DA
Those would almost by definition be developing stories. Different kettle of fish.
Of course you can. Don't news channels do just that all the time ? Some things are important enough that they might interrupt whatever piece is showing at the time. Other things can wait until the next actual news bit. Still other things might wait until the top of the hour or even longer.
By your logic anything worth reporting at all must be reported ASAP.
"News" is called "news" because it's new to the person hearing it, not new to the person delivering it.
(I think a split would be an extremely good idea at this time. This is an interesting discussion which deserves to be had but has derailed the thread from discussion of dear old Tel)
Quote:
But surely you can say the same about an explosion in Afghanistan or an earthquake in Chile.
Those would almost by definition be developing stories. Different kettle of fish.
Quote:
but I would argue that you cannot separate immediacy from the news -- especially news on a 24-hour channel
Of course you can. Don't news channels do just that all the time ? Some things are important enough that they might interrupt whatever piece is showing at the time. Other things can wait until the next actual news bit. Still other things might wait until the top of the hour or even longer.
By your logic anything worth reporting at all must be reported ASAP.
"News" is called "news" because it's new to the person hearing it, not new to the person delivering it.
(I think a split would be an extremely good idea at this time. This is an interesting discussion which deserves to be had but has derailed the thread from discussion of dear old Tel)
WH
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."
Yes, if you watch the early BBC footage knowing that Stephen Jessel had already been briefed that she had died, it makes for slightly uncomfortable viewing as he skirts around the issue by speculating on her condition.
Whataday
Founding member
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."
Yes, if you watch the early BBC footage knowing that Stephen Jessel had already been briefed that she had died, it makes for slightly uncomfortable viewing as he skirts around the issue by speculating on her condition.
IS
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,
Yes, absolutely.
The need to be first to report a story and everyone having to know everything as soon as it happens is an unnecessary modern obsession. That's even more the case when reporting a celebrity death
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,
Yes, absolutely.
The need to be first to report a story and everyone having to know everything as soon as it happens is an unnecessary modern obsession. That's even more the case when reporting a celebrity death
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,
Yes, absolutely.
The need to be first to report a story and everyone having to know everything as soon as it happens is an unnecessary modern obsession. That's even more the case when reporting a celebrity death
The only reason why you think it's a "modern" obsession is that technology once made immediacy difficult. But speed -- or responsiveness, if you prefer -- has always been a goal of journalism, along with accuracy, comprehensiveness, independence, and so on; it's one of the factors used to evaluate the quality of a news organization. Even a century ago (and more), newspapers competed with each other to be the first with the story; this competitive drive has shaped the craft of journalism.
Source: wikipedia.org
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,
Yes, absolutely.
The need to be first to report a story and everyone having to know everything as soon as it happens is an unnecessary modern obsession. That's even more the case when reporting a celebrity death
The only reason why you think it's a "modern" obsession is that technology once made immediacy difficult. But speed -- or responsiveness, if you prefer -- has always been a goal of journalism, along with accuracy, comprehensiveness, independence, and so on; it's one of the factors used to evaluate the quality of a news organization. Even a century ago (and more), newspapers competed with each other to be the first with the story; this competitive drive has shaped the craft of journalism.
Source: wikipedia.org
Last edited by WW Update on 3 February 2016 10:47am - 2 times in total
IS
And now the craft of journalism is mostly: quick quick quick, get the Breaking News banner up as quickly as we can, then talk about it for 10 minutes despite not having any more details or content.... doesn't matter if it's wrong as long as we get it to the public first
Most of the time it can wait.
Even a century ago (and more), newspapers competed with each other to be the first with the story; this competitive drive has shaped the craft of journalism.
And now the craft of journalism is mostly: quick quick quick, get the Breaking News banner up as quickly as we can, then talk about it for 10 minutes despite not having any more details or content.... doesn't matter if it's wrong as long as we get it to the public first
Most of the time it can wait.
WW
And now the craft of journalism is mostly: quick quick quick, get the Breaking News banner up as quickly as we can, then talk about it for 10 minutes despite not having any more details or content.... doesn't matter if it's wrong as long as we get it to the public first
Most of the time it can wait.
Well, being wrong is a different matter. That's why I said that news organizations should use sound journalistic judgement and only run with the story after they have been able to verify it.
Even a century ago (and more), newspapers competed with each other to be the first with the story; this competitive drive has shaped the craft of journalism.
And now the craft of journalism is mostly: quick quick quick, get the Breaking News banner up as quickly as we can, then talk about it for 10 minutes despite not having any more details or content.... doesn't matter if it's wrong as long as we get it to the public first
Most of the time it can wait.
Well, being wrong is a different matter. That's why I said that news organizations should use sound journalistic judgement and only run with the story after they have been able to verify it.
LL
And now the craft of journalism is mostly: quick quick quick, get the Breaking News banner up as quickly as we can, then talk about it for 10 minutes despite not having any more details or content.... doesn't matter if it's wrong as long as we get it to the public first
Most of the time it can wait.
Reminds me of Sky's initial report about 9/11, and Kay Burley's amazing analysis - "it is reported to be a large plane." (or words to that effect)
Even a century ago (and more), newspapers competed with each other to be the first with the story; this competitive drive has shaped the craft of journalism.
And now the craft of journalism is mostly: quick quick quick, get the Breaking News banner up as quickly as we can, then talk about it for 10 minutes despite not having any more details or content.... doesn't matter if it's wrong as long as we get it to the public first
Most of the time it can wait.
Reminds me of Sky's initial report about 9/11, and Kay Burley's amazing analysis - "it is reported to be a large plane." (or words to that effect)
HC
Followed around an hour later with "if you've just joined us, it appears that most of the Eastern seaboard of America is on fire.."
JA
ITN weren't much better, they had a "Central Manhattan is ablaze" caption up at one point.