Cable Forum - View Single Post

Stuart · 19-11-2007, 10:40

Raymond Snoddy in the Independant raises some interesting points.

http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article3172352.ece

He talks about the various 24 hour news channels (particularly BBC News 24 and Sky news) and asks what are their purpose? Beyond the obvious (get viewers) of course.

It seems (to me) that the increasing amount of competition in the news media (both paper and broadcast) has resulted in the various companies rushing stories (and possibly making them up) just to get an "exclusive" on the others.

This has also lead to the media having access to some exciting (or frightening) pictures with little or no information to back them up.

Case in point: Last week's fire at Stratford. The BBC "broke" the story by mentioning the fire. Then Sky apparently got hold of it, and told people that a "huge explosion" had occured. Then, the police said that they thought it was a normal fire, but obviously they would look at possible terrorist involvement. This became, after the BBC finished with it "Police Investigating Terrorist Link". This, as far as it goes, is true. They did. However, the way it is phrased implies that there *was* a terrorist link, which, apparently there wasn't, and I don't believe the Police were saying there was. I believe they were saying they would look at the possibility to make sure there wasn't.

Another case in point: Madeline McCann. This affects the print media more than the broadcast media, but it seems a lot of what we have been told in this case is probably speculation, and often contradicts what has been published elsewhere?

Also, during the 2nd Gulf War, News 24 was rushing it's stories to the point where technicians (not even trained journalists) were turning up with the footage, editing it and broadcasting it. This, in my opnion, is not acceptable.

So, what do you think? Are our media organisations abandoning the principles of good journalism is the rush to get a story to the screen? I can accept that 24 hour news is conveniant, but, imo, in there attempts to find enough big stories to justify a 24 hours news service, all of the various media companies are abandoning good journalism (you know, actually checking the stories are true, etc). This is bad enough when Sky do it, but the BBC shouldn't need to fight for viewer in that way. It is unforgivable that they do it.

19-11-2007, 10:40	#1
Stuart - Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Somewhere Services: Virgin for TV and Internet, BT for phone Posts: 26,546	24 hour/live news: Is there any point? Raymond Snoddy in the Independant raises some interesting points. http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article3172352.ece He talks about the various 24 hour news channels (particularly BBC News 24 and Sky news) and asks what are their purpose? Beyond the obvious (get viewers) of course. It seems (to me) that the increasing amount of competition in the news media (both paper and broadcast) has resulted in the various companies rushing stories (and possibly making them up) just to get an "exclusive" on the others. This has also lead to the media having access to some exciting (or frightening) pictures with little or no information to back them up. Case in point: Last week's fire at Stratford. The BBC "broke" the story by mentioning the fire. Then Sky apparently got hold of it, and told people that a "huge explosion" had occured. Then, the police said that they thought it was a normal fire, but obviously they would look at possible terrorist involvement. This became, after the BBC finished with it "Police Investigating Terrorist Link". This, as far as it goes, is true. They did. However, the way it is phrased implies that there was a terrorist link, which, apparently there wasn't, and I don't believe the Police were saying there was. I believe they were saying they would look at the possibility to make sure there wasn't. Another case in point: Madeline McCann. This affects the print media more than the broadcast media, but it seems a lot of what we have been told in this case is probably speculation, and often contradicts what has been published elsewhere? Also, during the 2nd Gulf War, News 24 was rushing it's stories to the point where technicians (not even trained journalists) were turning up with the footage, editing it and broadcasting it. This, in my opnion, is not acceptable. So, what do you think? Are our media organisations abandoning the principles of good journalism is the rush to get a story to the screen? I can accept that 24 hour news is conveniant, but, imo, in there attempts to find enough big stories to justify a 24 hours news service, all of the various media companies are abandoning good journalism (you know, actually checking the stories are true, etc). This is bad enough when Sky do it, but the BBC shouldn't need to fight for viewer in that way. It is unforgivable that they do it.