91Èȱ¬

"The Six and Ten O'Clock News production team wanted to ensure we could find key angles on the story as quickly as possible."

How about doing something almost totally unique amongst UK media companies these days, just report the facts, any key angles will soon develop by themselves?...

"Clive had a limited amount of time on the ground - but it is unlikely he would have been able to do the strong work he did across the 91Èȱ¬ without us using every tool at our disposal to bring this story of human tragedy to the public."

That would be a 4x4 motor-vehicle, a camera operator, a translator, a mobile satellite up-link and the mobile/sat-phone then? Please 91Èȱ¬, do what you do best, report the facts in a claim collected fashion, leave all the hype and "Sky-copers" etc. to your UK 24/7 competitor - attract viewers by being different!

And why the blue blazes did you have to send George Alagaiah?

The number of times 91Èȱ¬ execs are hauled up in front of Newswatch to explain why they send a news anchor to cover an event when there are already reporters in the area is huge. Each time we're told that the "policy will be reviewed" and the expense won't happen again. Why do I feel like I'm being lied to?

This really makes me cross. What a waste of my licence fee! Damnit! I'm becoming Angry of Tonbridge Wells, and I'm such a sensible, level-headed person normally!

I thought your coverage on the Ten O’clock news was good. But i agree with the person above, George Alagaiah was not needed at all. A waste of money and effort on his behalf. The reports were good, but George just looked a bit stupid, all he did was doing exactly what Fiona Bruce could have done at the Studio (Introducing reports). But i have to say , sometimes you have sent key anchors abroad and used them well. Like Mr Edwards to cover the US elections and in China (Tiananmen Sq). On this occasion, not needed.

There must be some kind of siren that goes off at the 91Èȱ¬ whenever there is a natural disaster and there is a rush to be the "newshounds" on the scene. One imagines a fireman's pole and the newsroom readers grabbing their macs, fighting to be the first down the pole and into a taxi for the airport.

At L'Aquila we already had Duncan Kennedy, our "Rome correspondent" (some 40 miles away) giving more than adequate cover of the disaster. Then on the 10'o'clock news we suddenly saw George Alagiah fronting the cameras, waving his arms around like a windmill out of control. Not only was he totally superfluous he was then seen "interviewing" Duncan Kennedy on the events of the day - the details of which Duncan had already given in the report earlier.
Then, this morning, we have yet another 91Èȱ¬ reporter, Louisa Baldini, standing in front of the ruins. Just how many of them are out there and why, when Duncan Kennedy can do a more than adequate reporting job, do we need all these hangers on who add nothing to the reporting? And now you report Clive Myrie is out there and I have seen Orla Guerin.

Spending other people's money (i.e. ours) is so easy isn't it? You and the government both.

(We are so pleased to know our 91Èȱ¬ licence is increasing this year.)

You may think we are stupid but I think everyone of us has a pretty good idea of the terrible consequences of an earthquake without needing images or live broadcasts to back them up. I know that many in the 91Èȱ¬ rather like the idea of "disaster chasing" (which is what you describe in your opening remarks) but in my opinion you are no more than a bunch of card carrying ghouls.

Has it ever crossed your minds that the people directly involved in this natural disaster needed help to remove them from the rubble not a bunch of journalists spouting the same old rubbish ad nauseum?

My thoughts are with all those made homeless and or bereaved.

One_Marble_Left #5.

thank you.

the "..no more than a bunch of card carrying ghouls." you sum up so well are particulary embarrassing when they report from certain African areas -- well-fed, smartly dressed reporters moving among the starving and destitute -- it's all so bloody sick.

We, at the [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator], was amazed with the new use of Twitter and Facebook to identify the worst-hit areas. That is a very healthy sign to show that people are really care and trying to access to the latest development of the hit areas.

This positive attitude should not end here, but they should, which we believe, try to assist in whatsoever ways they can. What is more important is to save lives and at the same time to trigger the respective authority to take whatsoever precaution or preparation if necessary.

