The Newsroom

STV News

(January 2011)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
IS
Inspector Sands
Bear in mind your original post despairing about the lack of live images was less than an hour after the incident happened. The scale of what happened only really started to become apparent just around 3. You wouldnt expect any newsgathering organisation to send crews immediately they hear a whiff of the story as it might well not warrant it


Even when the TV channels do despatch someone to an incident like that they of course cant get close to it and would have to get through the traffic caused by it. The BBC did send an IP based system which gave them their first live pics. However, as is often the case, the best and first images were stills from witnesses via social media. Even when the TV crews got there their pics weren't anywhere near as good.

What would be the point putting of putting webcams and 'skycams' across the country? Unless they're high quality, controllable and cover every street in the UK its completely pointless. A skyline camera is mostly useless for news except for a few very rare stories.

You said yourself that Sky used a webcam across the square which showed nothing really...that's filler rather than constructive news coverage
BR
Brekkie
Still find it quite worrying that some peoples first instinct in a situation like this seems to be to get their phone out and film it.
SO
Steven O
Brekkie posted:
Still find it quite worrying that some peoples first instinct in a situation like this seems to be to get their phone out and film it.


Agreed. I certainly don't think there was any need to show the footage of the immediate aftermath of the accident - the pictures of the lorry embedded in the front of the hotel were bad enough.
AN
Andrew Founding member
Brekkie posted:
Still find it quite worrying that some peoples first instinct in a situation like this seems to be to get their phone out and film it.

Be thankful they weren't taking a selfie
BA
bilky asko
Mouseboy33 posted:
Thats your opinion. No one is "terribly excited". What a monstrous accusation. I think like everyone that was first hearing the news, I wanted to know what happened and if anyone was hurt (We eventually found out it was horrific). No one was saying or advocating they should be broadcasting anything graphic or disturbing images like bodies or blood or anything like that. But of course on this forum everyone jumps to conclusions as per normal. TV is a visual medium, if there were no images to broadcast then it would be radio. An overview of the scene from a distance would suffice until they can get a normal shot set up. (in fact Sky News did take the webcam still from the Glasgow city council website with a view across the square, which only show the emergency services vehicles) But it seems like it takes forever for some channels to get anyone on scene for an incident in the middle of a major city. But eventually they did and what they broadcast is what I was referring to not bodies being recovered or draped in white clothes. It just took forever to get set up. As we all know well unfortunately, news isnt always press conferences and staged events. Tragic events happen and must be covered sensitively and with compassion, but can still covered aggressively. That is their job to report the news.


Quite often when you post, you clearly demonstrate the strong cultural difference between the US and the UK in news coverage. Why is it that you are seemingly unable to understand this? The vast majority of people in this country find (or would find) the US style of news coverage in situations like these to be abhorrent; so don't be surprised that, on the umpteenth time of telling, that most people in this country don't think such coverage is appropriate, and think that sort of attitude is disgusting.
GM
Gary McEwan
Look at that Sky News reporter, he got all sorts flung at him on social media for the way he was harassing that poor woman for answers. I think he asked the same question 3 times but in a different way.

Sorry but helicopters flying over trying to get exclusive live pictures or a mass of reporters trying to get some sort of scoop isn't the way we do things in Scotland, or even the UK.

Thankfully our broadcasters have some sort of decorum...
PE
peterrocket Founding member
Mouseboy33 posted:


Arent there any LIVEU (etc) packs they can grab and go to get pics up immediately.

Of course the BBC is still saying "serious incident" over and over....


The one thing about those LiveU packs and using them in the area of a major incident is you'll find out they don't become that trustworthy. With such a major incident, anyone who was in Glasgow would probably have been getting calls from relatives to check they're ok and/ or making calls.

