TV News Reporting

[Parilla]

Am I just getting a bit grumpy in my old age or, has anyone else felt the same concerns ?

I really feel uncomfortable lately about levels and style of coverage given to news items which concern tragic events. The BBC and ITV are bad, but SKY are the worst offenders by a mile. Reports of the recent terror attacks in Manchester and London, horrible as they were, were grossly overcooked in my opinion. But, the reporting of yesterday's awful events in Kensington was creepily distasteful. Both studio and outside reporters have a ghoulish, macabre, voyeuristic style which I find quite worrying. Victims, witnesses, so called experts are are grilled for the gory details, which are then subjected to highly speculative examination before being rescreened for the umpteenth time.

I suppose journalism is just another profession suffering from declining standards.

[gerryh]

totally agree.
what should be a 5 minute report of the event/ facts as known at the time gets drawn out to a 30 minute "event" usually very speculative using several reporters at different locations giving their "opinion" of what might have happened and why it might have happened..
Cheers
Gerry

[Pamela1]

Journalism ethics have been slipping for a very long time...while their job is to report the facts their style of delving in to every gory detail has become extreme and without any thought of those family members who are watching and waiting for news of their loved ones...
In the case of the Manchester terrorism attack being played out continuously from morning to evening...Isis must have loved all the coverage and advertising they got out out of it!

[BENIDORM]

Parilla,
Spot on !
Exactly my thoughts and observations, I now watch Euronews and Al Jazeera to get a more balanced view of world events.

Regards,
Gordon

[olive]

I agree too.

The question is how to change it.

Do the general public really want the endless coverage telling them very little new? I suspect not. That leaves the news providers themselves. Are they covering it in endless depth to grab audience share? Or to use their fleet of outside broadcast vehicles? Or just to clock up overtime?

[TorreDelAguila]

I don't think it's a matter of declining standards of reporting, so much as the existence now of 24h news coverage, and the tendency to throw a vast proportion of reporter resources at any major event, to the exclusion of large number of other stories.

Yesterday, stories that got sidelined included White House/FBI events, Tim Farron quitting, inflation/wages figures, Brexit team reshuffle/talks...

Broadcast media don't do blank screens, and if there's a ton of footage they tend to use it. If you want a more "balanced" spread of national and international events, where there's less "squeezing", you need to turn to the better newspapers, on-line or in print. Newspapers are elastic - 16pp, 36pp or whatever is needed; sixty minutes of a News programme is not.

[olive]

But that is the problem. " the tendency to throw a vast proportion of reporter resources at any major event, to the exclusion of large number of other stories." Who for? Not the majority of viewers I would wager? The coverage given following terrorist events is disproportionate. Say five people stabbed compared with the ten national road deaths that and every day.

the likes of Sky do an extended report on a key item at 8.30p.m. if I remember correctly for those that need the fix.

[wembason420]

There are literally thousands of News Resources available surely its simple to pick the ones that suit your needs and not criticise the ones that don't?

[Pamela1]

I think you are missing the point!

[wembason420]

Duly noted

[Lavanda]

I think wembason has a point. With hundreds of rolling news feeds on the internet — pick your source — the TV has little option but to go overboard in competition. All forms of journalism seem to be in decline apart from what is on-line. I think the TV is struggling to keep itself relevant but that's only my take on what's happening. The UK news still is not as shocking as the Spanish. They show bodies and blood.

[markwilding]

Rolling news channels are really to dip in and out when you want to watch the news and mostly that's what people tend to do. However, when there is a tragedy such as the recent ones, we tend to stay with it longer. It's only then do we see how poor some of it is.

I don't like Sky news for the reasons the OP stated and tend to watch BBC but they too are guilty of the same.

The residents had a really good point yesterday when they accused the media of only being interested after the the fact because they had been drawing the attention to the safety of the building for months.

[wollie]

I agree with both sides of this debate, i watch Aljazeera in the morning and C4 in the evening.
Personally i think the best news prog is C4 7pm.
By the way we can change it as the programmes that are kept on are generally the ones with the highest ratings.