Time and information is really essence in this type of critical situation. As such, it is really everyone business and information need to be circulated as quickly as possible.

Some coverage when it leaves you feeling angry, why concentrate on such suffering as the poor man leaving the rubble in his underclothes, it seems the 91Èȱ¬ still needs a good dose of common sense from someone in charge.
But hey, just carry on wasting both the planets and public resources, here we go again, lining up another waste of time on POV.

And this morning we had YET ANOTHER REPORTER out there. Did you hire a jumbo jet?
If I had been one of the unfortunates in the food queue this morning having a microphone thrust in my face by a 91Èȱ¬ reporter I don't think I would have been so civil as the poor people who are now homeless.

Oh, by the way, just where are all these reporters and camera crew STAYING in this area? Under canvas? Sleeping in their cars?
Or are they in cosy hotels (on expenses)?

Oh not again. Do you really need to insert 'twitter' in every other blog report. OK, so you used twitter and social network sites, big deal. This is mainstream not novel. I don't see you making mention of the use of phones or e-mail. It's almost like the 91Èȱ¬ have some commercial interest in twitter the amount of plugs it is given.

I disagree with most of the comments above. Localising the report with the anchor seems an effective way to stress the significance and extraordinary nature of the story. In this case, it brought L'Aquila closer to the viewers and focussed viewers’ attention on the disaster. The reports seem wholly justified given the death-toll (currently at 250) and the devastation caused. Obviously can’t be sure, but one can assume that editorial decisions like this one would have been carefully considered and not done arbitrarily.

@Boilerplated @one_marble_left: surely just reporting facts for this would make for rather insensitive and shallow reporting?
@grignard: what barometer do you use? Death toll? What people want to see? Or what people should see?
@JGScotland: Surely compared to phones and email, twitter is novel. At most, a year old for most journalists?

#11

"Localising the report with the anchor seems an effective way to stress the significance and extraordinary nature of the story."

Four words blow your argument wide open - 1984, Ethiopia, Michael Burk - one reporter, one camera operator, that single report had the most profound affect worldwide...

If I might be allowed to mention another news organisation as an example of good reporting, Euronews have a slot called "No Comment", were the camera alone speaks, no reports opinion or angle on the images/sound-track, the viewer is allowed to make their own minds up on the significance or extraordinary nature of the story, many of these slots actually do more to show the real (horror) story than a 100 babbling, de-camped, on the spot, presenters can.

SJPitchers:

Your comments and especially "localising the report with the anchor" reek of specialist knowledge or perhaps even insider 91Èȱ¬ speak. Having Alagiah out there adds nothing to our understanding of the situation especially when the reporter on the spot (endlessly puffed by the 91Èȱ¬ in those adverts) Duncan Kennedy is doing a good job. Minchin interviewing Alagiah interviewing Kennedy just looks like jobs and doubles all round!

Are you saying that unless the 91Èȱ¬ have no less than SIX (to date) reporters out there: George Alagiah, Duncan Kennedy, Clive Myrie, Louisa Baldini, Orla Guerin and A.N.Other who joined the throng this morning, we the dim viewers won't understand the enormity of it all?

What's the point in having reporters in all the main parts of the world if, whenever something happens, the massed band of the 91Èȱ¬ journos come trampling over the patch?

Surely the opportunities of 91Èȱ¬ output in 1984 is greatly different from now? Rolling news, 91Èȱ¬ online, video, pictures, interactive TV and more bulletins throughout the day. Poor Michael Buerk would have been rushed off his feet if he had to do all of that now! Up to six reporters covering a natural disaster which has claimed up to 250, with ongoing rescue missions, a papal visit and aftershocks causing more problems! Seems fairly well judged and you can assume that they are all busy.

Agreed, light editorial treatment should be exercised for stories involving displaced and distressed people and that the news doesn’t need to overwhelm the viewer with too many reporters, but I think that in this case, a criticism of over-spend or hyperbolic reporting is simplistic and reductive given what is being produced.

