TV Live Forum

Lyse:

https://youtu.be/NrRNBkOoxF8

https://youtu.be/WOSCyZ4z4oM

https://youtu.be/R6Km-fVB8MY

I know I've harped on about Sky's excellent coverage this week, but you can hear some pretty interesting behind-the-scenes stuff from those who were on the ground in Kabul on this Sky News Daily podcast.

Sky News Wrote:On 12 August, our chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay, producer Dominique van Heerden and camera operator Toby Nash arrived in the country's capital - as a humanitarian crisis began to unfold.

On the Sky News Daily podcast with Dermot Murnaghan, they reflect on the horror they witnessed, the people they spoke to desperately trying to flee and reveal more about what they couldn't show viewers on screen.

Also available in all the usual podcast places. I've had a listen and found it very interesting - especially the cameraman saying he realised a lot of what he was sending back to HQ would never be seen because of how graphic/grim the situation had become.

Are any correspondents left on the ground? They're all there at the gift of the military, unless they're happy to stay with the only prospect of exiting being travelling overland to a border post, so if a government says you're leaving, you're leaving...

scottishtv post_id=36524 time= user_id=1012 Wrote:I know I've harped on about Sky's excellent coverage this week, but you can hear some pretty interesting behind-the-scenes stuff from those who were on the ground in Kabul on this Sky News Daily podcast.

Sky News Wrote:On 12 August, our chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay, producer Dominique van Heerden and camera operator Toby Nash arrived in the country's capital - as a humanitarian crisis began to unfold.

On the Sky News Daily podcast with Dermot Murnaghan, they reflect on the horror they witnessed, the people they spoke to desperately trying to flee and reveal more about what they couldn't show viewers on screen.

Also available in all the usual podcast places. I've had a listen and found it very interesting - especially the cameraman saying he realised a lot of what he was sending back to HQ would never be seen because of how graphic/grim the situation had become.

The philosophic question is should the footage continue to be sanitised?

Ironically modern film and drama show fictional scenes that are very gruesome and are tagged as upsetting, every programme now seems to have a warning.

I think Jeremy Bowen suggested a while ago that we shouldn't be diluting the horror of these events. Other countries/broadcasters do go further.

Markymark post_id=36543 time= user_id=1078 Wrote:The philosophic question is should the footage continue to be sanitised?

Ironically modern film and drama show fictional scenes that are very gruesome and are tagged as upsetting, every programme now seems to have a warning.

I think Jeremy Bowen suggested a while ago that we shouldn't be diluting the horror of these events. Other countries/broadcasters do go further.

I think the issue is that those modern films and drama are either shown post-watershed or have age certification on streaming/cinema/catchup. By contrast with the news pre-watershed it's quite possible for families and children to casually tune in to the live programme. Maybe for the likes for post-watershed UK bulletins such as BBC News at 10 and Newsnight it's okay not to dilute. However for evening bulletins and daytime rolling news it's unlikely to be appropriate, and would probably result in OFCOM complaints.

There's a world of difference between special effects and people wearing make-up pretending to be dead, and the bodies of people who were alive moments ago and are now actually dead, their lives at end, the lives of their families devestated. I think most viewers understand that difference.

News channels/bulletins should show everything as it is, no matter how bad or disturbing it is, imo.

Meteor post_id=36556 time= user_id=1780 Wrote:.

Meteor post_id=36556 time= user_id=1780 Wrote:There's a world of difference between special effects and people wearing make-up pretending to be dead, and the bodies of people who were alive moments ago and are now actually dead, their lives at end, the lives of their families devestated. I think most viewers understand that difference.

Never said they don't understand the difference, and I agree, so why tag fictional gore as potentially upsetting?

ginnyfan post_id=36563 time= user_id=1033 Wrote:News channels/bulletins should show everything as it is, no matter how bad or disturbing it is, imo.

No, they definitely shouldn't.

There is a balance to be struck and you'd expect decisions made for the One/Six to be different than for the Ten and Newsnight, and even C4 News which although at 7pm (and immediately after Hollyoaks) is less likely to have a family audience.

I think we have to be careful to remember these are real events, not fictional violence and drama, but I've long felt that viewers should be trusted to engage with their own emotions and that warning they may be "upset" or "distressed" by things in fiction is actually encouraging people to surpress what is just a natural reaction. Now I think it's fair to say how you pre-fix reports in the news is a different matter to how you pre-fix the second part of a soap, and people engage with news in a different way - which often can mean disengaging with it when it becomes distressing. I've certainly been limiting in my viewing over the last week or so and tended to follow the story through written reports.

Brekkie post_id=36580 time= user_id=976 Wrote:There is a balance to be struck and you'd expect decisions made for the One/Six to be different than for the Ten and Newsnight, and even C4 News which although at 7pm (and immediately after Hollyoaks) is less likely to have a family audience.

I think we have to be careful to remember these are real events, not fictional violence and drama, but I've long felt that viewers should be trusted to engage with their own emotions and that warning they may be "upset" or "distressed" by things in fiction is actually encouraging people to surpress what is just a natural reaction. Now I think it's fair to say how you pre-fix reports in the news is a different matter to how you pre-fix the second part of a soap, and people engage with news in a different way - which often can mean disengaging with it when it becomes distressing. I've certainly been limiting in my viewing over the last week or so and tended to follow the story through written reports.

