MA
There's an element of that, but there seems to be an increasing use of pieces to camera, (live and recorded)
done in close proximity to either the audience, or the speaker at these sort of events. I find it rather 'pushy' of the reporters to engage in the practice in some instances. A couple of nights ago Ms Kuenssberg swept out of a hall doing her piece to camera, then planted herself next to some poor chap idly playing with his phone, who was forced to bugger off, to avoid being in shot.
Getting back to the Crick incident, he did appear to be a long way from anyone who he might have caused annoyance or interruption to, so that does appear to be unjust treatment
It also shows just how the right wing view the media, as something to be silenced at their whims.
There's an element of that, but there seems to be an increasing use of pieces to camera, (live and recorded)
done in close proximity to either the audience, or the speaker at these sort of events. I find it rather 'pushy' of the reporters to engage in the practice in some instances. A couple of nights ago Ms Kuenssberg swept out of a hall doing her piece to camera, then planted herself next to some poor chap idly playing with his phone, who was forced to bugger off, to avoid being in shot.
Getting back to the Crick incident, he did appear to be a long way from anyone who he might have caused annoyance or interruption to, so that does appear to be unjust treatment
CI
There's an element of that, but there seems to be an increasing use of pieces to camera, (live and recorded)
done in close proximity to either the audience, or the speaker at these sort of events. I find it rather 'pushy' of the reporters to engage in the practice in some instances. A couple of nights ago Ms Kuenssberg swept out of a hall doing her piece to camera, then planted herself next to some poor chap idly playing with his phone, who was forced to bugger off, to avoid being in shot.
I totally agree that some of the more recent conventions about pieces to camera, do seem rather pushy, and frankly unnecessary. They add nothing in telling the story, nor do they add any relevant context.
Indeed, there's a number of journalistic conventions that have recently been added to both radio and TV news that I find puzzling, such as the use of actuality in the background of a reporter's voice report for radio. Sometimes a bit of natural sound can add some context, but when the reporter's talking all over it, it doesn't really add anything.
It also shows just how the right wing view the media, as something to be silenced at their whims.
There's an element of that, but there seems to be an increasing use of pieces to camera, (live and recorded)
done in close proximity to either the audience, or the speaker at these sort of events. I find it rather 'pushy' of the reporters to engage in the practice in some instances. A couple of nights ago Ms Kuenssberg swept out of a hall doing her piece to camera, then planted herself next to some poor chap idly playing with his phone, who was forced to bugger off, to avoid being in shot.
I totally agree that some of the more recent conventions about pieces to camera, do seem rather pushy, and frankly unnecessary. They add nothing in telling the story, nor do they add any relevant context.
Indeed, there's a number of journalistic conventions that have recently been added to both radio and TV news that I find puzzling, such as the use of actuality in the background of a reporter's voice report for radio. Sometimes a bit of natural sound can add some context, but when the reporter's talking all over it, it doesn't really add anything.
SL
There is something about Crick that annoys me and feels prominent at C4 News in general. While journalists have to push for stories and answers, it comes across to me they feel like they, and they only, have the right to do what they want and can do literally anything. Saying that, newspapers are exactly the same, in thinking that they are justified to do anything they want, simply because they are journalists.
:-(
A former member
The problem is Ch4 news seems to be only one causing trouble for the establishment, and digs deeper and causes trouble for people and stories. Just a couple of weeks ago crick uncovered the fraud in the election campaign.
To be fair Crick could have timed it better.
To be fair Crick could have timed it better.
SL
They do uncover good stories, but there is a way of doing it. Their sneary attitude to everything takes that shine away from the good exclusives and stories they get.
IN
There's an element of that, but there seems to be an increasing use of pieces to camera, (live and recorded)
done in close proximity to either the audience, or the speaker at these sort of events. I find it rather 'pushy' of the reporters to engage in the practice in some instances. A couple of nights ago Ms Kuenssberg swept out of a hall doing her piece to camera, then planted herself next to some poor chap idly playing with his phone, who was forced to bugger off, to avoid being in shot.
I totally agree that some of the more recent conventions about pieces to camera, do seem rather pushy, and frankly unnecessary. They add nothing in telling the story, nor do they add any relevant context.
Did you actually watch this edition of C4 News? There was a reason for him being there, he was digesting the speech (which was happening live) and reporting on it. If he hadn't been there, it probably would have been unreported altogether.
It also shows just how the right wing view the media, as something to be silenced at their whims.
There's an element of that, but there seems to be an increasing use of pieces to camera, (live and recorded)
done in close proximity to either the audience, or the speaker at these sort of events. I find it rather 'pushy' of the reporters to engage in the practice in some instances. A couple of nights ago Ms Kuenssberg swept out of a hall doing her piece to camera, then planted herself next to some poor chap idly playing with his phone, who was forced to bugger off, to avoid being in shot.
I totally agree that some of the more recent conventions about pieces to camera, do seem rather pushy, and frankly unnecessary. They add nothing in telling the story, nor do they add any relevant context.
Did you actually watch this edition of C4 News? There was a reason for him being there, he was digesting the speech (which was happening live) and reporting on it. If he hadn't been there, it probably would have been unreported altogether.
CI
There's an element of that, but there seems to be an increasing use of pieces to camera, (live and recorded)
done in close proximity to either the audience, or the speaker at these sort of events. I find it rather 'pushy' of the reporters to engage in the practice in some instances. A couple of nights ago Ms Kuenssberg swept out of a hall doing her piece to camera, then planted herself next to some poor chap idly playing with his phone, who was forced to bugger off, to avoid being in shot.
I totally agree that some of the more recent conventions about pieces to camera, do seem rather pushy, and frankly unnecessary. They add nothing in telling the story, nor do they add any relevant context.
