News Coverage UK Prime Minister & Government Resignations

[telebox2001]

I bet most of the people they ask in these vox pops are just more interested in getting their faces on the telly.

Of course it is.  As a people we all want our few seconds of fame.

[Steve in Pudsey]

Impressive that they can turn it (Question Time) around in the time available. I assumed they recorded "as live" and only edited to finesse the timings or if there was a compliance issue.

[eyeTV]

So are we likely to have a Tory Leader TV debate again like last time?

[bkman1990]

The difference now is that if the BBC have it in their schedule; it won't be held in Studio B anymore unless they use they use the desk in B to hold the debate. You could hold it in other studios as well within NBH. But you would prefer to have it when a studio is not being occupied when essential refurbishment work that has to take place within it. If it was held in E for example; Could the debate be done in E along with the adjoining newsroom before it commences it's planned major refurbishment over the summer.

[JamesWorldNews]

Oh well. Boulton is Back!

https://twitter.com/adamboultontabb/stat...52481?s=21

[m_in_m]

If anyone watched the live edition of Question Time on iPlayer this evening, it was interesting to see how much is cut from the late evening edit.  There were audience members of various opinions in Barnsley, some of which wouldn't have made the final cut shown on BBC One purely for time constraints.

From a pres point of view, you also got to see Fiona asking audience members to say their point again as mics weren't in position and asking the panellists to wait to reply.

They couldn't have cut much. The recording lasted an hour at most and the final edition was 59 mins 10 secs.

[Inspector Sands]

I imagine the short notice if the decision to stream live meant they was no time to adjust to being more slick on air. If the live stream became regular I imagine they would not be so many production  errors as described above.

There's been quite a few occasions when it's been broadcast live at 8 or 9 instead of recorded, and usually with just as little notice. The only reason it was live online rather than live on BBC1 tonight is because of the football and Wimbledon. 

It shouldn't have been any less slick than those other live editions

[Worzel]

The difference now is that if the BBC have it in their schedule; it won't be held in Studio B anymore unless they use they use the desk in B to hold the debate. You could hold it in other studios as well within NBH. But you would prefer to have it when a studio is not being occupied when essential refurbishment work that has to take place within it. If it was held in E for example; Could the debate be done in E along with the adjoining newsroom before it commences it's planned major refurbishment over the summer.

They could potentially use the radio theatre.

[RR]

Surely by showing people with differing opinions, you're just showing different sides of the story, ensuring that no matter how the viewer feels about the issue, they get to experience someone giving an opposing view, possibly allowing them to better understand others' feelings on the matter. Even if 99% of people think A while the remaining 1% of people think B, you can't just broadcast that A is true, show people stating A and A only, and ignore that (admittedly a smaller proportion of) others feel B entirely. I think showing a range of opinions is a good thing.

There are problems with that. On a different subject, when there was the MMR issue, doctors were only slightly split with virtually all saying there was no issue, and a very small minority saying there was. The latter became smaller and smaller over time. The BBC and other broadcasters at the time read impartially as requiring balance between the two views, and so allowed roughly equal time for both sides and debates on the subject included someone from both sides. This ended up being quite dangerous for health, and the BBC did later regret their behaviour over the subject.

Vox Pops aren't as dangerous as that, but false equivalence between views is at best misleading when they aren't views held by a large proportion of voters.

[Steve in Pudsey]

Don't they tend to do these debates in somewhere like Salford or an OB at a theatre? They need space for journalists from other news organisations etc, I imagine it's much easier to accommodate them elsewhere then to try to work around them at NBH.

[Brekkie]

Surely by showing people with differing opinions, you're just showing different sides of the story, ensuring that no matter how the viewer feels about the issue, they get to experience someone giving an opposing view, possibly allowing them to better understand others' feelings on the matter. Even if 99% of people think A while the remaining 1% of people think B, you can't just broadcast that A is true, show people stating A and A only, and ignore that (admittedly a smaller proportion of) others feel B entirely. I think showing a range of opinions is a good thing.

Exactly.  Not generally a fan but it would be amiss not to get the views of some of the general public on a story such as this.

[telebox2001]

I would have said that the debates could be done anywhere - and given the whole levelling up agenda I wouldn't be too surprised to see Salford or another northern city pressed into action.

[DTV]

It’s nearly 12 hours since Chris Mason broke the news of Boris Johnson’s resignation. I do think it’s time now for the BBC News Channel to drop the Breaking News strap.

There really should be a progression of Breaking News to Developing News to Key/Top/Major Story, but the overextended use of Breaking News to refer to stories that broke hours ago has been baked in to rolling news channels for far too long.

[London Lite]

How French rolling news channel BFMTV broke the news of Boris's resignation yesterday morning.

https://youtu.be/QZfM18tCxs8

[Rob]

Posts deleted.

No political discussion.

As you were.