19-07-2022, 03:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 19-07-2022, 03:21 PM by Mouseboy33.)
Yeah if its news and that is. But why shouldnt a house fire be shown. Especially this incident. You have a large scale incident with multiple homes in danger and fields on fire in the capital..... and its questioned if a news organization should broadcast "shots of some poor person’s house on fire". So when the Grenfell Tower fire happen should that not have been shown LIVE? What about the fires in Australia and California.... should those be shown? What about right now across Europe? ITs interesting that the pearl clutching starts when things are close to home and questions over newsworthy images begin.
Yeah its the nature of news, some times bad things happen. But as long as its not graphic I personally dont have a problem seeing this broadcast.
Im glad that SkyNews decided to do a split screen the fires on one side the endless political (but important) interviews from Westminster on the other. This is how the news chopper should be used for instead of flying around Parliament the other day during Boris cablnet resignations..... showing endless shots of the outside of the building LIVE for no reason.
Yeah its the nature of news, some times bad things happen. But as long as its not graphic I personally dont have a problem seeing this broadcast.
Im glad that SkyNews decided to do a split screen the fires on one side the endless political (but important) interviews from Westminster on the other. This is how the news chopper should be used for instead of flying around Parliament the other day during Boris cablnet resignations..... showing endless shots of the outside of the building LIVE for no reason.
<r>"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time" - Maya Angelou <E>8-)</E></r>