@Bax-of-Delights ‘’Or are they in cosy hotels?’’: Using the little knowledge I have of the 91Èȱ¬, I think I can assume a hotel paid for by 91Èȱ¬ expenses is probably not going to be especially ‘cosy’.

@SJPitchers: No, we're complaining about the whole media circus, and the continual fight for "ratings". This isn't the first time news anchors have been parachuted in to front a new "event", and unless we all compain even more vociferously, it won't be the last.

I, for one, would like to see 91Èȱ¬ News concentrate on getting the facts and getting them right, instead of fighting over trying to be first to air the news all the time. I don't care who gets me the news first. I do care about whether that news is accurate and whether it's relevant.

Sending armies of reporters with their attendant entourages is simply not a cost-effective use of my money, as far as I'm concerned. Sure, it's a big story, and finding ways to assist the reporters on the ground is to be applauded. However, the current method is more akin to media vultures, swooping in on a news corpse. Not a nice spectacle, thank you very much.

#14

That is an argument against rolling news and the subsequent dumbed down news that it is currently delivering, not the need for decamping a studio full of presenters and techies to the location each and every time a 'big' story breaks - nothing gets added by doing it, in fact the calm and collectedness that the 91Èȱ¬ was once renowned for just flies out of the window. Take last years banking crisis, what was gained by decamping a presenter across London to stand on a noisy balcony outside the Bank of England, being emailed the script from the new media centre at TVC, when the same 'links' to the reports etc. could have been given from a studio - and what is more you double up the amount of staff you need as you still need a anchor in the studio in case the link goes down - as we see quite often. Sorry but this sort of thing is hyperbolic reporting that adds nothing to the news story...

As for the comment about accommodation, the point being made was that if the media didn't decamp half their staff to such locations there would be less victims having to camp out I suspect!

SJPitchers:

"Using the little knowledge I have of the 91Èȱ¬, I think I can assume a hotel paid for by 91Èȱ¬ expenses is probably not going to be especially cosy."

So this army of 91Èȱ¬ reporters and camera men/women and sound crew are all holed up in hotels would you say? Would these be the same hotels the Italian government are trying to get the homeless into - but can't because the news vultures are sitting pretty?

91Èȱ¬ expenses is OUR money and the way it is handed out in employing superfluous reporters sticks in the craw. And each year the 91Èȱ¬ comes back for - and gets - more and we have no say in it whatsoever.

"I do care about whether that news is accurate and whether it's relevant."
Surely accuracy and relevancy are dependent on locality, resources and the speed to which the material airs? It is absurd to suggest that location-based and down-the-line presenting adds nothing to the way that a piece of news comes across. I'm sure, as with any editorial decision that has to be made in news, there are cases that can be debated, but I find most of your arguments contradictory. You want facts, but you don't want too many reporters there. You want accurate and well-informed news, but you would rather it didn't come from a victim being interviewed. You criticise circumlocutory reporting yet would rather news is gathered from the epicentre then reported from a studio.

Oliver talks about reporting which 'fully conveyed the scale of the destruction', which will 'give the full picture on such an important story' and 'using every tool at our disposal to bring this story of human tragedy to the public'. It what way does this not suggest a quest for accuracy and relevancy?

#18

"but I find most of your arguments contradictory"

I'm sure the feeling is mutual!

You seem to be forgetting that there were at least two reporters already at the location - more than enough for any accurate and relevant reporting of the facts, what is not needed are decamped anchors interviewing reporters about what has just been said/shown in their packages nor people sculling around trying to 'sex-up' the story with 'human interest' stories (which seems to have been what was being refered to as key angles) et al, also does it matter which devistated village is filmed, I'm sure that when "one woman on Twitter wrote that a village called Onna had been devastated" she was far more interested in letting people know that they needed help rather than inviting a media scrum. Come on, if the viewer can understand the magnitude of the situation from the images (never mind any audio/commentary) they are not going to get it by listening to yet another reporter (or two) who has been bused-in interviewing either reporters or more locals.

Again, you have made a very good argument for the scrapping of rolling news channels if this is what they have come down to, perhaps Jon Snow was correct in what he said on the issues of rolling, 24/7 news channels around the time that ITV scrapped their ITN news channel...

