Nelson Mandela has died

[ralphchadkirk]

Like many others I question why the BBC had to devote an entire news bulletin to it and totally ignore the fact that the east coast of the UK was being hit by the biggest tidal surge in 60 years.

I just did a quick Google search, which found approx. 3,390 news articles on the BBC website mentioning the words "Dec 2013 storm surge east coast uk". I'm not quite sure how the BBC can be accused of ignoring the issue. Assuming that even 50% of those results don't actually have relevance to the event, despite mentioning the search terms, still leaves a significant number of results.

 

[Darandio]

I'm not quite sure how the BBC can be accused of ignoring the issue.

On the night in question, the BBC had near enough blanket coverage of the storm. Then Mandela died, and they effectively removed all coverage until the next morning.

Many have posted elsewhere as they were actually reliant on the coverage of something happening here, in the UK.

 

[jon0844]

I doubt the BBC had that many articles and expect it was matching any article with any of those words!

The storm was bad, but I doubt even the BBC has enough online journalists to create that many articles!

I was up until 2 am or so and don't recall the BBC, or Sky, ever breaking from the story to show any other news. I expect the ticker was, and obviously both have the red button service to show other news, but otherwise it was non-stop Mandela right through to the end of the day.

I thought it a bit odd to still have 'breaking news' to describe it some 12 hours later too.

 

[table38]

Someone from the BBC PR department will be along in a minute to say that because they got some complaints that there wasn't enough Mandela coverage, they must have got it right

 

[Butts]

Someone from the BBC PR department will be along in a minute to say that because they got some complaints that there wasn't enough Mandela coverage, they must have got it right

Someone mention me ......

Seriously sometimes you are damned if you do and......

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Someone mention me ......

Seriously sometimes you are damned if you do and......

Exactly. The BBC will never be able to match everyone's expectations all of the time. Whatever they do, someone will have an issue with it and complain that they shouldn't have to pay their licence fee. Frankly, I think they do a pretty good job, and it's where I get all of my online news, and most of the TV I rate highly is BBC made as well.

 

[jon0844]

I think they do an excellent job too. I didn't write in and complain, but did observe that perhaps they went a little too far without breaking away a bit to report other news.

But it was still a big story and the other news was there to be found online at least. Those journos that travelled to places expected to get hit would have still been talking/writing about it and were probably just as concerned that most of their reports were curtailed. But life goes on.

For what it's worth, there was some coverage today about those affected. Better late than never?

 

[Antman]

On the night in question, the BBC had near enough blanket coverage of the storm. Then Mandela died, and they effectively removed all coverage until the next morning.

Many have posted elsewhere as they were actually reliant on the coverage of something happening here, in the UK.

Exactly, if you're home is in serious danger of being flooded, as many were, you don't really want to hear about the life of Nelson Mandela:cry:

 

[Johnuk123]

As of yesterday the BBC had received 1700 complaints about the over the top and expensive coverage, Michael Portillo being one calling it journalism verged on hysteria.

Of course complaining to the BBC is a total waste of time.

The BBC makes it's own judgement as to what it thinks is newsworthy.The licence payers views are irrelevant which comes form the organisation having no commercial pressure and being able to spend our money in any way it feels fit.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I personally watched the 10 O'clock News on the night that Nelson Mandela died, specifically because I wanted to find out what was happening with the high winds and floods etc. And of course the news was extended to a full hour - but entirely devoted to the Mandela story with no mention of the UK flooding/etc., so I never got the information I wanted on that evening.

I agree that devoting the whole hour of the extended news to Nelson Mandela, to the point of not mentioning any other news at all, was disproportionate, even granted that Nelson Mandela was a huge story. I think someone high up in the BBC Editorial team made a fairly significant error of judgement. There should probably have been an extended news with - say - half an hour on Mandela and the rest of the time about the floods and other news.

But at the same time I would not want to link that in to the traditional BBC-bashing that many other people like to do, and which I'm seeing a bit on this forum too. I try to read or watch news from many sources, including the BBC and (less often) various newspapers, and it seems to me that, despite all its faults, within the UK, nothing else comes close to the BBC in terms of trying to be fair to different points of view when reporting events in the news. There is certainly a lot of scope for the BBC to improve its reporting, but I'm certain if we didn't have it, and had to rely on sources like the Mail for our news, we would on the whole be much more badly informed.

Perhaps if Thames barrier had failed and areas of central London had been inundated you might have seen a different approach..:roll:

lol. Quite possibly

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I just caught the end of a programme on BBC tv this morning which puts forward viewers views on certain matters to the programme directors/senior BBC staff about items such as news coverage but a rather superior female Head of News patronisingly listened to the viewers comments on the Mandela coverage and then gave the usual..."Of course we listen to viewers views, but we know what is best for the hoi polloi to watch"...response

I showed greatness of character by not throwing one of my slippers at the TV screen (something I note that is used to register disapproval in certain Muslim states, that has much to recommend it)....

 

[jon0844]

It's been about the same today on BBC News. Even to the point where for a lot of the time I flicked over, you had someone in the studio talking over a live feed of not much happening to ask what the person on the ground was seeing. Err, what we were. Not a lot.

And ironically there are apparently big storms in Scotland today, but you'd need to press the red button and read the other stories on digital text.

I support the BBC but they've got it slightly wrong here I think. And there's still tomorrow too.

