HC
The issue with Diana's demise was that it was being widely reported via the AFP, somewhere around 3.30am, was it not?
And therefore, the usual 'wait until the Buck House press office says so' was rendered somewhat irrelevant. BBC/ITN/Sky News would have looked stupid if they blindly followed the usual protocol, waited until 5am for the official faxed press statement, when every other media organization in the world on air at the time was reporting the events from Paris.
At least there is some control over the UK media, with a predominantly UK story.
And therefore, the usual 'wait until the Buck House press office says so' was rendered somewhat irrelevant. BBC/ITN/Sky News would have looked stupid if they blindly followed the usual protocol, waited until 5am for the official faxed press statement, when every other media organization in the world on air at the time was reporting the events from Paris.
At least there is some control over the UK media, with a predominantly UK story.
VM
From the classic MHP webpage:
MHP posted:
How events unfolded on screen and what was going on behind the scenes were entirely different. Aides at Manila airport with Foreign Secretary Robin Cook had briefed the press that Diana had died but placed an embargo on the news until an official announcement was made.
Private Eye reports that the Press Association, who like everyone else in the media knew of this, broke the embargo by releasing the news as coming from "British sources". The Press Association claimed a coup for being the first to release the news. They did not reveal that they were merely the first to break the embargo.
Private Eye reports that the Press Association, who like everyone else in the media knew of this, broke the embargo by releasing the news as coming from "British sources". The Press Association claimed a coup for being the first to release the news. They did not reveal that they were merely the first to break the embargo.
WW
Indeed, this is a perfect example of why I don't think that journalists should follow "official protocol" in breaking news situations; ultimately, it can make them look insincere, obsequious to authority, and paternalistic. They should leave the protocol to government agencies and use their own journalistic judgement instead. Yes, sound journalistic judgement can call for them to wait for the next of kin to be notified in certain situations (i.e., in those rare cases when the family doesn't know already), but I would argue that it doesn't call for official or even informal "embargoes."
The issue with Diana's demise was that it was being widely reported via the AFP, somewhere around 3.30am, was it not?
And therefore, the usual 'wait until the Buck House press office says so' was rendered somewhat irrelevant. BBC/ITN/Sky News would have looked stupid if they blindly followed the usual protocol, waited until 5am for the official faxed press statement, when every other media organization in the world on air at the time was reporting the events from Paris.
And therefore, the usual 'wait until the Buck House press office says so' was rendered somewhat irrelevant. BBC/ITN/Sky News would have looked stupid if they blindly followed the usual protocol, waited until 5am for the official faxed press statement, when every other media organization in the world on air at the time was reporting the events from Paris.
Indeed, this is a perfect example of why I don't think that journalists should follow "official protocol" in breaking news situations; ultimately, it can make them look insincere, obsequious to authority, and paternalistic. They should leave the protocol to government agencies and use their own journalistic judgement instead. Yes, sound journalistic judgement can call for them to wait for the next of kin to be notified in certain situations (i.e., in those rare cases when the family doesn't know already), but I would argue that it doesn't call for official or even informal "embargoes."
IS
Why ever would you think that?
Why wouldn't I? Isn't that what news is all about?
But it's not a 'right'. There's no 'right to know' anything about someone's personal life or death (though I'm sure some tabloid hacks would disagree).
There's also no rush or urgency to broadcast the news when it is made public... the condition of the deceased isn't going to change
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?
But it's not a 'right'. There's no 'right to know' anything about someone's personal life or death (though I'm sure some tabloid hacks would disagree).
There's also no rush or urgency to broadcast the news when it is made public... the condition of the deceased isn't going to change
WW
There's also no rush or urgency to broadcast the news when it is made public... the condition of the deceased isn't going to change
But surely you can say the same about an explosion in Afghanistan or an earthquake in Chile. You could decide to wait for hours or even days before reporting such an event and there would be no real consequences, but I would argue that you cannot separate immediacy from the news -- especially news on a 24-hour channel. As I've said, analysis and commentary, which are not time-sensitive, are important, but news organizations (news = etymologically the plural form of the word "new") function as a conduit of information between the source and the audience, and a large part of their purpose is getting the news to the public as soon as sound journalistic judgement allows it. By the way, this has been true since before the advent of broadcasting, but the technological limitations of newspapers made immediacy as we know it impossible.
There's also no rush or urgency to broadcast the news when it is made public... the condition of the deceased isn't going to change
But surely you can say the same about an explosion in Afghanistan or an earthquake in Chile. You could decide to wait for hours or even days before reporting such an event and there would be no real consequences, but I would argue that you cannot separate immediacy from the news -- especially news on a 24-hour channel. As I've said, analysis and commentary, which are not time-sensitive, are important, but news organizations (news = etymologically the plural form of the word "new") function as a conduit of information between the source and the audience, and a large part of their purpose is getting the news to the public as soon as sound journalistic judgement allows it. By the way, this has been true since before the advent of broadcasting, but the technological limitations of newspapers made immediacy as we know it impossible.
RO
Aside from the Royals, I think 'embargoed' may be the wrong word to use for deaths. it just takes time for an agent or family member to make sure friends/family have been informed and prepare a fitting statement. It's also up to the agent to decided when they make the statement. Newsrooms obviously hear rumours but need confirmation.
In this case the BBC played both the role of agent confirming the news and that of news organisation, which I think is confusing people. It's only right that the BBC made sure friends and colleagues of Sir Terrys at Radio Two and across the BBC knew before it went public. I can also see how the newsroom would be aware ahead of the official confirmation being made public.
In this case the BBC played both the role of agent confirming the news and that of news organisation, which I think is confusing people. It's only right that the BBC made sure friends and colleagues of Sir Terrys at Radio Two and across the BBC knew before it went public. I can also see how the newsroom would be aware ahead of the official confirmation being made public.
BA
You couldn't say the same - there are political ramifications, death toll figures changing for various reasons, groups claiming responsibility, etc.
:-(
A former member
I cant not believe how this thread is ended up.
:-(
A former member
This man has given so much joy and happiness to the world , he helped Irish-uk relations. Created a new style of broadcasting, while his interviews were some of the finest I've seen. He helped the BBC during its bad patch of the 1980s.
He was fun loving yet know how to deal with certain situation, yet were not talking about any of that now.
He was fun loving yet know how to deal with certain situation, yet were not talking about any of that now.