Japan: Quake, Tsunami and Nuclear Coverage

Two channels together is the way forward in my opinion.

Not because they want to do it, its simply saving money. CNN would have to have two gallaries staffed, two studios staffed with others on standby, extra news anchors.

With them bringing together the domestic and international channels it mean the extra costs that they are out putting teams together hiring freelancers in the field ect, they are clawing back something in costs from the channels output.

With the BBC, what you will find, BBC New Channel license payers will foot the bill for BBC World again obsorbing the cost.

Surprised Sky News and Sky News Aust or Fox News haven't done similar, although with the BSkyB sale news corp may be keeping its distance. (Although get rid of the Correspondent at the desk and double header the news presenters)

I'm not quite sure what that badly written sentence means, but if I'm reading it correctly, you seem to be suggesting that UK licence fee payers through the News Channel exclusively pay for simulcast content, which isn't correct at all. BBC World News, through BBC Worldwide, purchases content and output from the licence fee-funded BBC News operation. Where BBC World News takes the lead, such as during overnight simulcasts, BBC News pays BBC Worldwide a production fee, while the newsgathering operation continues to be funded from the licence fee pool, and paid for by BBC Worldwide.

It's a complex process of funds flowing back and forth through different cost centres and from entirely seperate revenue pools, with some coming from the licence fee, and some coming from commercial revenues generated through BBC Worldwide - but where there is a simulcast, regardless of whether BBC News or BBC World News is taking the lead, both entities contribute towards funding the output.

The concepts being explained to her, were not difficult to grasp. Anybody with O Level physics, and common sense, would have understood, but yes, you're right she's a journalist, and like the vast majority of them they refuse to even try and understand technology, ironic really, because it's cutting edge technology that enables them to broadcast.

Not sure it was who posted it, but the link allowing you to watching CNN/MSNBC/Fox live online has been an eye-opener.

If you look past the ridiculous slogans they've all given their coverage - "Quake Tsunami DISASTER", "DISASTER in JAPAN" etc - well, there's nothing there.

Over the past half hour, they've all done a GCSE geography lesson on 'the ring of fire' and the obligatory 'how are Japanese Americans reacting?'. I actually haven't seen a single report from Japan itself.

Dire.

CBS News' Early Show included opts from Tokyo, people coming in live from Skype and such. A few concerns over the effects on America, international reaction.

They also had footage of the tsunami as it arrived in Hawaii, a 2 foot, at most, wave down a canal!

Cat, I haven't seen Fox News or MSNBC, but with CNN they have been doing co-presenting with US and International output. They have been crossing live to Japan throughout the day, i believe they have Paula Hancocks, Stan Grant and Kuang Lah in the region.

NBC Today had good footage with a special today

I would suggest this isn't a regular occurrence, as I'm not a rota cretin and so do not know, but Riz Lateef from BBC London News is presenting the bulletin on BBC One right now.

She hasn't been on this year but did quite a few Saturdays last year.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that graphic intended to only be seen internally normally?

Ahhh, not seen that for some years. That used to be put up during the main bulletins some years ago when there were rights issues with certain stories,when watching online of course.

Not meaning to be picky - but I suspect they weren't 'opts' but contributions.

An 'opt' is where a local operation 'opts out' of the main network feed to provide different - usually more locally centred - coverage. If the coverage is being taken by all outlets, it isn't an 'opt'.