangely embargoed until midnight which have no need to be at all - usually news about reality shows and soaps where the press officers still play to the tune of the press rather than release the information direct to their fans.
Most embargoes are simply Gentlemen's Agreements and nothing else, there's no legal requirement to honour them but it works better in the long term if they are honoured.
Not a great career move to break embargoes, of course, if you rely on being privy to embargoed material in the future.
I think it depends on the circumstances, and of course who you are. PA broke the embargo on Diana's death.