Sorry but in this instance the 91Èȱ¬ got carried away, I suspect the truth is that 91Èȱ¬ thought that they would be able to spin this story out until Easter - a traditionally slow news week - hence the need to decamp to Italy.

@11

How can factual statements be insensitive? Is it worse than when someone is sticking a camera and microphone in your face when you have just had several of the most harrowing hours of your life? It is not the role of the media to rush about like excited schoolchildren playing with their latest fad. News had not changed one little bit EVER - it is the news delivery mechanisms and the people employed who have changed and not many would argue that that has been "for the better".

You cannot add colour to a disaster by seeing how many angles and how many comments you can obtain - it is a disaster and my sensitivity to it is obviously much greater than yours.

I would like to say how much I have valued the reports comming out from Italy. It is terrible when nature destroys our surroundings in this way and my heart goes out to all the people who are now suffering, and my prayers for those who have died. However I want to make a special mention of Louisa Baldini. Her reports on 91Èȱ¬ breakfast, and the 1 O'Clock news have been enhanced by her interviews with those who were queing for food at breakfast and dinner. The fact that she was able to speak Italian and translate the replies really added a sense of realism to her pieces to camera. Thank you Louisa very much appreciated.

#21

"The fact that she was able to speak Italian and translate..."

Oh I agree, it's always best to have a reporter, who is stationed in another country, that can understand and speak the countries primary native language!

"...the replies really added a sense of realism to her pieces to camera"

What, you mean the images of collapsed houses etc. are not realistic, you needed to be told that someone was now homeless and was having to accept food hand-outs? Quite frankly the images without any commentary were realistic to me, it looks just like a real life earthquake zone - as the saying goes - an image is worth a thousand words...

Boilerplated #12, #22.

I am with you on what you write re. EuroNews "No Comment" and "..an image is worth a thousand words..".

your other posts are well argued too.

"...we also wanted to ensure teams travelling from outside Italy could help give the full picture on such an important story..."

In an extract from just one sentence of your lead in this blog the full "insensitivity" of the news media is encapsulated. First the clinical absence of "regret, concern, or sympathy" in the use of the words "important story". It is just a job after all, isn't it? Offensive?

Then the "teams travelling from outside Italy" without a hint of "to help". As someone else has stated "the pole was greased; the teams already to jump into their satellite wagons; the equipment polished and sparkling" and with not one thing in their kit to help just one victim of this disaster. It's just a job after all, isn't it? Offensive?

If the western world diverted just a fraction of the cash it pays to its media into mobile disaster relief equipment then those who survive tragic events such as this may have a chance of positive support much more quickly than is the case. If care was taken over the design of modern buildings to withstand the intensity of an earthquake like this then the disaster would have been less severe and less costly to human life.

The media help to perpetuate human misery and do little by way of positive support for change in the way society is run. That is the message you guys should focus on in Holy Week.

I'd just like to commend the 91Èȱ¬ team on the ground in Italy who are doing a fantastic job of bringing us the full (and grim) story. I'd particularly like to thank Louisa Baldini who has proved that she's a very talented news producer and journalist...and a tri-lingual one too!

Her almost simulateneous translation when speaking to those who only spoke Italian or French is quite something. Are they over-manned out there? Not really; it's a big story and you need experienced bodies on the ground to produce decent results. Ringraziamenti, Louisa!

Nice to see that the Louisa Baldini fan club is alive and well...

#25

"you need experienced bodies on the ground to produce decent results"

So what you are saying is that you think that the reporters that were in Italy before the earthquake were not up to the job - if that is what you are saying (you have certainly implied it), then the licence fee payer has every right to ask why are the 91Èȱ¬ employing/using them in such a roll?...

@25

I have no way of knowing if Ms Baldini is talented or not, but perhaps you can answer me a question - how many people in Italy are multilingual with English? And please define "decent results" or did you mean to type "indecent" (disapproved by others)?

@26

Yes, it appears she can do no wrong.....

