Came down for breakfast this morning as usual at about 8.10, left house at 8.30.
Breakfast on the telly, watched it for a bit then - don't usually do this - flicked through the news channels.
itv news channel - BREAKING NEWS: Manchester crash, 7 dead
Sky News - BREAKING NEWS: Manchester crash, 7 dead
Breakfast from BBC News - Carrying on as normal!
Now I know that Breakfast probably covered the story at the top of the hour, but obviously that's not good enough for me as I would have missed it.
If I'd have been watching at 9.15 - when the proper N24 is on - the BBC would have given this story the same treatment as the others. Because of Breakfast (and a cute story about the Isle of Skye) they couldn't!
I think you will find that Breakfast carried the news at 7:45 with a reporter in the Manchester newsroom telling about the story. I hardly think that the BBC should carry a 'Breaking News' banner over the next 30 mins continuously just to make sure everone knows. They did return to the story fairly frequently - even spoke to a fireman at the scene before the 8am headlines!
Depends whether you view this kind of story breaking news. Tragic, yes and chaos for motorists but isn't that a regional issue.....and not much cop if you are in the jam already. That is what BBC Local radio is for.
I think you will find that Breakfast carried the news at 7:45 with a reporter in the Manchester newsroom telling about the story. I hardly think that the BBC should carry a 'Breaking News' banner over the next 30 mins continuously just to make sure everone knows. They did return to the story fairly frequently - even spoke to a fireman at the scene before the 8am headlines!
Depends whether you view this kind of story breaking news. Tragic, yes and chaos for motorists but isn't that a regional issue.....and not much cop if you are in the jam already. That is what BBC Local radio is for.
I agree, but my point is that if News 24 proper had been on air, they would have covered this in a 'rolling news' style.
Have to agree. I think it's unaceptable for a so called 24 hour news channel to opt out from rolling news for a 3 hour "newsy" magazine programme every day.
Seems to me that when you take out Breakfast, Hardtalk, Business Today, Asia Today, Click On-Line, Straight Talk, Talking Movies, Gate 24 etc etc, that there is more rolling news on Sky and even the ITVNC.
Breakfast has very regular updates throughout the morning. It is not as if it stops news coverage and side steps towards the more trivial GMTV. More relaxed sure but at that time in the morning you don't want hardcore 10o'clock news rammed down your throat. I certainly don't. I am fed enough info to satisfy me until i am able to log onto the BBC news website.
As far as SKY and ITVNC, I don't get ITVNC broadcast between 6 and 9.30 as I have freeview and sky is complete tosh anyway. They are right wing, I am not.
Surely the amount of different programming is a good thing on N24. Continuous 'rolling' news does get a bit staid after a while and it the news is worth breacking into a pre-recorded programme like Hardtalk or Reporters they will. Sod smooth continuity when the story at the end of the day is important.
Although I agree, it wouldn't affect me much anyway. I hate watching news (or even just breakfast) shows in the morning, they're too depressing so I just watch kids TV - elmo's world etc.
Surely the amount of different programming is a good thing on N24. Continuous 'rolling' news does get a bit staid after a while and it the news is worth breacking into a pre-recorded programme like Hardtalk or Reporters they will. Sod smooth continuity when the story at the end of the day is important.
Yes, but the BBC advertise News 24 as a 24 hour rolling news channel. From 6am - 9am every morning is blatantly isn't.
I've nothing against the pre-records on the half hour, as yes they
can
break into these in the event of breaking news (though they're often slow to do so).
sky is complete tosh anyway. They are right wing, I am not.
1) They are not right wing. Most of their presenters are left wing - in keeping with the balance of the media industry as a whole; their political editor is/was going out with an ex-Labour advisor; and a recent survey found that their reporting of the war was probably the fairest of them all (C4 too dismissive, BBC to accepting of the official line).
2) How on earth you reach the conclusion that their political coverage would get in the way of their coverage of a crash on a motorway is somewhat baffling.
3) News 24, even when they did come on air at 9, were useless. They went on for about 4 minutes and then (snore) went to talk about the BBC and Downing St... (yawn)... with a... (snmmfff) live interv....(zzzzzzzzzz).
The questions this incident should be raising is why UK networks are so utterly useless at getting pictures from a news scene. It took them about 3 hours! What if a member of the Royal family had been there, or a chemical tanker had blown up?
If they had any sense, Sky the BBC and ITV would club together and pay for shared helicopters to provide live pictures over the country. It would improve their coverage no end. The Beeb managed to get some helicopter pictures - but about 5 hours after the accident... great!
Well they did actually cover the story as breaking news at 7.15 as has been said.
I think the system used during the war was good when they had The World Today on News 24 in the mornings. Either have that again or have three hours of
BIG MOIRA
instead.
The whole reason of News 24 effectively closing down to show Breakfast was nothing more than a marketing move - people questioned the usefulness and expense of News 24, so the BBC respond by shunting BBC1 Breakfast under the production of News 24 to try and justify News 24's existance. Breakfast is full of gimmicky branding of News 24 - like the news headlines having that '24' graphic. There is no reason why Breakfast can't be made by the national news team as it was before. It has it's own set and the news updates could just as easily come from the national set as from News 24. Yes I know on weekends Breakfast comes from the News 24 set, but there's no reason for it to do so.
As to why this should be done, well they are unprepared for extended coverage of breaking stories as was shown this morning. With Breakfast news having to deliver the whole picture, and News 24 being held down by having to make Breakfast, News 24 was unable to act this morning.
The whole point of rolling news channels is that they can afford to devote an hour of coverage on a single story - the terrestrial news services will only do this in the event of earth shattering developments (or if a member of the royal family dies) and to tie a rolling news service down to having to change to terrestrial style coverage just for the sake of gimmicky promotion of a channel is making it less effective.
The ITVNC has the same weakness by having to show ITV1's news bulletins (and repeats News at Ten all night)
You seem to be all forgetting why News24 simulcasted Breakfast in the first place - Breakfast News and Breakfast 24 were all chasing after the same correspondents and reports for three hours and it was just a waste of money. You'd be taking a step backwards by putting News 24 back on between 7 and 9.
The questions this incident should be raising is why UK networks are so utterly useless at getting pictures from a news scene. It took them about 3 hours! What if a member of the Royal family had been there, or a chemical tanker had blown up?
If they had any sense, Sky the BBC and ITV would club together and pay for shared helicopters to provide live pictures over the country. It would improve their coverage no end. The Beeb managed to get some helicopter pictures - but about 5 hours after the accident... great!
From the description the reporter was giving on Sky, you wouldn't have wanted - nor would they have been able to show - pictures from the scene.
