Helicopter coverage
| 10:12 UK time, Wednesday, 8 August 2007
The use of the News helicopter over the fields of Surrey to cover the foot and mouth outbreak has caused some consternation, on the part of the audience, and also the government, who clearly would prefer all our coverage to be at ground level.
One member of the audience wrote: "A helicopter should not under any circumstances be flying over the affected farm given that this is a windborne disease. I sincerely hope the slaughter, then removal, of the beautiful creatures will not be shown."
Let me say at once that we wouldn’t do or show anything which we thought might contribute to the spread of the virus, or cause unnecessary distress to viewers.
We were careful to take advice about the potential effects of using a helicopter, and whether its rotor blades could contribute to airborne transmission. That advice was that air is only disturbed at most by three times the length of the rotors. And at no time did our aircraft go below 1200 feet. The quality of the camera enables us to film from that height in sufficient detail.
I can also assure our correspondent that we did not and would not show the moment of culling on grounds of taste. We didn’t do this in 2001, and we see no reason to do so now.
As it happened, the government imposed an air exclusion zone over the affected area at the point when cattle were being herded into a pen to begin slaughter. It was put to us that we were hampering by frightening the cattle, and potentially spreading the disease. We were happy to comply.
Television does need pictures to tell a story. A comprehensive police cordon was in operation on the ground, for obvious reasons. Any attempt by us to walk or drive around to see what was happening could have helped spread contamination. The use of aircraft is an effective way to cover this type of story and possibly the safest as well.
Our teams are well aware of bio-security issues and are under strict instructions not to cross any cordons. Some of our staff were here into the early hours of the morning after the story broke, making sure our equipment was fully equipped with disinfectant and other safety kit. Of course we don’t want to do anything that might makes things worse. But while respecting the restrictions, it’s also our job to cover the story as comprehensively and informatively as we can.
Comments
But one doesn't really get the full story from a helicopter. Is this going to end with the nonsensical situation in the States where 2 helicopters crashed because there were not two, or three, or even four but FIVE news helicopters chasing a stolen vehicle.
I am annoyed about the waste and clear environmental damage caused by using helicopters at the drop of a hat to cover stories that patently don't need it. I certainly don't have an appetite for ending up with US style 'If it bleeds, it leads' news.
You say "Television does need pictures to tell a story." Clearly it does, but use of that 'helly-telly' can very often obscure the real news by resorting to 'sexy' eye-in-the-sky pictures to cover up the lack of facts and genuine reporting.
It is lazy journalism, and there is far, far too much of it on the 91Èȱ¬.
Radio 4 can't resort to this excuse, and has to uncover the real story as a result.
I do like helicopter shots as they give a good (literal) overview of a situation. It can give access that an on-the-ground crew wouldn't get either which has led to some great shots on recent fast-moving stories.
I can also assure our correspondent that we did not and would not show the moment of culling on grounds of taste. We didn’t do this in 2001, and we see no reason to do so now.
I'm not sure this kind of self censorship really helps anyone; there are some (AFAIK) unanswered questions about the method of killing at the first farm - how is it possible to humanely slaughter that many animals when they're packed shoulder-to-shoulder in a confined space?
Furthermore, the great strength of television news is that it can give a much deeper understanding of the nature of an event than other media - radio or print can tell us that so many animals were culled, but only television can tell us what that's like.
If you hide the unpleasant truths of the world, whether it be in farming, in war, or in natural disasters, you hinder understanding and reduce the chance of change. Your job is to tell us how it is, not how we might like it to be.
My wife and I were very distressed on the news this morning of shots of cattle corpses been carried on loaders, and being dumped into containers. In previous days you have shown shots of carcases being dumped, many of them from the 2001 outbreak. We feel that these are extremely distasteful and unnecessary.
Perhaps you've considered biosecurity, but have you considered your carbon footprint? It doesn't seem that the 91Èȱ¬ is setting a very good example by using a highly energy-intensive vehicle just to get a few extra photos.
As a sheep farmer, it seems to me entirely necessary for the public to be shown what we are facing in terms of the slaughter and dumping of livestock.
How else will the public take the issue seriously ?
How else will the entirely logical strategy of national vacination against FMD get the public support it needs ?
Re the 91Èȱ¬'s affecting the spread of FMD via helicopter rotors, this seems to me a nonsense.
If the virus is present, a rotor at 1,00ft won't hasten its spread.
What the 91Èȱ¬ has missed so far, both in this and the last outbreak,
is that the poison being poured out wholesale is effective against the virus,
but if and only if it stays wet for more than thirty minutes.
Try wetting your boots and your car tyres, and then driving for just fifteen minutes.
On dry roads they'll be bone dry.
So how many vets, police, officials, valuers, slaughtermen, disposal crews, clean-up crews etc,
are driving out of infected farms today,
on their way to risk infecting other farms ?
