BBC to Time-Delay Live Sensitive News

[katty]

continue at:
http://channels.netscape.ca/entertainment/article.adp?id=20050622200909990003

BBC to Time-Delay Live Sensitive News
LONDON (AP) - The BBC will introduce a time delay for live broadcasts of sensitive news events such as the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States and the school massacre in Beslan, Russia, the company said Thursday.

The several-second delay will allow editors time to cut scenes deemed too shocking, the broadcaster said.

British Broadcasting Corp. management said was instituting the delay after complaints about its live coverage of the graphic events during the Beslan school takeover in September.

All major news broadcasters reported live from the scene of the hostage crisis, in which more than 300 people died. Cameras were rolling as bloodied hostages, many of them children, fled the school.

The BBC's new editorial guidelines stipulate: "A delay must be installed when broadcasting live coverage of sensitive and challenging events such as the school siege at Beslan."

[maxsolomon]

1. sorry. i disagree.

if the horror of war isn't on the TV, it isn't real. and people need to know the horror of war & violence the way they knew it 500 years ago.

intimately. so it remains horrible, and not video-game abstract.

if you support war as a tool of statecraft, you should be able to watch the brutal killings it causes. and still cheer.

[katty]

3. Agree--it's an Edit, not a time delay

[babylonsister]

4. Thanks, maxsolomon. The sanitized version of this war

we're getting in the US is driving me crazy. Show us the real story, the flag-draped caskets, the names and pictures of the daily dead. That might sway a few minds and be perfectly legitimate. Ditto w/the BBC. Why whitewash what's going on?

[Auntie Bush]

6. Censorship of all negative news is on the way. This is just the

beginning...the tip of the iceberg! How will we ever know what they cut...or how much? This is opening the door to censorship and it really scares me.


I'm so disappointed in this decision because I thought we could at least get the truth from BBC since we can't depend on our own MSM. Now I will surely never trust the news again. This will also have negative repercussions on the news we get from the Internet. What will we have to do to get the truth...watch Aljazera?

[Auntie Bush]

7. Or the goof-up's the President makes or Dickie's fowl launguage?

[Goldmund]

2. So while those children are dying...

...the westerners don't want to be discomforted while sitting on their fat asses.

[daleo]

5. Or scenes that incriminate the wrong people

I know, a few seconds may not be enough, but it's a start.

[Roland99]

8. Has there been a subtle shift in the BBC's ownership of late?

[snot]

10. You could say so . . .

I personally posted the following several times, w/o getting much response, in late May-early June:

Pending changes at the BBC would, among other things, replace the BBC's governing board in charge of assessing BBC "performance" with a group of trustees selected by Tony Blair. I hope we all understand how crucial the BBC has been in bringing to light David Kelly's allegations, facts re- the run-up to the Iraq invasion, etc., and how much Tony Blair might like to suppress such reporting. Also pending are cuts of 3,800 - 4,000 jobs and privatization of parts of BBC operations. It appears to me that the pending changes have the potential to eviscerate the BBC as we know it. More details are set out below.

I'm not sure what we can do about this, but I think it's extremely important that folks the world over who care about news should at least understand the implications of what's happening and raise an outcry.

My review of the pending changes at the BBC has been superficial, but still better than what I've seen in any reports. I looked at the BBC "Green Paper", the most detailed description I've found on the 'net of government plans for job cutbacks (3,800 - 4,000) and privatization of portions of BBC operations. The Green Paper can be downloaded here: http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/have_your_say/green_paper/greenpaper_home.html#1 .

I noted a number of features that raise troubling questions for me:

1. The BBC's current governing body is to be replaced by a Trust. The trust members are to be recommended by the Prime Minister. The reason given for establishing the Trust as the BBC's governing body is supposedly that the old Board was both the management and the body in charge of assessing BBC performance, and that this involved a conflict of interest.

This sounds reasonable, until you consider that the Prime Minister has been in direct conflict with the BBC over its reporting on him; so putting him in charge of selecting its trustees would seem merely to be replacing one conflict of interest with another one of much more serious import.

2. More programming is to be privatized. C.f. the U.S. use of private contractors in Iraq, or in electronic election technology--by no means perfectly similar, but illustrates the dangers. To me, looks like maybe they don't trust BBC staff to make programs that suit them, so by outsourcing to their buddies, Blair et al. can both enrich the latter and ensure coverage that's more favorable, conservative, or at least innocuous to Blair et al. (Would some reporter pls look at how many new little production companies are being formed in the U.K. right now and by whom?)

3. The Trust is supposed to be made more responsive to the desires of the public. The public's wishes are to be assessed through research. The paper doesn't address who does the research or how. (C.f. Tomlinson’s use of pollsters in the U.S. re- NPR.)

