BBC delay on sensitive live news

The Black Oil

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4121406.stm
BBC delay on sensitive live news

Live coverage of sensitive news events such as the Beslan school siege or the September 11 attacks will be broadcast on the BBC in future with a time delay.


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40655000/jpg/_40655414_beslan_ap2body.jpg
Live coverage of the Beslan siege featured some graphic images

The policy is set out in Editorial Guidelines coming into effect in July.

They will replace the BBC Producers' Guidelines which have been revised to reflect Ofcom's new broadcasting code and the "changing media environment".

There is also an explicit commitment for the first time that "accuracy is more important than speed".

"The guidelines are part of our contract with our audiences," said Stephen Whittle, BBC Controller of Editorial Policy.

"These are our editorial ethics and values and the standards we set for ourselves. We intend to live and be judged by them."

Last September, the BBC and most other TV news networks reported live from the scene of the Beslan siege in Russia, in which more than 330 people lost their lives.

The coverage fuelled a debate over whether some of the images were too graphic for audiences.

One of the new BBC directives states a delay "must be installed when broadcasting live coverage of sensitive and challenging events".

The delay - the length of which will be left to the discretion of the editor in charge - would allow time to exclude any potential material.

"The purpose is to avoid really distressing, upsetting images that our viewers might not want to see going straight out," a BBC spokeswoman said.

The BBC's television and radio content now needs to comply with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code in six key areas: Protecting the Under Eighteens; Harm and Offence; Crime; Religion; Fairness and Privacy.

Revisions were made to the BBC's Producers' Guidelines following recommendations made in the Neil report into editorial issues raised by the Hutton Inquiry. But the last formal update was in 2000.

The BBC said the new guidelines being launched on Thursday aim to be clearer and easier to use. They will be published in both a print and searchable format on the internet.

Mr Whittle must now also personally approve of any proposal to employ someone known to have a criminal record or background of illegal activity.

Other key changes include:

* A requirement that the use of secret recording in a BBC investigation must be kept under constant review.

* New advice on BBC investigations into crime and serious anti-social behaviour, which must be clearly editorially justified.

* A suggestion the BBC should normally consider asking contributors to sign contracts - including a declaration of personal information such as criminal convictions or that which may involve personal conflicts of interest.

So, what do you reckon? If we're not getting live pictures of important news events, what are they editing out? Are we going to get the whole facts, or what the BBC want us to see? Or is this currently the case anyway? Do we get any news nowadays that hasnt been subject to editing to suit the channel broadcasting it?

Do we really need to see people who have been held hostage, raped, burnt and shot fleeing naked and bleeding into the streets to understand the enormity and horror of the something like the Beslan massacre. What does it say about us that we have this need to feel we are there to try and understand the for victims of tragedy?

mike65

There is also an explicit commitment for the first time that "accuracy is more important than speed".

I agree on this too often live footage is carried with studio commentary which is at best a guess. However delaying material opens up potential for dubious editorial spinning if left totally to the eds discretion.

Also given that the nature of the news item is 99.9 % known surly its not beyond the wit of the broadcaster to issue a health warning and it be taken seriously? The move is bound to put the Beeb under pressure in the market if others stick with "seat-of-the-pants" transmission of live material.

Mike.

angry_fox

When september 11th happend didint some US news stations delay coverage on it?

mycroft

The Black Oil wrote:

So, what do you reckon? If we're not getting live pictures of important news events, what are they editing out? Are we going to get the whole facts, or what the BBC want us to see? Or is this currently the case anyway? Do we get any news nowadays that hasnt been subject to editing to suit the channel broadcasting it?

Do we really need to see people who have been held hostage, raped, burnt and shot fleeing naked and bleeding into the streets to understand the enormity and horror of the something like the Beslan massacre. What does it say about us that we have this need to feel we are there to try and understand the for victims of tragedy?

All news goes out with a very brief lag, and literally when the footage says "LIVE" in the corner the commentary is seeing it scant seconds before you see it.

As for the idea that it's being edited, it's actually quite time consuming to edit footage to remove a shot, very often a channel has no control over the pictures they're showing they make be picking a live feed from reuters, or any other news agency and showing you them exactly as they see them.

Theres a duality to your response in the first paragraph you are suspicious about the lag, and in the second you're disgusted with the 24 news networks coverage of a tradegy in almost pornographic detail. Which is it? Do the intrusive cameras and rolling coverage bother you? Or are you suspicious of it when you're not sure if what you're seeing is genuinely live? Can't have it both ways.

My faviourite ancedote about this is on Sept 11th I flicked on the TV moments after the first plane hit, and was watching when the 2nd hit. Fourteen hours later I was still watching the news. I can recall at one point having an IM chat with a friend in Seattle who was in work while this was all going on, and there was no TV in her work place. She couldn't accept or understand our reaction to the enormity of events.

