Brekkie post_id=72915 time= user_id=976 Wrote:I'm afraid that is the reality of war and war reporting. There have always been considerations on what to show and what not to show and whilst on a daily basis, and certainly in daytime, there is a bit more consideration regarding content - both out of respect for viewers and the dead - certainly post-watershed such images have been shown before. It's usually only in bulletins where you'd expect more upsetting material to be shown, and usually in longer form reports rather than perhaps the flagship network bulletin, but it isn't without precedent. Vietnam is a noteable example of where imagery from the front line became very important to the news coverage certainly in the States.

Sadly in a world where the Russian Embassy in the UK dismisses reports of maternity hospitals being shelled as being full of "crisis actors", and in a world where such nonsense conspiracy theories seem to take hold in a way they haven't before, perhaps there is a need to be more blunt in such reporting.


Here is a good article from a couple of days ago on the issues of such footage and photos in war:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/03/09/ukraine-war-photos/

Brekkie post_id=72904 time= user_id=976 Wrote:

Radio_man post_id=72887 time= user_id=1477 Wrote:

Brekkie post_id=72881 time= user_id=976 Wrote:I'm in two minds on this but I think in this case it is more about who they have hosting on location rather than whether they have someone on location. Clive absolutely thrived in the role, though closer to the heart of the story, but I think Reeta has been rather exposed.

Absolutely shouldn't be a story though where we think "oh, it's going on a bit, let's get back to London".

I agree, Clive's reporting was superb and gave viewers a sense of what it was like in the capital city of a country at war. But having someone in Lviv, where literally nothing is happening, seems like tokenism, just so the anchor is 'on location'.

Lviv is central to the refugee story, which is as much a part of the story as the bombing at the moment. As I said it's about the anchor, not the location. Yalda Hakim has been live in Lviv all week and has been excellent with some really noteable interviews with those passing through, though has the benefit of an expanded live slot rather than 30-60 minute bulletin.


Of course ITV have opted not to have any on location presentation at all, not even as a one off, despite James Mates being more than capable as a news anchor. They've obviously decided it's better for him to concentrate on his reporting role and be limited to just a 1-2 minute live in a bulletin. It may be the right call for ITV but with wider resources as someone here said a few days having a presenter on location gives the reporters more freedom to report than worrying about feeding lives into the TV bulletins and news channel.

CantGetIn post_id=72920 time= user_id=2338 Wrote:

Brekkie post_id=72915 time= user_id=976 Wrote:I'm afraid that is the reality of war and war reporting. There have always been considerations on what to show and what not to show and whilst on a daily basis, and certainly in daytime, there is a bit more consideration regarding content - both out of respect for viewers and the dead - certainly post-watershed such images have been shown before. It's usually only in bulletins where you'd expect more upsetting material to be shown, and usually in longer form reports rather than perhaps the flagship network bulletin, but it isn't without precedent. Vietnam is a noteable example of where imagery from the front line became very important to the news coverage certainly in the States.

Sadly in a world where the Russian Embassy in the UK dismisses reports of maternity hospitals being shelled as being full of "crisis actors", and in a world where such nonsense conspiracy theories seem to take hold in a way they haven't before, perhaps there is a need to be more blunt in such reporting.


Here is a good article from a couple of days ago on the issues of such footage and photos in war:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/03/09/ukraine-war-photos/

I understand it is a difficult choice to make, and I get why they want to show what war is. My issue is perhaps more specifically the manner in which it has been done. This reporter is at times in the report walking through and standing between dead bodies while speaking to the camera. If you think about how this came about, they would have had to decide on an angle, decide where to walk, test the sound, do different takes etc etc. When you think about that, to me it seems to go over the line of what is respectable and what isn't. If you must show bodies, do it from afar. There is no benefit to walking through dead bodies as part of your report. What does it achieve that a shot from afar would not.? Ultimately I assume this would have been given the go ahead by someone above, but I think we should be very careful about such things.

Brekkie post_id=72924 time= user_id=976 Wrote:

CantGetIn post_id=72920 time= user_id=2338 Wrote:

Brekkie post_id=72915 time= user_id=976 Wrote:I'm afraid that is the reality of war and war reporting. There have always been considerations on what to show and what not to show and whilst on a daily basis, and certainly in daytime, there is a bit more consideration regarding content - both out of respect for viewers and the dead - certainly post-watershed such images have been shown before. It's usually only in bulletins where you'd expect more upsetting material to be shown, and usually in longer form reports rather than perhaps the flagship network bulletin, but it isn't without precedent. Vietnam is a noteable example of where imagery from the front line became very important to the news coverage certainly in the States.

Sadly in a world where the Russian Embassy in the UK dismisses reports of maternity hospitals being shelled as being full of "crisis actors", and in a world where such nonsense conspiracy theories seem to take hold in a way they haven't before, perhaps there is a need to be more blunt in such reporting.


Here is a good article from a couple of days ago on the issues of such footage and photos in war:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/03/09/ukraine-war-photos/

I understand it is a difficult choice to make, and I get why they want to show what war is. My issue is perhaps more specifically the manner in which it has been done. This reporter is at times in the report walking through and standing between dead bodies while speaking to the camera. If you think about how this came about, they would have had to decide on an angle, decide where to walk, test the sound, do different takes etc etc. When you think about that, to me it seems to go over the line of what is respectable and what isn't. If you must show bodies, do it from afar. There is no benefit to walking through dead bodies as part of your report. What does it achieve that a shot from afar would not.? Ultimately I assume this would have been given the go ahead by someone above, but I think we should be very careful about such things.

Surely more disrespectful to crop the victims out of shot though. Ultimately in these situations though I don't think there is a right answer because the whole situation just isn't right. I just think it is important to remember when debating the rights and wrongs of showing such footage from the safety of our homes on an internet forum that of course the journalists involved, both on the ground and compiling the footage for broadcast in the newsroom, are asking exactly the same questions we're asking too. And there will never be a unanimous agreement on the right thing to do, and perhaps rightly so.

The important thing though IMO is to tell the story and remember the BBC is the messenger, not the perpetrator.

Brekkie post_id=73002 time= user_id=976 Wrote:Do RTE (and Virgin Media) often take reports from the BBC/ITN in these situations with major international stories?

AJB39 post_id=72899 time= user_id=1285 Wrote:

deejay post_id=72894 time= user_id=880 Wrote:

AJB39 post_id=72892 time= user_id=1285 Wrote:I presume counselling is made available to journalists like Quentin Somerville to come to terms with what they witness in war zones.

The BBC has made great efforts in recent years to offer mental health support to all staff. Several routes to getting help exist, from mindfulness apps and self help training to full access to counselling. The BBC also has a dedicated team of staff who have had some training in Mental Health First Aid and can be a very useful first point of contact. It is far easier than it perhaps once was to get some help - and management encourage staff to seek it when they need it.

Thanks. I’m very glad there is help available because while his excellent report is harrowing for the viewer to watch I cannot imagine what it must be like for the journalists and camera operators to witness such horrors in person.

Worzel post_id=72922 time= user_id=1259 Wrote:I'm actually a little surprised Rita hasn't been presenting/appeared from Lviv on the World/News channel simulcasts in addition to doing the Nationals. I believe Clive appeared across both.

Newsroom post_id=73154 time= user_id=1342 Wrote:Honestly, the BBC is providing a service for the world during this Crisis/War - much like CNN. What’s the problem with having anchors on the ground?

CNN have a few, so does the BBC. It’s volatile. I wouldn’t surprised if it changed either way as tte story unfolds.