Serious Overtime

Discussions on news and breaking news events including, BBC News, ITV News, Sky News
manson
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:20 pm

Post by manson » Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:31 am

And just imagine how the locals feel!



Is this a kind of presenter fan club you have here? :ph34r:

NEWSBOY2
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 10:33 am

Post by NEWSBOY2 » Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:00 am

And what's is wrong with Michael and Viv?

Johnnie
Site Admin
Posts: 1818
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Post by Johnnie » Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:54 am

leefrancis+Jan 3 2005, 10:50 PM(leefrancis @ Jan 3 2005, 10:50 PM)

David Foster is a presenter and also fits into Business! maybe they have the same idea for Michael? They must be short staffed?






Or Michael wants some work, there's been no business updates recently.

MidlandsGuy
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 7:27 pm

Post by MidlandsGuy » Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:02 pm

ZED>>



Nothing wrong with them! Just that I have never seen Michael Wilson present the news, whereas David Foster presents business and the News!

hamishnewhouse
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:22 pm

Post by hamishnewhouse » Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:14 pm

I am very impressed with Sky News's coverage of theis awfull event. For a number of reasons



- Getting key anchor men/women out to the scene before any other British News Corporation



- The Ticker



- First with camcorder footage



- First with interviews with victims



- The sencitivity they have shown during these awfull events



- The ablility to donate using Sky Active



Sky are to be commended for management of the reporting of the events....well done!

Mr Byrne
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:29 am

Post by Mr Byrne » Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:04 pm

I couldn't say it better myself Hamishnewhouse.

8ballz
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:41 pm

Post by 8ballz » Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:18 am

- Getting key anchor men/women out to the scene before any other British News Corporation



Could not disagree more. It is completely over the top with no redeeming merit at all. It is a voyueristic exercise in trivialising the suffering of others.





- The Ticker



Seems odd on a news channel but if it works on a dating channel why not on SKY News? Press the red active button if the name of a victim appeals to you.



- First with camcorder footage



Excellent but ITN had a reporter on the beach.



- First with interviews with victims



This is pure voyuerism and goes beyond trivialising the suffering of others in to tramping on their dignity and exploitation of their position. Sky didn't do this in Boscastle.



- The sencitivity they have shown during these awfull events



I missed this - but then I rarely watch SKY news during the day. Seemed to be exactly the same form of sensitivity as shown by the Marine Corps in Falujah...



- The ablility to donate using Sky Active



That is SERIOUSLY good. The only redeeming feature in the whole sorry tale.



I think that SKY should have sent aid rather than their Anchors to the area. The management could have left the Talent at home and focussed on helping the local people rather than flying around in local Army Helicopters taking two spaces where food and water could be stowed rether than dropping and asking after kids in what was a village and appears to be currently a mudflat.

Sky Lad
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 6:32 pm

Post by Sky Lad » Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:08 am

Could not disagree more. It is completely over the top with no redeeming merit at all. It is a voyueristic exercise in trivialising the suffering of others.


I don't think that skys coverage is voyueristic in any way. Without the reporters being out there people wouldn't see the pictures on their tv screens and could be less likely to donate.



I have yet to see anything voyueristic and I doubt I will.



Sky didn't do this in Boscastle.


I don't think this can compare to what happend in Boscastle. No disrespect to the residents of Boscastle or those who were caught up in the floods but what happend there is no where near as bad as what happend on Boxing Day. Sky did though send two presenters down to cover the story if I remember rightly.



IMO Sky are doing a great job and like I said in a previous thread I think the ticker is a good idea if it can help relatives of those in the devasted areas.

Sky Lad
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 6:32 pm

Post by Sky Lad » Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:14 am

The management could have left the Talent at home and focussed on helping the local people rather than flying around in local Army Helicopters taking two spaces where food and water could be stowed rether than dropping and asking after kids in what was a village and appears to be currently a mudflat.




I share your opinion on the helicoptir situation but I'm sure if the Army didn't want them there they wouldn't be there. This is a disaster that as affected loads of people all over the world and naturally people are going to be interested.



If Sky didn't cover this as well people would be complaining like some of us did(including me) on the way they covered the Boscastle Story when it broke.



The truth is News Crews are peoples eyes of whats going on. People would be less likely to give if all they did was hear reports and didn't see the effect this has had on people. I know from talking to people that Sky's coverage has made them donate money, this has to be a good thing surely?

manson
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:20 pm

Post by manson » Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:04 pm

I have seen non sky news reports where the journalist's boat was commandeered by the army and where reporters on an American Helicopter were required to make way for those survivors that needed to be taken for medical treatment.



The requirements of those reporting such events are relatively minimal other than a need for access and information. The benefits of some very minor inconvenience in providing that will be offset against the need for information to reach the outside world. Given the scenes we witness on the TV it would at first seem to some that there is a prurient, self serving interest in reporters being there. Remove the frame, step into the scene and the world is a significantly larger place, where a man with a microphone and a couple of technicians on one level at least is seen as proof that someone, anyonr, actually cares. The ideaolgical rationalisation of that is hardly about to bother a person without water, food, or even the most basic of shelters.!

Post Reply