LL
Given Sky News' track record of offending people, I'm surprised they're taking such a stance on this. It does make you wonder how and why they're so reluctant to show the cover when the BBC - the service the viewers people pay for - aren't.
SP
The BBC don't have to worry about advertising income?
Given Sky News' track record of offending people, I'm surprised they're taking such a stance on this. It does make you wonder how and why they're so reluctant to show the cover when the BBC - the service the viewers people pay for - aren't.
The BBC don't have to worry about advertising income?
NG
The BBC don't have to worry about advertising income?
Internationally they do - BBC World News carries sponsorship and advertising.
noggin
Founding member
Given Sky News' track record of offending people, I'm surprised they're taking such a stance on this. It does make you wonder how and why they're so reluctant to show the cover when the BBC - the service the viewers people pay for - aren't.
The BBC don't have to worry about advertising income?
Internationally they do - BBC World News carries sponsorship and advertising.
MQ
I was quite surprised watching a Danish news broadcast (DR2 Dagen) during the week when, in the course of an interview with a Muslim commentator, one of the presenters held up the front cover of the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo. While I absolutely accept the news value of showing the publication - and while, as a non-Muslim, I'm not the least bit offended by depictions of any prophet - I was also somewhat stunned at the apparent lack of thought to the possible sensitivities of the guest. (That said, I'm far from expert in Danish, and it could well be that the guest in question had already express his comfort with the image being shown in his presence.)
From my perspective, there is a legitimate case for any media proprietor to use the Charlie Hebdo cover image - but I also understand that for broadcasters that have commercial and journalistic interests in the Middle East, there are countervailing pressures that militate against using the images.
From my perspective, there is a legitimate case for any media proprietor to use the Charlie Hebdo cover image - but I also understand that for broadcasters that have commercial and journalistic interests in the Middle East, there are countervailing pressures that militate against using the images.
CI
You expected better of a Rupert Murdoch operation?
STOP WATCHING SKY NEWS UNTIL THEY REVIEW THEIR EDITORIAL POLICY. The BBC are not afraid of the truth.... I expected better of Sky
You expected better of a Rupert Murdoch operation?
MI
Why was it so hard for Sky to give a 30-second warning before a live guest down the wire held up a copy of the magazine to the camera? Hmmm.....let me THINK......
ABC Australia gave a 30 second notice beforehand when they decided to show the cover, which I think is the right approach. Why is it so hard for Sky?
Why was it so hard for Sky to give a 30-second warning before a live guest down the wire held up a copy of the magazine to the camera? Hmmm.....let me THINK......
TM
Why was it so hard for Sky to give a 30-second warning before a live guest down the wire held up a copy of the magazine to the camera? Hmmm.....let me THINK......
That's not the point. Sky are not showing the cover full stop as an editorial decision, as a means of avoiding controversy. Other broadcasters have avoided controversy by simply offering a warning.
Perhaps cutting off the interview was justified, and the reporter could've said "we don't want to show that right now" or something along those lines. Instead they haven't shown it at all, even when it is apparently okay to warn viewers beforehand.
ABC Australia gave a 30 second notice beforehand when they decided to show the cover, which I think is the right approach. Why is it so hard for Sky?
Why was it so hard for Sky to give a 30-second warning before a live guest down the wire held up a copy of the magazine to the camera? Hmmm.....let me THINK......
That's not the point. Sky are not showing the cover full stop as an editorial decision, as a means of avoiding controversy. Other broadcasters have avoided controversy by simply offering a warning.
Perhaps cutting off the interview was justified, and the reporter could've said "we don't want to show that right now" or something along those lines. Instead they haven't shown it at all, even when it is apparently okay to warn viewers beforehand.