24 hour/live news: Is there any point?

[Stuart]

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.

[Pierre]

Nearly all news broadcast nowadays is idle sepculation, conjecture and comment.

Just listen to the next news bulletin on the radio and guarantee you hear words and phrases such as:

Could be, may be, possible, possibly, might be.

Facts very rarely enter into it anymore.

I never watch them anyway, so there is certainly no point to them from my POV.

[Woolly One]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

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?

Some very good points raised there. Last year, we in Ipswich were - unfortunately - put in the spotlight, due to 'The Suffolk Strangler'. Whilst our house was outside the Police cordon (only by a couple of streets). It was very intimidating walking past 'the media circus' everytime you went to the shops.

Journalists were knocking on all available doors to try and get a 'snippet' of a story. My Brother-in-laws house was inside the cordon. He reckoned that CNN were the worst of all, as they would not take 'No - don't know the suspect, for an answer'. They were basically trying to get any bit of information they could to fill a slot.

I said Media Circus earlier - that's because all it was. Camera vans, Sat vans, Camera cranes, etc. Trying to film - what - A house with a Police tent outside!!

[Stuart]

And I didn't even mention that News 24 filmed the runway at Heathrow for 1.5 hours because the England Rugby team (who, lets not forget, while they did well, they did not win the World Cuip) were due to arrive there.

[Stuart W]

Bit of a moot point IMO.

All the 'news' we see is approved before we see it.

If you realy HONESTLY believe what you see on the news, here's something to think about...

Iraq:
What is going on and why...
The media tell us we (the Anglo-Americans) have gone to Iraq to overthrow a nasty dictator and build a fair government and decent defences to prevent future invasion.

I find that odd.... WE put Hussain in charge. (yup, dig out yer history books people, we also trained Al Qaida and helped Bin Laden take charge)

When we got to Iraq we found a working dictatorship and defended borders.
What did we do?
Overthrow the working dictatorship and destroy the defences so we could... erm... set up a government and increase the defences!


Nothing to do with oil of course

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Stuart W

Bit of a moot point IMO.

All the 'news' we see is approved before we see it.

If you realy HONESTLY believe what you see on the news, here's something to think about...

Iraq:
What is going on and why...
The media tell us we (the Anglo-Americans) have gone to Iraq to overthrow a nasty dictator and build a fair government and decent defences to prevent future invasion.

I find that odd.... WE put Hussain in charge. (yup, dig out yer history books people, we also trained Al Qaida and helped Bin Laden take charge)

When we got to Iraq we found a working dictatorship and defended borders.
What did we do?
Overthrow the working dictatorship and destroy the defences so we could... erm... set up a government and increase the defences!


Nothing to do with oil of course

I actually don't believe our news is "approved". If you want a country that does that, look at China.

As for the Iraq situation. Yes, we did put Saddam in charge. We also corrected that mistake.

but, that is starting to wander off topic, so I don't want to go too far down that route.

[kronas]

i think what needs to be addressed is the global need for transparency, honesty and factual reporting, where possible, corporations such as the BBC need to maintain a balance of public duty, responsibility to provide accuracy and honesty, instead of slanted, biased, twisted, or conjecture filled dubiousness!

[dragon]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Nearly all news broadcast nowadays is idle sepculation, conjecture and comment.

Just listen to the next news bulletin on the radio and guarantee you hear words and phrases such as:

Could be, may be, possible, possibly, might be.

Facts very rarely enter into it anymore.

As factual as the weather report then

I Swear I heard on the radio that it will be sunny and dry and then rain tommrrow...... This was as I was driving in a particularly heavy downpour

[alferret]

Its great to get home from work and not have to wait for 6pm\7pm or whatever time the news is on one of the std channels.

And as I usually get in at odd times, and dont really want to wait till a particular time to view news items its great to flick it on to sky news or bbc news (prefer the latter) So I personally think there is a point.

[TheDaddy]

Normally have News 24 on late, helps me get to sleep

[dragon]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Normally have News 24 on late, helps me get to sleep

Isn't bbc parliament better for that?