Wall to Wall tragedy news reporting

[Bruv]

Following the amount of TV coverage of the Westminster, London Bridge and today the Grenfell fire,are the live interviews and continual graphic reports too much too soon and in the worst possible tabloid news tradition ?

[spot]

I assume some part of the population arrives home from work, finds the television news channel on the hour and either watches the headlines for five minutes or watches the full bulletin for a half hour, and then switches off. The channel repeats indefinitely with small accretions of new information, and new viewers join and leave.

One radio bout drinking a coffee around 8am and a second bout around 6pm is all I need or could cope with. If it's a major event I might find BBC News 24 on my computer but that would be one day in ten. If it's an important debate in the House then I'll sit and watch five hours of it on the Parliament channel but that's in a different league to news. News is what newspaper websites and radios do, not televisions.

For clarity I might note here that I voluntarily pay the Guardian £60 a year to keep them reporting. I can't bring myself to touch newsprint any longer.

[Clodhopper]

For clarity I might note here that I voluntarily pay the Guardian £60 a year to keep them reporting. I can't bring myself to touch newsprint any longer.


Not that it matters but I thoroughly approve. I've started reading the New European regularly and may well go on to subscribe. It is based around being pro-European but has articles on wider issue for about half the paper. What's wrong with the West and can we fix it? by Bill Emmott is an interesting read this fortnight (he's an ex editor in chief of the Economist). His conclusion is that we can, we have before, but it won't be easy and relies on openness (to people and ideas) and equality (to allow the people and ideas to blossom). Bonnie Greer is a regular contributor too, and always interesting.

[Clodhopper]

...all of which distracted me from my relevant point, which was that you do have a great habit of getting straight to the root of a matter, Bruv.

I think it's a balancing act and not an easy one. How much do you show or say so that people really understand what is happening and that it is real, balanced against intruding into people's grief and making entertainment out of real people's devastation or worse, to state the extreme.

I knew a guy who worked in the Portuguese Coastguard who was commenting on some of the incredibly stupid things he's seen members of the public doing by the sea when there were storms a winter or two back. I'd noticed the same thing here and the conclusion we came to was that people were kept so safe and so insulated from reality that we had no more sense of danger than babies in unfamiliar situations even if in familiar surroundings, and not the sense to realise it, because we were kept so safe we'd lost a sense of danger. It simply doesn't occur to most that storm waves breaking on a shingle beach will likely have stones in them when they hit, or that a wave pulling back can suck the sand out from under your feet, knock you over and then there is nothing to hold onto as it pulls you out into the breakers.

It's a hard line to walk, between informing and unnecessarily shocking. I think, on the whole, they are in about the right place but it is not an easy one to judge or be sure about. We shouldn't have news so sanitised we don't appreciate the story properly. I really don't want to see the messier shots they don't show us, but perhaps I'm wrong on that and you should just never watch the news on a full stomach. Perhaps we'd be more careful if we saw the real results of our actions and policies, in detail.

Not sure.

[spot]

Clodhopper;1510207 wrote: Bonnie Greer is a regular contributor too, and always interesting.


I'm going to have to work that one out, I thought I saw her play Peter Pan in Wimbledon back awhile.

[Clodhopper]

spot;1510211 wrote: I'm going to have to work that one out, I thought I saw her play Peter Pan in Wimbledon back awhile.


She's been around awhile, seen a lot, got a brain and a slightly different perspective. Like you but different, really

Ever been involved in Amateur Dramatics? On stage, I mean...

[spot]

Good lord no, there are limits.

[Clodhopper]

Ah, well, the comparison breaks down there, then. Shame. I think you'd have made a good Captain Hook and enjoyed it far too much.

[spot]

Langford. Bonnie Langford. I worked it out. Hook was properly terrifying, if I could recall who played him. Joss Ackland.

[Bruv]

Clodhopper;1510208 wrote: .......which was that you do have a great habit of getting straight to the root of a matter, Bruv.


I do my best, thank you.



The parts of the news that I mean are the questioning of people that are obviously in distress, possibly awaiting news of lost relatives maybe.

We don't need first hand accounts in a continuous all day newscast going from victim to experts then back to more victims with all the graphic details.

Hourly 5 or 10 minute updates throughout the day on news of national interest without the gratuitous personal accounts would be more suitable with such tragedies.



Are you sure it was not Bonnie Tyler or Germain Greer in pantomime ?

Can see Spot now in his tights doing the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet............................not a pretty sight.

[Bruv]

spot;1510215 wrote: Langford. Bonnie Langford. I worked it out.


Oh thats very different....................

[LarsMac]

Clodhopper;1510208 wrote: ...all of which distracted me from my relevant point, which was that you do have a great habit of getting straight to the root of a matter, Bruv.

I think it's a balancing act and not an easy one. How much do you show or say so that people really understand what is happening and that it is real, balanced against intruding into people's grief and making entertainment out of real people's devastation or worse, to state the extreme.

I knew a guy who worked in the Portuguese Coastguard who was commenting on some of the incredibly stupid things he's seen members of the public doing by the sea when there were storms a winter or two back. I'd noticed the same thing here and the conclusion we came to was that people were kept so safe and so insulated from reality that we had no more sense of danger than babies in unfamiliar situations even if in familiar surroundings, and not the sense to realise it, because we were kept so safe we'd lost a sense of danger. It simply doesn't occur to most that storm waves breaking on a shingle beach will likely have stones in them when they hit, or that a wave pulling back can suck the sand out from under your feet, knock you over and then there is nothing to hold onto as it pulls you out into the breakers.

It's a hard line to walk, between informing and unnecessarily shocking. I think, on the whole, they are in about the right place but it is not an easy one to judge or be sure about. We shouldn't have news so sanitised we don't appreciate the story properly. I really don't want to see the messier shots they don't show us, but perhaps I'm wrong on that and you should just never watch the news on a full stomach. Perhaps we'd be more careful if we saw the real results of our actions and policies, in detail.

Not sure.


I have basically abandoned all broadcast news outlets, except the evening local news channel to get an update on the weather forecast. The signal to noise ratio for broadcast news has reached an all time low. I have some friends, and family who hang on every new alert from their favorite outlet. I would rather sit on the back porch and watch the clouds go by.

[Bruv]

LarsMac;1510219 wrote: I would rather sit on the back porch and watch the clouds go by.


What ??? And miss something ??

[LarsMac]

Bruv;1510222 wrote: What ??? And miss something ??


Abso-tively!!