PC
First of all, I'd say most broadcasters did a very good job reporting through a very unclear situation. There was a lot of false nonsense about, much of it swallowed by the online operations of newspapers desperate to be first rather than right. It's understandable that errors could have been made, but I'm glad our broadcasters didn't generally fall into those traps. As well as TV, local radio also did an excellent job. The people phoning in BBC Radio Manchester to ask if the presenter was ok were striking, a real sense of community. Bauer were in a good position as Key 103 is in charge of the overnight network show (albeit it did sound odd having essentially a local Manchester show with Clyde 1 spoken word jingles randomly scattered, but they did completely the right thing doing it - priority is to get on the air, never mind how tidy it is for Moray Firth or whoever).
There are clearly issues in terms of getting reporting teams to different parts of the country. Previously I would have said that you have to trust your local news teams, but having seen one clearly inexperienced local TV reporter use the phrase "unconfirmed reports of two bombs" when it was way too early to say anything of the sort, I'd rather the people reporting on any such story were cautious, relatively experienced and able to tell us what's actually confirmed, whatever end of the country they're at.
In terms of whether the reaction was too slow/London-centric - to be honest, there were two considerations there. For a very long time it wasn't clear whether this was a terrorist incident or whether a loud bang had been interpreted by the crowd as such, leading to a crush. Any number of scenarios whizzed through your head. Also, most terror attacks in the UK of recent years have been in London, adding to the doubt. I suspect any future incidents will be responded to much more quickly.
In terms of ITV, it wasn't ideal they weren't on the air before 6am with this story. As it turns out it was an isolated terror attack, but it raises questions for me over how prepared they would be for a bigger incident. I'm quite sure there must be plans for that, or another Diana situation, but there does seem to be a gap there.
There are clearly issues in terms of getting reporting teams to different parts of the country. Previously I would have said that you have to trust your local news teams, but having seen one clearly inexperienced local TV reporter use the phrase "unconfirmed reports of two bombs" when it was way too early to say anything of the sort, I'd rather the people reporting on any such story were cautious, relatively experienced and able to tell us what's actually confirmed, whatever end of the country they're at.
In terms of whether the reaction was too slow/London-centric - to be honest, there were two considerations there. For a very long time it wasn't clear whether this was a terrorist incident or whether a loud bang had been interpreted by the crowd as such, leading to a crush. Any number of scenarios whizzed through your head. Also, most terror attacks in the UK of recent years have been in London, adding to the doubt. I suspect any future incidents will be responded to much more quickly.
In terms of ITV, it wasn't ideal they weren't on the air before 6am with this story. As it turns out it was an isolated terror attack, but it raises questions for me over how prepared they would be for a bigger incident. I'm quite sure there must be plans for that, or another Diana situation, but there does seem to be a gap there.