 

[Oswyntail]

Exactly, if you're home is in serious danger of being flooded, as many were, you don't really want to hear about the life of Nelson Mandela:cry:

If I wanted to know what was happening locally, I would not rely on the national television news, even if it were a "national" story. I would stick my neck out, and say that bad weather in Essex, Scotland, Cornwall or wherever is not a national story - which is why people complain when stories about bad weather in the Home Counties is treated as if it is one. It becomes a national story if something terrible actually happens. On that particular night, at that time, nothing had.
For getting the necessary, targeted information out to the right people flexibly and promptly, the ideal medium is BBC local radio. That is where most people look. In this respect, the BBC does a terrific job. Why do so many people forget that the BBC isn't just the major two TV channels?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Radio 4 decided to carry out a "chat" programme on Sunday morning about the life of Nelson Mandela and had the temerity to say .."The state funeral is still in progress, but never mind"...as if the funeral was an annoying side-show that was taking place. At 0925, they made mention of the fact that the sermon was being made, but just continued regardless with the programme. The presenter of the programme was his usual supercilious self with the unfortunate "sneering" voice pattern that stands him out from other broadcasters.

Most definitely a case of the BBC deciding that, as usual, they knew best... There is usually a morning service broadcast at this time on Radio 4 every Sunday morning, so their decision to make this particular broadcast at the very time when the state funeral was in progress is the height of the poorest possible taste.

Why could this programme not have been scheduled at a more opportune time ?

 

[table38]

Most definitely a case of the BBC deciding that, as usual, they knew best...

Heh, if you really want to ge your blood pressure soaring, have a listen to the last edition of Radio 4's Feedback at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03kvd4z/Feedback_13_12_2013/

Full of the usual condescending "we are right and all the people who complain are wrong" response from "Head of the BBC Newsroom" Mary Hockaday.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Heh, if you really want to ge your blood pressure soaring, have a listen to the last edition of Radio 4's Feedback at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03kvd4z/Feedback_13_12_2013/

Full of the usual condescending "we are right and all the people who complain are wrong" response from "Head of the BBC Newsroom" Mary Hockaday.

Thanks for posting the link. However I took the trouble to listen to the interview and in my view it was nothing like the way you've described it. It also does not remotely match Paul Sidorczuk's description when he wrote

but a rather superior female Head of News patronisingly listened to the viewers comments on the Mandela coverage and then gave the usual..."Of course we listen to viewers views, but we know what is best for the hoi polloi to watch"...response

I realize Paul might not have been talking about the same programme, though I suspect the gist of what he was listening to would have been similar.

Mary defended the BBC's coverage by saying (I'm paraphrasing here) that it was a very significant historical event, that it attracted very high viewing/listening figures, that many people will have tuned in only briefly in order to hear about Mandela at different times, and that although they did receive complaints they also receive compliments/thanks for their extensive coverage. A few minutes later (when being challenged about Nigella Lawson coverage) she acknowledged that there is a conflict between the BBC's duty to broadcast what is in the public interest and the desire to broadcast what people want to hear - the two are often not the same thing.

You may or may not disagree with those points - and I still agree with you that he BBC got the level of coverage of Mandela badly wrong. But I perceived nothing condescending in her response.

I'd further point out that she was fairly rigourously challenged by the interviewer, who very directly questioned whether 'wall to wall' coverage was justified, and that some listeners letters were read out. How many other media outlets would do that? Could you imagine - say - the Mail or the Telegraph - running a story that consists of one of their own journalists challenging the editor, claiming that their own editorial team got it wrong, and putting that editor on the spot in public to justify their actions? The closest I can think of was when the Mail gave David Miliband the right to reply over their insults about his father, but that was seen as very unusual, and the Mail still made sure they gave more coverage to presenting their own point of view. If anything, the fact that this Feedback Program was broadcast in the way it was - not as a special thing but as a regular part of the programming schedule - shows that, far from being condescending, the BBC is light years ahead of most of the other media in terms of letting itself be challenged and letting other points of view be heard.

 

[table38]

You may or may not disagree with those points - and I still agree with you that he BBC got the level of coverage of Mandela badly wrong. But I perceived nothing condescending in her response.

Really? Not even the bit where Roger Bolton said (referring to the complaints about excess coverage) "don't you listen to them" and she said "we do listen" (with a curious strained emphasis on the "do" as if "how could anyone say such a thing") and then went on totally to ignore the question and said she believed they got it right?

I'd further point out that she was fairly rigourously challenged by the interviewer, who very directly questioned whether 'wall to wall' coverage was justified, and that some listeners letters were read out. How many other media outlets would do that? Could you imagine - say - the Mail or the Telegraph - running a story that consists of one of their own journalists challenging the editor, claiming that their own editorial team got it wrong, and putting that editor on the spot in public to justify their actions? The closest I can think of was when the Mail gave David Miliband the right to reply over their insults about his father, but that was seen as very unusual, and the Mail still made sure they gave more coverage to presenting their own point of view. If anything, the fact that this Feedback Program was broadcast in the way it was - not as a special thing but as a regular part of the programming schedule - shows that, far from being condescending, the BBC is light years ahead of most of the other media in terms of letting itself be challenged and letting other points of view be heard.

But the difference is, if I don't like what the Daily Mail or the Telegraph says, I don't have to pay for it anyway.