Like it or not there is a demand for live 24 hr from the scene tv, whether its moral or not is another issue.

jrey1981

I think the BBC delay reeks of paternalism and almost censorship...as long as they give a warning so anyone squeamish can turn off or over I don't see why we shouldn't see events in all their gory detail as they happen

mycroft

jrey1981 wrote:

I think the BBC delay reeks of paternalism and almost censorship...as long as they give a warning so anyone squeamish can turn off or over I don't see why we shouldn't see events in all their gory detail as they happen

Please don't watch this because theres a chance something may or may not happen that might offend you?

How about delay it, incase something, really unpleasant, happens, it doesn't hurt it's like a five second delay, the potential images coming out of Beslan would and probably did give parents across the planet nightmares.

zenith

I agree with this, and I'm suprised it has not been formalised earlier.
It's the news, not a snuff video to suprise the unexpecting.

BaZmO*

jrey1981 wrote:

I think the BBC delay reeks of paternalism and almost censorship...as long as they give a warning so anyone squeamish can turn off or over I don't see why we shouldn't see events in all their gory detail as they happen

But let's just say that they give a warning that something "may or may not" happen. Not everybody tunes in at the beginning of a news report so it's kinda pointless giving a warning considering they don't know what might happen.

B.

mycroft

BaZmO* wrote:

But let's just say that they give a warning that something "may or may not" happen. Not everybody tunes in at the beginning of a news report so it's kinda pointless giving a warning considering they don't know what might happen.

B.

Please don't watch this if you could be potentially offended by anything or everything that we don't have control over? Alternatively stick your head in the sand and hum.

A few seconds delay isn't enough time to edit something out, it gives you enough time to bleep something out or cut the video if something incredibly unpleasant happens.

I found those shots from the world trade center of people leaping to their deaths incredibly disturbing.

Altheus

I do think it sad, but definitely nesscessary.

In the past few years the just replay footage continously and eventually you desensitised. I remember Sep 11, it was like 'WHOOOOOOOOOOA, boom, WHOOOA, boom, WHOOA, boom, WHOA, boom.... who? change the channel"

It also give the writers time to get their facts right and present in a manner suitable for the audience.

Just because consumption junction or rotten.com seem tame nowadays, some people still are very sensitive to world events. During the 9/11 incident, the images of people jumping off buildings was too much. Anything to do with children is always very sensitive and enjoy to make ever the most hardy of us damn the TV. Sensitivity takes time and understanding, the wham-bam exclusive live coverage doesn't cater for that.

mycroft

Altheus wrote:

I do think it sad, but definitely nesscessary.

In the past few years the just replay footage continously and eventually you desensitised. I remember Sep 11, it was like 'WHOOOOOOOOOOA, boom, WHOOOA, boom, WHOOA, boom, WHOA, boom.... who? change the channel"

It also give the writers time to get their facts right and present in a manner suitable for the audience.

Just because consumption junction or rotten.com seem tame nowadays, some people still are very sensitive to world events. During the 9/11 incident, the images of people jumping off buildings was too much. Anything to do with children is always very sensitive and enjoy to make ever the most hardy of us damn the TV. Sensitivity takes time and understanding, the wham-bam exclusive live coverage doesn't cater for that.

Ditto the car crash effect of rolling 24hr news coverage can lead to people being desentistised to the impact of footage. Last year in work I found myself in possesion of the RTE broadcast for the 6 o'clock news on 9/11, the level of confusion from the broadcast the death toil, the fear, the uncertainity was all there, it brought home just how confusing those first few hours were.

Ladypawpaw

jrey1981 wrote:

I think the BBC delay reeks of paternalism and almost censorship...as long as they give a warning so anyone squeamish can turn off or over I don't see why we shouldn't see events in all their gory detail as they happen

I think the BBC is the best news broadcaster in the world. Plus they have a cool motto - Nation Shall Speak Peace Unto Nation.

I watched the Beslan mess live - as a result I think the BBC are right for putting a delay on live footage.

And by the way I'm not squeamish at all, I've watched Al-Jazeera plenty of times by choice.

I've found that watching footage of something gross/disturbing live is much more horrid than watching the exact same footage a few hours later.

monument

mycroft wrote:

How about delay it, incase something, really unpleasant, happens, it doesn't hurt it's like a five second delay, the potential images coming out of Beslan would and probably did give parents across the planet nightmares.

Agreed.

I still don’t feel right about seeing the second aeroplane fly into the tower ‘LIVE’ on Sky News, knowing that it was live, and in split seconds realising for sure what had just happened (again) before the other people in the room and before the Sky presenters. To my knowledge it hasn’t given me any nightmares, illogical fear of flying, or anything, but I can just imagine how a more sensitive person could react.