Channel 5 bulletin - notes

Geoff Hill, the editor of Channel 5 news is coming in to be our guest editor for WINOL tomorrow and he kindly asked us to 'debrief' his 5 o'clock bulletin, the same way that he will debrief our bulletin tomorrow.

So without further ado, the bulletin started with the presenter in vision before going to the top story headline, floods. The floods got a really rather large amount of coverage considering the bulletin is only about 22 minutes long, but we'll come to that later. The quote from David Cameron in the heads was rather weak but I understand why it was used. We've had a lot of trouble over the last few weeks ourselves with using upsot in the heads just for the sake of using it, sometimes ending up with an unnecessary quote. Having Cameron on location at the floods though makes using him an absolute necessity.

We had the opening graphic after that which was a little jarring to some of us since we tend to run the graphic before our headlines; it does help to break things up though and the opening graphic is a hell of a lot nicer than ours. It wouldn't hurt our programme to have a team dedicated to that kind of thing, it really shows how useful having a graphics team is later on in the 5 news bulletin.

The next headlines were about the Noro Virus, Nadine "I'm an MP get me out of here" Dorries, the funeral of an actor in Coronation Street and the announcement of the BBC Sports Personality of the Year shortlist. Based on Channel 5s other programming it is easy to see why rather tabloid stories such as Nadine Dorries and the Corrie star were covered in the way they were. The grab from Chris Hoy was odd and I'm assuming the freeze and style of "find out what they had to say" is an editorial choice that is used regularly.

I quite liked the set which sadly we don't have the luxury of (yet!), the second years will do in our lovely new studio though. But I wasn't sure about having the presenter standing throughout the whole bulletin. The convention I've seen in a lot of news is standing during headlines and seated behind a desk for the actual bulletin, something we've tried to replicate but again, the lack of a set makes it look odd.

The bulletin then went into its first story which was arguably its second story as well with two live OBs to reporters on location. It's always really good to get a live OB and especially in a story like this where it really matters about having people on location for updates. With our team it's often difficult to do that and we were, without putting it strongly at all, extremely disappointed not to get our OB from the student demonstrations in London last week, something that would be inexcusable on a national news broadcast. I liked the map graphic in the first flood package; some people I talked to thought it went on a little too long but I think with the information it was pitched about right and helped to illustrate a story where the pictures will be very good but very samey. My favourite part of the package though was the lovely bit of natsot at the end; it was the perfect way to end it and from a production point of view an absolute godsend as it means you can make sure there are no black holes when cutting from the VT to the presenter. The second flood VT however was possibly unnecessary. It's great to hear from reporters across the country but whilst the reports had slightly different focuses, I can't help feeling that the stories could have been combined. The footage from the RNLI was a nice touch though as it helped the package feel vital and current and the leisure centre vox pops were well pitched; having real people comment on this story when it is about real people is the most important thing. I did find the interviews a little odd however as the reporter was still very much in shot, or at least the back of her head was, and presumably this was a stylistic point as it was a recurring feature throughout the bulletin. Something I think I liked but did at first amuse me was the interview with the man, still in his house, leaning out of the window. It was quite jarring visually at first but how else would you have filmed it? Would you have gone tighter and been accused of TV fakery since it would have appeared that he was on the ground floor? It did help give that sense of people being trapped in their own homes though and that set the right tone for the package.

On a separate note, I couldn't quite work out if the bulletin was being filmed on a full set with a screen behind it, or whether it was a green-screen with the strange desk type thing protruding from the floor.

Regardless, the next story was the return of our favourite winter illness, the noro virus. It comes around every year and nobody is particularly surprised so having it is a bit of a non-story; it sort of has to be covered though although the slightly eerie music made it seem more like a plague rather than a sickness bug. I've had the noro virus a couple of years ago, just after Christmas actually and whilst it was horrible, the only real side effect was not being able to eat ALL of the mince pies in the world. Again the reporter was in shot during the interview which I addressed above but the graphic this time, whilst well done, was a little hard to take in. It was very number heavy graphic and I actually found it rather hard to take in all the information and I couldn't tell you what any of the statistics were now. It was similar with the Eon power OOV. I know it was something about paying compensation but I can't for the life of me remember anything about the story, it wasn't visually interesting so I just switched off. Unfortunately this is often the case with OOVs as they are the bottom feeders of news. If a story fails, it becomes an OOV and so that may reflect why the pictures were dull.

Nadine Dorries was next and it was a rather odd story all round. First of all, the fact that Dorries was even in the 'celebrity jungle' is weird but then the story was essentially her coming home to see if she would still have a job as an MP but didn't really have any footage of her. A few pictures were used but it cut to the political editor for comment that didn't add much. We were told that Nadine Dorries was in a part of Westminster that didn't allow cameras; well why didn't we see her in a bit that did? It seemed like covering the story for the sake of covering it. If it hasn't got pictures then should it go in? It is quite often the same dilemma we face on WINOL with our news editor agonising over a story that isn't visually interesting but is important. It's rather comforting to know that the professionals face similar problems to us. We must be doing something right.