Ofcom ruled on this back in 2005 after 7/7

Ofcom, 26th September 2005 Wrote:During coverage of the terrorist bomb attacks in London on 7 July 2005, three channels ran footage of a victim being stretchered from an ambulance into hospital. The man was clearly in a critical condition and was pictured, apparently close to death, while receiving heart massage from one of the medical personnel in attendance. A number of viewers found these images offensive. 26 viewers complained about their inclusion in BBC’s coverage on BBC1 and BBC News 24, shortly before 11:00. Another nine complaints were received about the use of the same images in ITV’s Early Evening News, shortly after 18:00. A further two complaints were received about their use on Channel 4 News after 19:00.

The BBC said the footage had been transmitted in error, and apologised for any offence caused. During the rush to get material on air as soon as possible, the tape was played without being viewed in its entirety. Although a warning was given, it was not appreciated how graphic the footage was. The BBC acknowledged that the footage should not have been put to air without first being thoroughly checked. It added that at that time the victim involved was seriously injured, but not dead. An update on his condition had been given later in the day with the aim of reassuring viewers who may have been upset. ITV said the use of this footage on the Early Evening News was exceptional, and reflected the scale of what had happened that day. It was important not to oversanitise such a serious news event. It considered that many other images available on the day were too upsetting to broadcast, but this particular sequence was acceptable. Its inclusion had been carefully considered, and it had been used sparingly and in context. News of the terrorist attacks had been running on all media outlets since the morning, and few viewers would have been unaware of the events that day. The image would not be used again. Channel 4 said that it had to consider whether the risk of causing upset was outweighed by its responsibility to report fairly and accurately on the unprecedented scale of death and suffering. It considered the images of the man on the stretcher were shocking, but that it was a legitimate and proportionate way to convey the horror and context of the events.

Decision

Even within the context of a shocking news event these particular images were exceptionally strong and disturbing - and their use demanded exceptional justification. We do not believe the images themselves were too offensive for broadcast – provided they were handled sensitively and placed in a proper context. In considering offence we take into account the strong public interest in reporting on the aftermath of the bombings both as soon as possible after the actual event and also in later accounts and analyses of the day’s events.
The three broadcasters used the images in different ways: The BBC showed the images whilst a studio presenter spoke in general terms about the emergency operation taking place after the bomb blasts and the casualties arriving at hospitals. The presenter gave a warning but introduced the images from the hospital by saying “..let’s just take a look at some of the pictures coming from the Royal London”. It appeared to us that the pictures were used generically and the commentary did not reflect the seriousness of the images being transmitted. We welcome the BBC’s admission that the images had not been viewed properly, and its acknowledgement that they should not have been put to air in such a manner. The images on the ITV Early Evening News were used in the context of an edited item. A warning was included in the introduction, which stated that the item contained “graphic images of the injured”. The script established a clear narrative context and the pictures were sensitively ‘written to’. We considered this was an appropriate treatment of the incident, given the very exceptional events of the day and did not breach the Code. Channel 4 News also used the images within the context of an edited item. Again, a
warning was given in the introduction about the disturbing nature of some of the material. The pictures were not used casually and the item was voiced appropriately. The script referred to the timings of the bombings but did not fully reflect the enormity of the images that were being transmitted. Nevertheless, their use was not careless and – on balance – we consider that Channel 4 also had not breached the
Programme Code.

BBC - Resolved.
ITV Early Evening News – Not in Breach
Channel 4 News - Not in Breach

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/p...ssue44.pdf

This is such a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, victims need to be treated with dignity and respect, but on the other, the world needs to know the full horror of what has happened. If media outlets sanitise output too much, events are trivialised. For instance, if the full horrors of the deeds committed by the Nazis were not fully known, would history have taken a different turn?

I do think a balance needs to be struck on TV and this is where the skill of journalism comes into play. The story needs to be told but in a way that doesn't disturb the audience too much and also shows respect to the victims of such atrocities. Personally, I think visual footage can only go so far. The gap should be bridged with the narration by the correspondent so that the full events are known but viewers can conjure up their own visual image should they wish to.

In terms of fictional violence, in my opinion less is more. I steer clear of most modern dramatised output, instead preferring programmes made between the 1950s and 1990s. I'd much rather watch an old black and white Perry Mason where the writing is superb and violence is kept to a minimum than the modern output which is just made for the shock factor. I don't know how some people sleep at night these days. And then they wonder why some people are so violent! No wonder when it's glorified so much in film and on TV.

Meteor post_id=36542 time= user_id=1780 Wrote:Are any correspondents left on the ground? They're all there at the gift of the military, unless they're happy to stay with the only prospect of exiting being travelling overland to a border post, so if a government says you're leaving, you're leaving...

I think Al Jazeera is staying put for now. No doubt helped by the fact that Qatar has relatively good relations with the Taliban.

matthieu1221 post_id=36595 time= user_id=1634 Wrote:

Meteor post_id=36542 time= user_id=1780 Wrote:Are any correspondents left on the ground? They're all there at the gift of the military, unless they're happy to stay with the only prospect of exiting being travelling overland to a border post, so if a government says you're leaving, you're leaving...

I think Al Jazeera is staying put for now. No doubt helped by the fact that Qatar has relatively good relations with the Taliban.

Lyse Doucet is still there as well

ginnyfan post_id=36563 time= user_id=1033 Wrote:News channels/bulletins should show everything as it is, no matter how bad or disturbing it is, imo.

Absolutely not, In the past, I saw a lot of the raw footage at work and it disturbs me to this day. I have friends that still work in News and some of them are not right (as they will admit themselves) More than one is in Therapy because of what they've seen. You could scar people for a lifetime with some of the footage out there. Let's not even start on those that are younger that have nightmares about book covers or other innocent enough items. How would they deal with footage that regularly gets into newsrooms?