[Wicksey]

We tend to watch the BBC news at 6pm (ie 7 here) (we really only have live TV through in the intelsat system, and always have liked to watch the news as we're eating our dinner ... it's just habit) and the ITV news at 10pm if there's nothing else on. We too find that they lock onto one story and that is it for the whole half hour. Then at the end they have to do a 'reminder' of what they just been talking about.

Like much TV nowadays, it is terribly repetitive too. The newscaster in the studio will do a long intro and then go over to a reporter at the scene, who will then basically repeat what has just been said in the studio. Then they will often go to a witness/expert/MP (depending on the story) who will then repeat it yet again. I do cringe at the interviews with people who have just lost a family member (or in the latest fire, the whole family) and they are endlessly questioned and asked how they feel or coping .... I really don't think that intrusion is necessary.

During the build-up to the election I also found that the BBC in particular were very biased in their reporting and the debates were too, with obvious lefty audiences.

[TorreDelAguila]

I rate C4 evening news highly. Some first class campaigns and investigative reporting, cooly and factually reported.
BBC Newsnight operates in a similar vein.

Rolling news is to be dipped into, not watched continuously. No excuse for unnecessary and repeated intrusion into personal grief, though.

[knowal]

News is addictive. It gets our adrenaline going (those of us who have any left).
Lately, we've switched it off and limit it to one newscast a day.

[TorreDelAguila]

During the build-up to the election I also found that the BBC in particular were very biased in their reporting and the debates were too, with obvious lefty audiences.

The trouble is, if (like the BBC) you work hard to ask questions, interview politicians, and assemble facts, you do tend to arrive at a position where the party on the Right is shown to be seriously wanting.

If your definition of "balance" is "equal time, exposure and treatment for all sides", then you can end up offering the most dangerous of parties a huge platform, or attempting to report both sets of arguments with equal sympathy or equal critical coverage, however outrageous their assertions.

Sorry, but sometimes rational debate, based on evidence, does show up one side to be just plain wrong. Audiences, like any other thinking folk, can sniff this out, and will react accordingly.

Don't forget, the BBC's chartered mission is to Educate, Inform and Entertain. Those first two have consequences, not always palatable to certain groups.

[Wicksey]

In my opinion, and from previous experience of living with a Labour government, I feel that the Left is seriously wanting. All parties should be given their air time and the BBC shouldn't be seen to be biased any particular way. Gordon Brown almost bankrupted the country, and there was never much probing into how Corbyn was going to raise sufficient funds to cover the cost of all his many proposals, as he promised not to raise income tax (apart from those on over 80K, and company CT), nor NIC or VAT. This is purely my own opinion from watching amongst others, Laura Kuenssberg who just seemed to be far more aggressive with her questioning of Theresa May compared to Corbyn.

This is just my own humble opinion and is not meant to start some huge argument over which party should run the UK .... I cannot vote there, do not live there, so am not really allowed any opinion anyway, it's just my observations.

[markwilding]

What I find incredible is how facts are distorted over a period of time. Yes, Gordon Brown was PM when the crisis started but he wasn't the cause. That was the banks.
This common belief that somehow the economy is safe the Conservatives doesn't bear out. There were two severe recessions and unemployment rose to over 4 million during the Thatcher years. Only when Major came to power and during the Blair years was there a long period a growth.

What this last Conservative period has shown is that there has to be a means to an end with austerity but what it cannot become is a permanent state as has happened. Eventually, telling us that we can't keep living beyond our means and we have to build prosperity become false promises if more and more live in permanent poverty and we there isn't ever enough to fund the NHS.

Investment in the UK is required, not more cuts. If we don't invest in people and skills, It won't matter if we have no deficit or borrowing is down to nothing because we will need to import them.

I think May is getting a hard time now but Corbyn has had negative press for months. However, Labour bypassed the main stream press and used social media. The only people to blame for that is the out of touch outdated Tories.

[Paulinmalaga]

What I find incredible is how facts are distorted over a period of time. Yes, Gordon Brown was PM when the crisis started but he wasn't the cause. That was the banks.

Sorry but Gordon Brown was very much instrumental in the Crisis from the very minute when as Chancellor he sold off around 50% of Britains Gold Reserves at knock down prices.