***

I really have no problem with people being in the 91Èȱ¬ fan club as long as they take over my share of the license fee, you know a bit like you choose to pay for Sky etc.

"What, you mean the images of collapsed houses etc. are not realistic, you needed to be told that someone was now homeless and was having to accept food hand-outs? Quite frankly the images without any commentary were realistic to me, it looks just like a real life earthquake zone - as the saying goes - an image is worth a thousand words..."

I am sorry Boilerplated, that is not what I actually meant. I am not an expert at expressing what I am trying to get across in print. What I was trying to say is that sometimes when a piece is translated by an interpretor, it comes across as a bit abstract. Whereas Luisa, being there, and being able to put her questions in Italian, and immediately translate the replies removed that abstract nature. You are right, the images conveyed all too clearly the horror of what had happened.

What myself and others are querying here is why, when you have a resident (remember that word, resident) journalist in Rome (who, one assumes speaks fluent Italian) does one need to have the massed bands of 91Èȱ¬ journos trampling up and down the rubble. George Alagiah, Clive Myrie, Louisa Baldini, Orla Guerin, A.N.Other (name unremembered) all FLYING out there (carbon footprint anyone?) to join Duncan Kennedy and in effect shovel him out the way?

One forgets the 91Èȱ¬'s long time Rome correspondant David Willie. Who, to my knowledge has been there for years. I remember listening to his reports back in the mid seventies when I was at school. But yes, I have often wondered why the 91Èȱ¬ seem to gaher together a team to fly out. I can only imagine that with a story of this size, it puts considerable strain upon the local jurno resident out there. But I too do wonder why there had to be so many.

#29

"You are right, the images conveyed all too clearly the horror of what had happened."

EXACTLY, we don't need to be told, on TV we can see the devastation, what need is there for someone to interview someone only to have them tell us what we can see?! There was and is no need to have on the spot, live from the scene, reports, it adds nothing, gets in the way of more considered reporting (or the rescue efforts...), anything said live could be said in a recorded report and once that is accepted the need for instantaneous translation is removed - and thus the need to 'bus-in' ever greater numbers of people - never mind the fact simple images show the true horror of the situation.

Put simply, many of these 'on the spot' reports are not even needed, it's quite common for both SkyNews and the 91Èȱ¬ to repeat earlier, (once) 'live' reports later anyway, so please 91Èȱ¬ (and Sky), less 'Live' reports - even more so when all the report turns out to be is a studio presenter interviewing another reporter - and more well crafted pre-recorded reports that are accurate and concise in what they tell us...

I suspect that the increased number of TV reports that do nothing but repeat orally what the images show is being caused by the 91Èȱ¬'s centralisation of news and thus the same packages are being used for radio as well as TV/IP streaming, I really do think that it's been a fails economy as it seems to have greatly 'dumbed-down' the quality of both TV and radio news reporting, the two disciplines are quite different.

#31

"One forgets the 91Èȱ¬'s long time Rome correspondant David Willie"

Is he still with the 91Èȱ¬, or perhaps he is working freelance now, I only ask as I heard a report by him on (I think) CNN the other day?

Well, his voices accompanied some of the early pictures on Monday's Breakfast. So, he may well be freelance, but obviously still also files reports for 91Èȱ¬ News. And long may he continue, fine voice, fine broadcaster.

I see the need for more than one reporter, and that we sometimes need a commentary to explain something or simply to place what we are seeing into context. But, what are all the others for - I mean, really, what is their function? Why was Ms Guerin there? An outstanding, iconic reporter, but I wonder she there because people associate her with tragedy?
It's not as if more reporters are likely to ensure more accuracy - just more words; the rubbish being spouted by reporters at the mass funeral today was embarrassing. Stop patronising your audience, some of us have really had enough.

#35

"and that we sometimes need a commentary to explain something or simply to place what we are seeing into context."