I've seen the LiveU kits freeze and fall over when there were a few hundred people in one area it's not as reliable as you'd think.
WW
WW Update
bilky asko posted:
Why is it that you are seemingly unable to understand this? The vast majority of people in this country find (or would find) the US style of news coverage in situations like these to be abhorrent; so don't be surprised that, on the umpteenth time of telling, that most people in this country don't think such coverage is appropriate, and think that sort of attitude is disgusting.


Which "attitude" is "disgusting", precisely? You may disagree with some of Mouseboy's arguments, but there was really nothing inappropriate in what he said. Your reaction, on the other hand, is way over-the-top.

And what exactly is wrong with input from people of different cultural backgrounds? If, following your logic, people should refrain from commenting on UK news from an American perspective, does that also mean that UK users shouldn't be allowed to comment on U.S. broadcast journalism from a British point-of-view? (BTW, that happens all the time and I don't see you getting upset over it.)

We live in globalized world with plenty of cross-cultural dialog and debate. Get used to it.

Besides, much of what you attribute to "cultural differences" boils down to the simple fact that American TV news, for better or for worse, faces a lot more unbridled competition than British TV news. After all, if "cultural differences" explained everything, then the supposedly more restrained UK wouldn't have one of the vilest, most aggressive, and least ethical newspaper industries in the world. (Not surprisingly, it's also one of the most competitive.)
Last edited by WW Update on 23 December 2014 5:22am - 7 times in total
AS
ASO
Bilky Asko was arguing why some people may find the over the top, trashy, "must get there first" attitude that American broadcasters often have, disgusting, during times of tragedy.

WW Update posted:
...UK wouldn't have one of the vilest, most aggressive, and least ethical newspaper industries in the world. (Not surprisingly, it's also one of the most competitive.)

Much of which is owned by Americans...
WW
WW Update
ASO posted:
Bilky Asko was arguing why some people may find the over the top, trashy, "must get there first" attitude that American broadcasters often have, disgusting, during times of tragedy.


Mouseboy's suggestion was that LiveU packs be used to get footage from the scene of the accident. That's it. He expressly stated that gruesome images should not be shown in such cases. How is this a "disgusting attitude"?

Let's face it: The reason why the first video from the scene of the crash came fairly late was not because of any ethical considerations, but because none was available.

In television news, getting video quickly is important -- even in times of tragedy. Or should the BBC not have covered 9/11 live, for example, because of the tragic nature of the event?

ASO posted:
WW Update posted:
...UK wouldn't have one of the vilest, most aggressive, and least ethical newspaper industries in the world. (Not surprisingly, it's also one of the most competitive.)

Much of which is owned by Americans...


Yes, Rupert Murdoch is a naturalized American, but his UK newspapers are consumed by the British people and tailored to their preferences, just like the others. The UK press is aggressive and often over-the-top because it's highly competitive, while newspapers in the U.S., with a few rare exceptions, tend to be restrained and journalistically traditional.
Last edited by WW Update on 23 December 2014 8:46am - 4 times in total
GL
globaltraffic24
Can we all please stop reducing this to an argument over morals and ethics and get back to what this forum is about?!

Re. the post about webcams - in theory it's a great idea. In reality it's completely illegal. Many CCTV cameras in recent years have actually had to be removed. There are now far less than there were a few years ago. A number of recent laws have been enacted to give individuals greater privacy. In the past pretty much anybody could put an HD camera up anywhere. They now have to be able to prove that there is no unintended invasion of someone's privacy and/or it's for the safety of the public. It basically leaves us in a position whereby the police have cameras, shops have cameras on main doors and everyone else (such as Glasgow City Council with its George Square cam) are left with outdated, blurry cameras that don't go into any invasive detail.
MA
Markymark
WW Update posted:
. Or should the BBC not have covered 9/11 live, for example, because of the tragic nature of the event?


In hindshight , perhaps not ? 9/11 was essentially an unspeakably sick publicity stunt. The planes weren't flown into a remote mountain side, or buildings in obscure US cites, it was staged for maximum media attention.

Newer posts