Someone, out there.... - Page 2

Margaret Pilkington · 08-07-2005, 17:49

I am not complaining about the story being covered Chav.......I just feel that it could have been done to afford more privacy and dignity to those who had been killed.

do these news teams not have families....? I think some of the film coverage was very intrusive.

Doug · 08-07-2005, 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I am not complaining about the story being covered Chav.......I just feel that it could have been done to afford more privacy and dignity to those who had been killed.

do these news teams not have families....? I think some of the film coverage was very intrusive.

I was watching the six o’clock on the BBC. Seeing these people of all cultures looking for loved ones was very distressing. I hope that by highlighting their stories these people may be found alive, maybe there’s a chance that some of them maybe dazed or confused by the experience Although I would doubt it 30 plus hours on. I don’t know why we need to concentrate on the grief of these people; all they want is to see loved ones again.

Margaret Pilkington · 08-07-2005, 18:03

I am not a 'bleeding heart' type of person.......I worked as a nurse for nigh on 30 years and saw many harrowing sights.......I don't feel that the public is served well by this kind of journalism, which relies heavily on the fact that gruesome stuff grabs the punter.

garinda · 08-07-2005, 18:17

We live in the media age.

CCTV, mobile cam phones, small video cameras.

I must admit although fascinating to watch the horror of the immediate moments after the exposion on the tube on the news, l did wonder at the motive of the person who thought to film it. I hope the clip was given to the news agencies and not sold.

harwood red · 08-07-2005, 18:22

I can't imagine ever being in that situation and actually thinking of getting my phone out for any other reason than to contact my loved ones to say I was ok. I have to admit that I suffer terribly from morbid curiosty and was glued to the news reports but even I thought to show some of the pictures was out of order

WillowTheWhisp · 08-07-2005, 18:32

I can understand the need to provide information and I realise (from actually speaking to people yesterday who were desperate to know what was happening and couldn't get to a TV) that people want to know as much as possible as soon as possible. Someone even asked why Sky wasn't showing the bus immediately and I pointed out that perhps the injuries of people were so severe that they were being sensitive and realising it was too much to foist onto people.

It was totally insensitive to show close ups of the injured people when their friends and relatives could have been watching and I dread to think how they must have felt on seeing them. I did notice later that they "pixelled out" faces. If they really felt they had to show us the injured that was the very least they should have done from the beginning.

They don't seem to be able to make the distinction between information and sensationalism.

grego · 08-07-2005, 18:47

I agree Willow, they are so insensitive, I like to know the facts but I dont want to see bodies or injured people on tv, especially before their families are made aware.

Margaret Pilkington · 08-07-2005, 19:08

i know what you mean Garinda.......I really didn't want to watch the coverage yesterday, but kept getting drawn back to it.
It almost felt like voyeurism.

apest1 · 08-07-2005, 20:23

you was not the only person who found the news coverage to be awful yesterday, we all did

Margaret Pilkington · 08-07-2005, 20:29

I'm so glad it is not just me.......I thought that maybe I was being a bit hyper-sensitive about the whole thing.

apest1 · 08-07-2005, 20:36

no your not IT WAS SAD , and its will be for a long tme ....

Debbie J · 08-07-2005, 22:26

The pictures were terrible and it certainly wasn't something I wanted my 7 year old to see. The whole coverage was disgraceful. I thought some of the questions put to the victims were also really quite unnecessary & at times stupid. one I heard was 'when the bomb went off on the train did people panic?' what sort of question is that?

Acrylic-bob · 08-07-2005, 23:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by lettie

Was it not Lord Reith, the first director general of the BBC, who in about 1926 said that their purpose was to 'inform, entertain and educate.' There are ways of informing and educating without using shock tactics and intruding on people's grief in their darkest hours...

The sad truth of the matter is that the media in general seem not be able to make the distinction between informing, educating and entertaining any more. The dividing lines are blurred by the race for ratings. I found it shocking that all the main TV channels were publicly appealing for pictures from witnesses from quite early on. The BBC News website features a collection of pictures sent in as a result of this appeal. And of course it all goes to enhance the effect of the murderers actions - spread news of the terror - show everyone just how bad we can make things - Sign up to our limited vision of the world now! Or this could be coming to your town.

The need to report and inform treads a fine line between freedom and unwitting propaganda, it seems, sadly, that this is a line that the media are increasingly blind to.

Margaret Pilkington · 09-07-2005, 12:24

yes, A-B you are absolutely right.......this terror group got 24 hours of free and unlimited publicity/propaganda...............I am sure that we could have had half hourly bulletins in text running across the bottom of the screen.......or certainly something much more discrete.
As you say the race for ratings is what motivates........I feel that the coverage on all stations was equally bad.... though I think we expect a bit more from the Beeb.