Handling Difficult Broadcasts
by teknetia
With the general negative reaction to how the ABC handled the hosting situation in Manilla tonight, specifically in relation to the body out the window images, I would to heat from people on this.
- What was your specific take on the broadcast? Do you think it was handled well or could have been handled better?
- What is the general standard on how these kinds of difficult situations should be handled, who set this standard and how is it kept in line with changes in public opinion?
- I vividly remember the image of people falling from the WTC during the news broadcasts of the horrific events of 9/11. This was also a very difficult series of events which was broadcast to the world in a reasonably raw format, how does it place in modern ideas of how news broadcasts of difficult situations should be handled?
- Where and how do we draw the line between broadcasting the reality of an event and gratuitous imagery? What impact does this decision have on the quality of the news, positive or negative?
I really want to hear peoples opinions on this in the comments below. Let me know what you think and point me to any references that you think would be relevant to check out.
Comments
I believe that as live news goes, this is what we should expect. I’m not sure whether one can say how “well” live news feeds are handled, although I do believe the reporters did their best considering the nature of the news.
People have the choice to watch it live, or wait till an edited version comes out on standard evening/morning news, or through an update. I was tweeting with a follower about the fact that 9/11 was also very graphic.
I think it’s something we need. Maybe not lots of, but certainly the option to see things progress in a live format should we be so inclined.
My thoughts mirror those of Dean Marshall, it is live news, viewers were advised of the situation and they have the choice to continue watching or switch off. If the ABC decided to cut the stream, we would be hearing people complaining about the censorship of the vision.
The live stream was a breach of the Australian Journalist’s Code of Ethics:
11. Respect private grief and personal privacy. Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.
After the first person shot, the ABC should have cut the stream.
Live news does not necessarily require the goriest images available to be shown. Analysis and live reporting does not require the camera to be constantly trained on the killing.
I also question ABC’s motives in streaming the images. They needed a ‘proving ground’ for their news channel and they found a battle field.
Shame that while people were being shot and bodies were slumping, the ABC was discussing the tourism implications.
As for the people who say they have an inate right to watch, everything, everywhere, all the time: you are vultures. Go hire a zombie movie and a conscience.
Live news is just that, its temporal nature requires it to be shown uncensored. Asher’s point that they need not show the ‘goriest’ footage is countered by the fact it was the only footage available. To cut the stream is censorship and as adults we do need the freedom of choice to continue watching or to switch it off.
The ABC was not the only broadcaster streaming it worldwide and was not unusual in doing so. If anything, this is one of the rare instances that something on the news was genuinely newsworthy.
The footage is meant to speak for itself regardless of a presenter. We asked these questions over September 11. Perhaps it’s better to be exposed to the ‘truthfulness’ of the event than to be cotton-balled only to cringe at the next violent event. If anything we need to know what the world is like outside of Australia, that violence is common. Aren’t World Vision advertisements meant to instill a reality in us, to compel us to act?
Aside from that I agree with Asher on the issue of the ABC’s commentary, which I found pathetic, shallow and at times highly inappropriate. They cut to a break with:
‘I’m Scott Bevan, thanks so much for your company’ (topped off with a presenter’s smirk).
That was beyond reproach, if you can’t be sombre as a presenter you shouldn’t be on television. Completely mindless and makes one think the news carries even less weight for the presenter.
So I would say yes these events should be streamed uncensored but should be treated with utmost respect in presentation.