4. The justification for the staff cutbacks is that funds are needed in order for the BBC to take the lead in bringing about a "digital switch-over" accessible to "have-nots" as well as "haves". I'm no geek, but off-hand, it seems arguable that this means cutting back on news staffing in order to ensure future HDTV sales, or something like that. But someone who knows better than I can perhaps explain.

I simply don't have the time or expertise to do the kind of analysis that needs to be done, but I am truly horrified that no one else seems to be noticing what's going on. The unions affected by the job cuts have been striking, but last time I checked their sites, perhaps understandably, the focus was entirely on those cuts--whether they're justified, how remaining staff will be stretched, etc. I’m not sure they can be expected to fully represent all of the public’s interests at stake.

You can express your objection to the changes at the BBC website here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4000000/newsid_4000500/4000545.stm .

However, I feel it's also important that we try to raise awareness of this issue through other outlets. Obviously, the bigger the outcry, the better. Please help spread the word in every way you can think of!

[LightningFlash]

11. They will attempt to....

But the investigations are heating up and I think Mr. Blair has a date with destiny......A destiny in prison that is with all his horrors to answer...... :mad: :mad: :thumbsdown: :nuke:

[Roland99]

15. "selected by Tony Blair"

Seems it's missing this bit:

"as requested by *"

[snot]

19. I'd be interested in evidence of an actual request, . . .

which sure seems likely, but don't find it at the link you provide . . .

[Missy Vixen]

9. Okay, it's time for the devil's advocate

>The BBC will introduce a time delay for live broadcasts of sensitive news events such as the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States and the school massacre in Beslan, Russia, the company said Thursday.<

I'm in favor of this. I'll explain why.

Several years ago, a man stopped on an LA freeway shot himself to death on live television in broad daylight. Prior to fatally shooting himself, he set his truck ablaze with his dog locked inside. The dog burned to death before his owner blew his brains out. Unfortunately for anyone tuned in to see the 3:00 PM programming in LA, the news helicopter got a bird's eye view of the proceedings. I will never forget the guy in the control room shouting for the helicopter pilot to "pull back" before the gun went off.

Graphic footage should have some kind of warning before it is broadcast. Did I need to see the suicidal guy at the end of his rope kill himself? How about his dog? Would it have been okay if one of his family members had tuned in, not knowing that someone they loved was about to die on live TV?

Again, maybe I'm alone here, but I don't believe that EVERYTHING needs to be broadcast. I don't need to see footage of someone else's dying teenager lying in the grass outside of Columbine High School. What kind of hell did family members of those who jumped from the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11th go through to find photographs of their loved ones in their last moments forwarded all over the Web via e-mail? The Beslan school massacre -- do any of us NEED to see that?

One of our neighbors when we were growing up ended up widowed with five children under 10 years of age. Her husband died in a car wreck caused by a high-speed police chase through North Seattle. A local radio station broadcast news of the accident complete with his name before she was even notified the accident happened, let alone that he was dead.

Again. I don't think we need to see everything.

IMHO,
Julie

[thebigidea]

12. excuse me if its kind of obvious, but why didn't you just change channels?

[ngGale]

13. Sounds like Blair has been discussing more than...

foreign policy with Bush. Both must be really afraid since the 'DSM' came out. The BBC hasn't controlled the media the same as the US, we get all bad news. Tabloid TV - controlled by the government. They don't care how violent the show is, just as long as it's not about themselves or the war. Watch out UK, Blair is getting the 'dictator' complex!

[Deja Q]

16. Cool - I'll relay that to Russell T Davies...

Then he can take real risks with his popular bushwa shows; "Queer as Folk" and (the new) "Doctor Who" (it sure as hell isn't like the original series...)

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. If there's a delay, that allows them to put in a warning

such as "the following scene is graphic" (hey, just like posters on DU are asked to do before posting pictures of graphic injuries!), which does then allow people to change channels.

What is gained by seeing the news live, rather than 30 seconds later? If you're a stockbroker, trying to get vital seconds to do a deal before the news spreads, perhaps; but for the rest of us?

[Missy Vixen]

18. In the LA case,

I was elsewhere in our home when I noticed the announcer's voice had changed. By the time I made it to the TV to change the channel, the man was shooting himself.

In the other instances I cited, the photographs and footage of these news events were on every channel. The photographs of the jumpers at the World Trade Center were e-mailed incessantly; we talked to several people who received them with a subject line that was not descriptive of the contents -- i.e., "God Bless You".

Again: Is it necessary to view these things? I strongly disagree.

Julie

[MaineDem]

17. CNN and MSNBC do the same

I hate being "protected" from the truth! This really infuriates me. If one doesn't want to see it CHANGE THE FREAKIN' CHANNEL!

I'm so glad I have so many people looking out for my welfare. :mad: