Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

Did television fail? What technologies got the news flowing fastest?

18:13 / 07.07.05

Did anybody else find that the news about the bombs in London today got through to them from all others sources other than Television - in fact for large chunks of the morning, tele was running as usual with Trisha, Frasier re-runs and Clifford the Big Dog, until a good hour maybe more after the bombs. First heard about it on the Internet - on here in fact, with Sax's post, and then the radio - but television was slow of the mark, and the BBC seemed messy with it's initial coverage, full of panic. In this time of 24 hour news stations, did television fail? Has televsion had it's day? Radio amazingly still seems the best source of news, with the internet, it's failings of over subscripton to some sites becoming apparent, a close second. Not sure what this is asking, just found it very interesting that television seemed so off the pace on this one.

18:15 / 07.07.05

oh and sorry if this is in completely the wrong thread, feel free to move it to which ever one you think is more suitable

19:52 / 07.07.05

Yes, I think one thing the whole War on Terra proves in all its manifestations is how well the internet serves as a news source -- and even the *way* in which it serves as a news source.

* self-selectable(searchable)
* personal, informal observations
* pervasive -- witnesses pop up in places journalists can't go.

One of the interesting things I think the net does, also, is it pops holes in the formal construction of television. Because TV seems to be all those things, but it really isn't. Visual images are just as constructed and just as limited as the print stuff.

*

23:40 / 07.07.05

Believe it or not I got the news first from Livejournal. That was probably a fluke. Next I came to Barbelith and followed links from here, and finally I went through my RSS subscriptions. By that time I already had a solid handle on what was going on, through Barbelith. I did, however, wish for a feature that doesn't exist yet-- for the ability to filter certain kinds of stories as priority events, triggering an alert, so I could find out immediately instead of hours later.

Another thing I noticed was that I found the news blogs more informative than the news sites' front pages. The writing is more concise and less formal. Since my mind has become trained to edit out much of journalistic writing as uninformative fluff, I absorbed more facts from the news blogs.

16:17 / 08.07.05

I first heard about it on TV (on the big screen in a gym I pass by on my walk to work). And having Sky News (occasionally flicking to the others) open on my computer alongside various websites pushes me towards the opposite conclusion (ie. that TV is still the best way to follow these kinds of stories). For one thing, TV News has been pretty good at absorbing much of the new information technology. Footage from phone-cameras made it to the screen very quickly, and although it might have seemed slower than internet sources, I think that's because a higher premium is placed on accuracy.
The web is a good place to get rumour fast, but rumour is not always useful. I was impressed by the Guardian blog, and wikipedia, but lots of stuff posted was soon withdrawn and that felt a bit disorienting. Lots of the newsflash posts on the thread in the Convo were basically replaying reports from traditional news sources for those who didn't have them. I found that very useful because you catch watch/read/hear everything at once, but I don't recall any scoops.

I'd be interested to know more about where Benny and others think TV failed.

semioticrobotic

17:31 / 08.07.05

I live in the USA, and I spent all of 7/7 on the the BBC Web site -- and I work at an American newspaper!

I thought the BBC Web coverage was truly superb. The interactive map(s), personal accounts, page dedicated entirely to the bombings, and blog-like reverse-chronological timetable were executed wonderfully, I felt.

Scrubb is on a downward spiral

21:29 / 08.07.05

As another person in America (and a Brit - so trying to get information about both the event, and family/friends), I got all of my information about the past 36 hours from the internet. I wouldn't have even thought about tuning into American TV.

I don't think TV is becoming redundant so much as *another* medium of news delivery rather than *the* medium that it previously was (along with print and radio). The BBC and the Guardian I think are recognising this shift to extend their platforms of delivery beyond the above to include blogs, forums and "Have Your Say" boards, and real-time interactive updates. (NB. If Tom Coates is around, I'm sure he can expand on this far more accurately and eloquentally than me).

One of the shortcomings off the top of my head - television simply cannot respond as rapidly to news sources as individuals tapped into an online network. Broadcasting networks must make the decision about whether the news is worth running as a story, how and where to mobilise and access news reporting teams to and from the area of the incident, the angle that they're going to take with it - basically, whether viewers will turn in or not.

Those spreading information through online channels have less (if any) of these considerations; there's more of a social element about wanting people (and specifically in a place like LiveJournal, people that you know) to be kept up to speed about what's going on.

(Sorry if any of this is a bit academic; have just spent the afternoon revising articles on the differences between economically- and socially-framed online interactions...)

22:39 / 08.07.05

I woke up about 10.30-11-ish and put on the TV. It was the first thing I saw. Came straight onto here to check that LondonLithers were ok and followed the events through the thread and the TV. BBC did a good job of covering it but it reached a point where it was just repeating itself. ITV were speculating (hate that).

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

07:28 / 09.07.05

I was impressed by the Guardian blog, and wikipedia, but lots of stuff posted was soon withdrawn and that felt a bit disorienting.

See, I was having the same problem with the TV news. (Funnily wnough, I was just having this conversation with a friend yesterday, who is of the opinion that 24-hour news is shit, and they should wait until they have confirmed information and bung everything out in a newsflash). To get a much more accurate picture, you had to wait until the next day for the newspapers. But that's not much good if you want to know what's happening as it happens.

Most of my news came from here and ITV/BBC news, plus checking links people had posted on here.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

07:29 / 09.07.05

(Although the first I heard of it was by the remarkably low-tech means of having the dentist's receptioninst running in and telling us while I was having a root canal).

17:52 / 09.07.05

For me, TV failed in getting the information across quickly and un-sensationally. I suppose there is a certain amount of self-policing on the net, the threads here involved a lot of ensuring that people quoted sources and kept things ordered. Radio, as the elder statesmen had that sense anyway, 'grown-up' stations, for lack of a better description, know how to behave in these situations. television felt like for the first hour it wasn't really sure what to do, as I said initially, most channels kept regular programming, then when they switched to their news reports it seemed like the regular 24 hour news crew on BBC struggled to find a tone - they field reports were fantastic, reporting fact, keeping things unsensational, but the anchorman in particular seemed out of his depth. The open call for eye-witnesses, photo's and videos of the event from ITV smacked of trying to get the scoop, Sky seemed intent on fear mongering. It took a while for TV to find it's level, and then the news stations, when reporting on events in a past tense, rather than dealing with the here and now, coped much better. Maybe it's partly expecting more of a measured tone because of its mass reach, that more is expected of TV because of its role, that it seemed to initially deal very badly with the whole situation. I guess there is the element of trusting the radio, looking to the television as confirmation and in a way comfort and the internet as the personal touch involved. I would again like to commend the BBC field reporters though, who were calm, unsensationalist and extremely professional.

Tryphena Absent

01:23 / 10.07.05

As someone who always watches the 24 hour news channels when these things happen and came late to the coverage I found the news very informative and useful. Moreso than websites because to get all of the useful information from then I had to wade through pages that were taking quite a while to load up. BBC news, the ITV news channel and Sky told me everything I needed to know in half an hour. The comparison is important for statistical purposes, Sky always exaggerates figures, the BBC is usually reliable for that but Sky and ITV tend to tell you more about the actual events- eyewitness statements for example- and it always turns out to be accurate. Sky usually get on to the scene quicker as well and they use internet traffic cameras, which can be handy. Like websites news channels have specific things that they focus on and you have to know the focus to read them properly but I do find them informative on days like Thursday.

17:42 / 10.07.05

I guess I learned about this first hand from LU staff - I was waiting for the Piccadilly Line train at Holborn - we were told a lot of different things as we stood impatiently on the platform gazing at the dark hole where we expected the train to come, unaware that about half a mile into that darkness was a trapped train strewn with casualties of a bomb blast. At length I gave up and hopped onto the Central line and got as far as Notting Hill Gate before they suspended the whole tube network - one LU employee mentioned something about an explosion... Then I called back to the flat to get someone to check the news on BBCNews24...

13:59 / 11.07.05

Some interesting facts and figures in today's Guardian

John Ryley, the executive editor of Sky News, says video from the bombed tube between King's Cross and Russell Square stations was received at 12.40pm and was on air by 1pm. "It raises questions for the authorities but these devices allow a democratisation of news. News crews usually get there just after the event, but these pictures show us the event as it happens," says Ryley.

The attack was the first big breaking news story since the BBC published its new editorial guidelines that made explicit the new "accuracy is more important than speed" creed. With so many people turning to breaking news during the day, whether on the digital rolling news channels or the main networks that had ripped up their schedules, clear differences in tone, style and content were laid bare to a mass audience for the first time...

BBC News 24 was noticeably more cautious in its coverage than Sky News, which rushed to get as much information - speculation or fact - on air. ITV, meanwhile, sat somewhere between the two. In truth, the differences have been evident for some time, since the Lambert report into BBC News 24 required it to become more distinctive ...

[Head of BBC TV News, Roger Mosey] says that the BBC would only "put on screen what we know is right - reports from our own correspondents, the official emergency service figures and information from members of the public that we've checked out".

This "safety first" attitude was also in evidence on radio: "We now have a very cautious approach to this. We try to get it right even if it sacrifices being first. We are seeking to ensure that our information is very strongly sourced before going with something like a casualty figure," says Stephen Mitchell, BBC head of radio news.

14:37 / 11.07.05

Sounds like in the wake of Hutton the Government has succeeded in prompting the BBC to make itself in many ways irrelevant as a newsgathering tool. If iot's on the BBC, it is no longer news; it is history. It is a document of things past rather than what is happening.

15:17 / 11.07.05

That’s certainly one way of looking at it. Although, with other news sources emerging that do the job of getting information to people fast, perhaps prioritising veracity is a sensible direction for the BBC and other traditional news media to take. It might well be that we’ll look to the web to provide raw data, and turn to TV and radio for confirmation. For me, it already felt a bit like that on Thursday, with that verification being as important to me as getting the most up-to-date reports.

Tryphena Absent

18:34 / 12.07.05

I think the BBC is working itself into a very effective niche. People will tune in to support their data, really it's simply working within the way it's already generally regarded. As a news source that is accurate.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

08:52 / 13.08.05

I'm trying to think back to disasters in the pre-now, such as the Herald of Free Enterprise sinking and the Challenger shuttle explosion, unfortunately they were long ago and I was young, but it seems like only when we're in a world with news at our fingertips do we start worrying about their accuracy, was anything different in the days when normal service was suspended for news coverage?