Indeed, but that could (and probably should) be done before the images are shown, either way, the context can be supplied by the news anchor and not the reporter. Rather to frequently the studio hands over to a 'Live' report from where-ever only for the decamped anchor/reporter to introduce a pre-recorded report or repeat what the studio anchor has just said! If reporters spent less time preparing for/doing pointless live inserts they could spend more time gathering/checking facts - after all that is the prime purpose of a reporter - without facts they might as well be presenting Jackanory!

@35 Bolerplated:

I wouldn't disagree with that.

"If reporters spent less time preparing for/doing pointless live inserts they could spend more time gathering/checking facts - after all that is the prime purpose of a reporter - without facts they might as well be presenting Jackanory!"

At least with Jackanory you get the whole story!

When you pay for Sky or Virgin or any other package you still have to pay for the 91Èȱ¬ license so they get paid twice. The Italian earthquake was a shock and no we do not need teams from the media there unless they come with aid or willing to give a hand like get their hands dirty nor do we need to hear about it all day and every day and every half hour as if the 91Èȱ¬ had been there all the time. Silence says as much as endless words that say nothing. I feel sorry for those who have suffered as it will take them a long time to get over this. But they are a nice people and will sort this out.

#38

"When you pay for Sky or Virgin or any other package you still have to pay for the 91Èȱ¬ license so they get paid twice."

Who gets paid twice?!...

Far worse than the decision whether or not to send teams or Anchors to the scene is the coverage of the funeral Mass. The very least the 91Èȱ¬ could have provided is an interpreter who is Catholic. The translation was very disrespectful to a country predominately Catholic. The tone of voice more suited to a pop concert

News 24 showed "selected snatches" of this Mass. We see the full funeral of many individuals and we cannot spare the time or a channel to show this momentous occasion.

This person continually spoke over the only chance the people in this country had of sharing the grief these devastated people must feel. The relatives, many injured themselves, sat with their dead at their feet, while this woman spoke over and interviewed other people over their grief. Shameful lack of respect and reverence.

I notice the Pope was quick to rush over to tend his flock, i dont think!

#40

All grief is very private and very personal.

It is a summation of the depths to which the media are prepared to descend that nothing is sacred in their total lack of values. What use can there be in publishing real human pain and grief to the whole world?

I have not watched one moment of anyone's coverage of this tragedy. I do not need to. I understand what a terrible event has occurred and just what suffering is taking and has taken place. At times like this you feel impotent and empty - that is what grief and suffering are supposed to make you feel. Emptiness is easy to portray on a TV screen - it is called a black or dark grey screen; on a radio it is the silence of thought.

#41

I am not a Catholic nor a great supporter of their ideals but many who died or have been bereaved in this tragedy believe(d) in their Church and we should respect that. The Pope acted as his people would expect him to act.

Just to add to my earlier remark it is interesting to note that the 91Èȱ¬ blacked out its programming at the time JFK was assassinated. It was on a Friday evening in the UK at about 7.30pm. Nothing could have impressed on me more than this the enormity of what had happened.

#41

The Pope is the world leader of the Roman Catholic church, not just of Roman Catholic's in Italy, leaders of the Italian church did visit the area whilst the Pope himself made it known that he would visit the area after the Holly week of Easter. As a comparison, one doesn't see, and most don't demand, that the Arch Bishop of Canterbury rushes off to such disasters to tend his flock, I don't recall him visiting Boscastle...

It's quite normal and acceptable that such people issue messages of support rather than rushing to the scene and (inevitably) hindering the rescue efforts.

41.
Catholics will understand that holy week sees the pope with a very full calendar of services, one that no doubt even in this dreadful happening the people will attend and hopefully take comfort from.

44. Good comment

The security measures connected to a visit from the Pope would indeed cause havoc when these services should be concentrating on the rescue effort. This visit should, and will, be done when he can offer most comfort to the bereaved, injured, and the homeless currently living in their grief, in tents, I hope it helps these poor souls.

None of this explains or excuses the lack of respect and reverence shown to these people

Craig:
Tools of the trade Thanks for the excellent resources that the 91Èȱ¬ provided to the coverage in Italy following the Earthquake...

~Dennis Junior~