Did you actually watch this edition of C4 News? There was a reason for him being there, he was digesting the speech (which was happening live) and reporting on it. If he hadn't been there, it probably would have been unreported altogether.
Ah, we seem to be talking about different things then. When it's happening live, then it's perfectly justifiable, and even necessary. What I was referencing was the same technique, being used in pre-recorded packages, as though the report was actually happening then, instead of some hours earlier. I don't think that adds anything, where as actual live reporting from an event happening at that moment, is perfectly justifiable.
There's an element of that, but there seems to be an increasing use of pieces to camera, (live and recorded)
done in close proximity to either the audience, or the speaker at these sort of events. I find it rather 'pushy' of the reporters to engage in the practice in some instances. A couple of nights ago Ms Kuenssberg swept out of a hall doing her piece to camera, then planted herself next to some poor chap idly playing with his phone, who was forced to bugger off, to avoid being in shot.
I totally agree that some of the more recent conventions about pieces to camera, do seem rather pushy, and frankly unnecessary. They add nothing in telling the story, nor do they add any relevant context.
Did you actually watch this edition of C4 News? There was a reason for him being there, he was digesting the speech (which was happening live) and reporting on it. If he hadn't been there, it probably would have been unreported altogether.
Ah, we seem to be talking about different things then. When it's happening live, then it's perfectly justifiable, and even necessary. What I was referencing was the same technique, being used in pre-recorded packages, as though the report was actually happening then, instead of some hours earlier. I don't think that adds anything, where as actual live reporting from an event happening at that moment, is perfectly justifiable.
BR
There's an element of that, but there seems to be an increasing use of pieces to camera, (live and recorded)
done in close proximity to either the audience, or the speaker at these sort of events. I find it rather 'pushy' of the reporters to engage in the practice in some instances. A couple of nights ago Ms Kuenssberg swept out of a hall doing her piece to camera, then planted herself next to some poor chap idly playing with his phone, who was forced to bugger off, to avoid being in shot.
I totally agree that some of the more recent conventions about pieces to camera, do seem rather pushy, and frankly unnecessary. They add nothing in telling the story, nor do they add any relevant context.
Did you actually watch this edition of C4 News? There was a reason for him being there, he was digesting the speech (which was happening live) and reporting on it. If he hadn't been there, it probably would have been unreported altogether.
And they'd have moaned about that. Tricky though for journalists to report on a campaign which is based around nothing more than accusing the other side of scaremongering everytime they point out the facts.
There's an element of that, but there seems to be an increasing use of pieces to camera, (live and recorded)
done in close proximity to either the audience, or the speaker at these sort of events. I find it rather 'pushy' of the reporters to engage in the practice in some instances. A couple of nights ago Ms Kuenssberg swept out of a hall doing her piece to camera, then planted herself next to some poor chap idly playing with his phone, who was forced to bugger off, to avoid being in shot.
I totally agree that some of the more recent conventions about pieces to camera, do seem rather pushy, and frankly unnecessary. They add nothing in telling the story, nor do they add any relevant context.
Did you actually watch this edition of C4 News? There was a reason for him being there, he was digesting the speech (which was happening live) and reporting on it. If he hadn't been there, it probably would have been unreported altogether.
And they'd have moaned about that. Tricky though for journalists to report on a campaign which is based around nothing more than accusing the other side of scaremongering everytime they point out the facts.
NE
newsman1
Why does Helia Ebrahimi not do the name-check that reporters usually do at the end of a report?
BP
None of the reporters on Channel 4 do 'signoffs' at the end of their reports (unless they're on location somewhere like Washington etc). It's not something I like - personally I think all reporters should sign off their reports - but it's Channel 4's house style.
Why does Helia Ebrahimi not do the name-check that reporters usually do at the end of a report?
None of the reporters on Channel 4 do 'signoffs' at the end of their reports (unless they're on location somewhere like Washington etc). It's not something I like - personally I think all reporters should sign off their reports - but it's Channel 4's house style.
SP
I totally agree that some of the more recent conventions about pieces to camera, do seem rather pushy, and frankly unnecessary. They add nothing in telling the story, nor do they add any relevant context.
Did you actually watch this edition of C4 News? There was a reason for him being there, he was digesting the speech (which was happening live) and reporting on it. If he hadn't been there, it probably would have been unreported altogether.
Ah, we seem to be talking about different things then. When it's happening live, then it's perfectly justifiable, and even necessary. What I was referencing was the same technique, being used in pre-recorded packages, as though the report was actually happening then, instead of some hours earlier. I don't think that adds anything, where as actual live reporting from an event happening at that moment, is perfectly justifiable.
Most of the "pointless lives" are done because the pre packaged report has been put together in the satellite van at the location.
Doing a quick two way before the package is played out costs next to nothing extra and gives the viewer a sense that it is the most up to date information, compared to a pre rec package that could have been in the can for several hours.
I totally agree that some of the more recent conventions about pieces to camera, do seem rather pushy, and frankly unnecessary. They add nothing in telling the story, nor do they add any relevant context.
Did you actually watch this edition of C4 News? There was a reason for him being there, he was digesting the speech (which was happening live) and reporting on it. If he hadn't been there, it probably would have been unreported altogether.
Ah, we seem to be talking about different things then. When it's happening live, then it's perfectly justifiable, and even necessary. What I was referencing was the same technique, being used in pre-recorded packages, as though the report was actually happening then, instead of some hours earlier. I don't think that adds anything, where as actual live reporting from an event happening at that moment, is perfectly justifiable.
Most of the "pointless lives" are done because the pre packaged report has been put together in the satellite van at the location.
Doing a quick two way before the package is played out costs next to nothing extra and gives the viewer a sense that it is the most up to date information, compared to a pre rec package that could have been in the can for several hours.