London Live

Weird question. That's like saying: "There's only been a terror attack in Tunisia. Short of saying 'there's been a terror attack in Tunisia' what other coverage do you envisage?" !!

There's a whole pile of content they could be getting out. There should be regular advice on how best to get around, like what LBC has on its website:

http://www.lbc.co.uk/how-to-beat-the-tube-strike-8-july-2015-london-112495

There could be regular user contributed vox pops. 'How's the strike affecting you? Send us your clips from your phones'.

Reporters should be on the ground at various locations.

There should be a one-to-one special interview with the London Mayor to grill him on how he's handling the situation - possibly with a live studio audience.

There could be a debate on strikes and whether or not London's transport system is starting to fail a world class city.

Far from having no content, a strike in the capital is gold dust (or should be) for a local TV station. A similar event in a city like New York or Toronto would be covered like you couldn't imagine by broadcasters like NY1 or CP24.

Events like this are the making or breaking of media outlets. You have my word. London Live will be gone this time next year.

All of that (as far a the UK is concerned) has been, and remains the preserve of radio, and increasingly of course the internet. I note the LBC link you've provided invites the reader to go to other websites for detailed info.

What use would someone else's mobile phone image of a mass of people queuing for a bus be ?

I do agree with one thing you say, London Live is doomed

A reporter standing outside a closed Tube station vox-popping angry commuters doesn't serve much of a purpose. But, at times like this, there's a lot that can be done when it comes to the alternative routes in to town - how well they're running, how long the queues are etc.

A lot of people will be deciding whether to work from home or try to make it in via a different route. I, for example, had two other options this morning - a train from one station into Victoria and then a bus, or bus to another station, then a train directly to work.

So knowing things like the scenes at stations along those train routes, and the state of the buses at Victoria could have helped me make a decision on whether it was worth trying to make it in to the office or not.

He's not the problem, it's the content/lack of content/quality of content.

There was so much they could have done to provide great coverage for the tube story but they didn't. From in-house staff to Standard journalists to UGC pieces and in studio discussions or so many other options but they didn't. New chairs or different lightbulbs won't make his polished turd glisten any brighter - and they're rapidly running out of polish and elbow grease.

In a similar way that CNN became a household name on the back of the first Iraq war, this should be the story OWNED by London Live. Its a significant local story. An story that impact millions of Londoners. This is story in which ES/Indy/LL could have a done blanket team coverage of this story. They are so many oppourtunities for LL to make their name, but they keep letting them slip away.

ES/Indy/LL should use their sources to get Boris, transport leaders, unions leaders, transport workers for live interviewers. Grill 'em all Paxman-style. Demand answers. Somebody has to speak for the citizens. If the public sees London Live as their advocate, voice and constant ever watching entity, they will be that go to source like CP24 or NY1. NY1 is a so loved in New York people actually got angry when rumors swirled TimeWarner was considering a name change. NY1 is so much a part of NewYork its like a taxi or Empire State Building.

CP24/CityTV coverage of TTC Strike



KRON 4 San Francisco coverage of BART Strike

With the right resources, however, there is no reason why TV couldn't compete with radio (and even the Internet) when it comes to immediacy. If people are routinely turning to radio for certain kinds of breaking stories, even when they are at home, it means that TV isn't doing something right -- in other words, there's a market niche that isn't being served properly.

Exactly! Could you imagine if Sky News had never launched because 'newspapers are already doing that kind of thing'? This situation doesn't anger me as I'm not too surprised, just disappointed. As stated by others, with the backing of a newspaper group, the breaking news element should have been great at London Live. Even the name of the station sounds like a local rolling news channel. I was in Canada only recently and tuned into CP24 on a day when there was literally no news. I still loved watching it. I got a weather fix, some travel news and a preview of a big music concert taking place in Toronto. It was living and breathing the pulse of Toronto.

Respectfully I draw your attention to a key question in their 'winning' application for the licence:-


Londoner's make 28.3 million complex journeys in and around London on an average day, and with the lowest car ownership in Britain (40% do not have a car) their reliance on public transport is high

London Live's response was as follows:

"The Standard's journalists will ensure Londoners have the news first with rolling public transport and road traffic news at peak commuter and viewing hours and London Live will have the ability to disrupt schedules to cover major news stories"


The reason for my post was that I, and I'm sure many others, believe local news is the key raison d'être for local tv. I would't expect anyone outside of London to give a damn, but as a daily commuter into the capital, the lack of information, however limited, is disappointing and just another reason why London Live is failing to attract an audience.

TV is primarily a sit at home and consume medium, how many people do you see watching (live) TV while they commute to work ? Those that are watching TV any time after 8am, are not commuters, and won't give a monkey's whether the tube is running or not.

There's no doubt London Live should be covering the strike, but the politics of it, not a blow by blow account of how many people are trying to catch a bus, it's pointless,

You only quoted part of my post. I mentioned earlier that they only seemed to be using one reporter last night and the rest of the newscast was made up primarily of stuff that aired earlier in the day.

I mistakingly thought they were saving the resources to cover the strike properly this morning - I was clearly wrong.

So was the wireless before the 2nd World War! London Live streams live on mobiles and tablets. Some people (including me) watch tv this way.

Well, I'm glad you can afford the data allowance. You'd be better off using dedicated information websites, than sitting through hours worth of irrelevant content, ads, and other fluff in the hope you might learn something of use that will last about 10 seconds. Not very efficient is it ? I don't think I've ever noticed anyone watching live TV on their phones or tablets, stuff cached from i-player yes, because they want to be entertained during the drudgery of their journey (I do the same) but to gain travel information they'll be using the National Rail and TFL aps, or if they don't have smart phones <shock horror> and want to be entertained and informed in one hit, it'll be the radio.