And just when is the 91Èȱ¬ going to start reporting this critical issue ?
Air only disturbed 3 times the size of the rotors? Either You are being condesendant in contempt towards your readership, or your naivety (stupidity?) is beyond belief. In any case you have never in your life been 3 rotor lenghts away from a helicopter (nor 4!) and you should really get your money back from the pseudo specialist you supposedly "commisioned" another advice from.
I have had enough experience of being 3 times the length of rotors away from a helicopter to report that this is entirely false.
If this article is a piece of damage limitation, I have rarely seen such bad one and you're not doing a really good job, I'm afraid. Allow ME to give you a piece of advice (a valuable one, one that actually serves your real interests): don't treat your readership with contempt, it will always back fire.
Your damage limitation exercise has made you look a lot worse, I am now convinced that you are totally guilty of sensationalism as opposed to good journalism, and your attempts to justify yourself by your words "a story needs pictures" is pathetic and an insult to the numerous great academics that are trying to teach journalism. How about a career move to ITV?
I prefer the plain facts read out by a newsreader to the endless replay of old pictures, news do not need pictures, even on TV! Recently the 91Èȱ¬ news have become mostly speculation on what might have been which later turns out to be wrong and endless commentary. When it is another train disaster or bridge fallen down I usually switch off and wait for the full report which might appear some time later on the internet, it is much more informative and less waste of time. I understand that with foot and mouth a nearby farmer or meat producer cannot wait that long, but he does not need to see his neighbors cattle culled either.
I was listening to a 91Èȱ¬ reporter on PM on R4 the other day and he was saying that he had not been a popular visitor to local Surrey farms because the farmers (obviously) wanted to reduce the risks of disease transmission to their herds by having people traipsing onto their premises.
From which I could only presume that despite being made aware of this at or before the first farm visit he'd continued to travel from farm to farm regardless!
Responsible journalism means not doing stupid things, whether or not the police have yet got around to forbidding them.
I can't believe that crews are on the ground, interviewing farmers as they check their cattle for signs of F&M.
Are crews quarantined or cleansed before moving to a new location? If not, then do they not become a viable distributor of the disease?
Say that farmer A found F&M evidence soon after a crew visted him, but the crew have moved on to hound farmer B in time to get a cut done in time for the next news slot - what happens then?
How about a little more balance in the reporting instead of the usual 91Èȱ¬ line of "poor hard done by farmers, woe is them"? The Today programme had a farmer this morning claiming he cried when his sheep were slaughtered. What on earth was he planning to do with them?
"It was put to us that we were hampering by frightening the cattle, and potentially spreading the disease. We were happy to comply."
...so it never crossed anyone's minds that this might be the case before it was "put to you"..?
Need pictures from the air? Yes, sometimes - the coverage of the recent floods was much more effective for getting an overview of the extent of the water.
But in this case, what does it add to our understanding of the story to get an aerial view of the affected farm ? Or as we saw earlier this year, to send a helicopter to take pictures of the place in Portugal where the McCann's were staying ?
Are you sure there's not an element of "boys and their toys" ?
Did you actually ask the farmers before invading their privacy by over-flying their farms ? Would Ms Unsworth like it if paparazzi were taking pictures of her property without advance notice, or her consent ?
I find it astonishing that at the same time that News 24 is justifying spend of upwards of £ 500 an hour for helicopter coverage, that a 'cash-strapped' 91Èȱ¬ is looking to slash investment in a staple of their current affairs coverage like Newsnight, and possibly shut down 91Èȱ¬ 4.
This is nonsense - 91Èȱ¬ News 24 was only set up as a way of deciding what to do with the jacuzzi of cash at the disposal of the 91Èȱ¬ management - now that it comes to cost-cutting one would think News 24 would be where the axe would fall first. But no, Newsnight seems to be in the firing line, despite the fact it is on for less than an hour and aims to tell you everything you need to know.
Absolutely scandalous - start sorting your real priorities you dimwits.
I know it's the silly season but I just switched on 91Èȱ¬ News 24 to see helicopter shots of a cow shed where there "was no foot and mouth."
Helicopter shots of cows in a cowshed; I think this footage was pointless, environmentally damaging and a waste of resources.
This thread is a couple of days old and still a 91Èȱ¬ helicopter is flying over Surrey gathering images of nothing happening.
Do you carbon offset the aviation fuel used in this pointless exercise?
The 91Èȱ¬ seems to have a strange desire to view everthing from above! and an extremly extravagant desire it is to.....well there's more where that comes from and if we are cut back we will simply reduce quality programming....& blame it on 'Prudence' Brown
the floods.Heli' this and 'heli' that, well O.K. but it was overdone-(not to mention all those silly reporters standing in the floodwaters....Who won the competition (to see who could stand in the deepest/fastest/longest?)
Now 'F&M' helicopters everywhere- what did those poor cows think?