It was great to see a 'coming up' as it is something we've been trying to implement over the last few weeks with varying degrees of success. Also, on Channel 5 you have the perfect place to put your coming up, just before the adverts. I did find it a little odd though that coming out of the adverts we were reminded of the floods but nothing new was really added. I know the BBC sometimes repeats their headlines in the same slot as the coming up was played so it is a convention and obviously coming out of the adverts it might be necessary to remind viewers of what's gone, something we fortunately don't have to worry about.

The Yasser Arafat story was well dealt with considering it had to be mostly archive footage. They were the only interviews as well not to feature the back of the reporter's head so why didn't we go a bit closer on the interviewee's faces? It might just be my own personal preference. The Coronation Street star funeral was a little oddly pitched; obviously it is aimed at the Channel 5 audience but I think despite the person's celebrity status, it felt strange to be sort of intruding into people's grief.

It was nice to break up the show again with another OOV and the pictures were pretty great so anyone not interested in Corrie actors no longer with us would have been suitably woken up by a burning crane. I certainly was.

And finally (see what I did there?) we had the BBC Sports Personality of the Year (SPOTY) package which I really enjoyed as the vox pops helped make it the light story it is. Nobody, well it's unlikely anyway, will get angry about the SPOTY awards so the tone was about right for a piece like this. It was a little odd though considering I don't think we saw the face of the reporter that we had the back of their head again. It made it look like we weren't allowed to see their face. It might not have registered on an audience that wasn't full of aspiring journos.

Overall though it was a very enjoyable broadcast and as a person who is traditionally a BBC News viewer it is interesting to see 'how the other half live' so to speak. I look forward to hearing what Geoff has to say about our bulletin tomorrow.

Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.

A Country Up in Flames

On Friday a man named Mark Duggan, 29, was shot and killed in an attempted arrest by the police. The next day a peaceful protest at the manner in which this father of four was killed descended into violence and rioting in the Tottenham area the man called home. It was a politically minded riot, one which was born out of frustration at a system which allowed this to happen. Yes it wasn't all like this but there was a point to it. The following evening the rioting continued but it moved to more looting than rioting, forgetting the initial cause of the riots and instead just taking an opportunity to watch their community burn. Yesterday however the riots moved into far more terrifying territory, shops were looted, streets were on fire, cars burned to a cinder. It made the so called 'student riots' look positively tame by comparison and it was heartbreaking to see people in a community taking away the livelihoods of local shopkeepers and publicans.

Yesterday's events have been divisive. If there's one thing we're united on it is that they were wrong and they need to stop. However the reasons behind them have left most people stumped. Some seem to suggest that the riots were initially a politically charged reaction to the shooting of Mark Duggan before they descended into copycat riots which were bred on greed and lawless society. Theresa May described it best by calling it "sheer criminality." Monday's riots however were a different breed. The violence was disgusting, the images I've seen have made me angry and sick. There was a picture circulating on Twitter of a woman jumping out of her window to escape the flames and I among many others were quick to decry it as a fake. The sad truth of it was that it was genuine but it reflects how unexpected these scenes were to the majority of us that we were so quick to dismiss the image. Perhaps a naive view but I'd call it hopeful, back when I like many other still had hope that the riots would stop.

They didn't though, the images on the news and the Internet, especially Twitter, were a horrible sight. There is a video which you can watch if you you have a strong stomach here as a group of rioters appear to help a bleeding boy up before robbing him and leaving him to an unknown fate. The only piece of light in this was a startling video of a Hackney woman, standing up to rioters and delivering an astounding speech in the face of the looting and vandalism (you can watch that here). The media line on the riots has flitted from "blame social networking" to "why didn't Cameron come home quicker?" I think therefore in the interest of fairness that I should argue the other side of both of those arguments, regardless of my own opinions on the riots. Firstly the knee jerk reaction to blame social networking. Yes of course they used social networking to organise themselves, the Arab Spring has used social networking to organise its protests against oppressive regimes so why wouldn't people use social networking to organise which Greggs to burn and which Curry's to steal their new 42' TV from? Some ridiculous corners of the Internet and the media seemed to suggest it was new technology which started the rioting. Yes the Internet can be a breeding ground for such things but it has also become a breeding ground for hope. Today a Twitter account and website have been set, (@Riotcleanup and www.riotcleanup.co.uk respectively) with the aim of cleaning up the mess that the rioting youths have left behind and showing them the community spirit that they feel so disconnected from. They react against the community because they feel it has nothing to offer them and no place for them but it is young people again who have set up the sites and organised themselves to clean up and rebuild the broken society.

Now I'm going to talk about Cameron, a man of whom I am not a fan but of whom the media has vilified for all the wrong reasons in this. As the tension built and the rioters rioted, social commentators on Twitter and even the BBC questioned where Britain's Prime Minister was in all of this. The answer was that he was on holiday but he didn't go on holiday as the riots began, he didn't run away from the issue, he just happened to be on holiday when it started. The first night of rioting was terrible but seemed that it would end quickly and as has been the case, Tottenham has been the scene of less and less violence since that night. The areas in which rioting has taken place now are copycat riots, but not copycat in the sense of mindless looting (although in the case of some bragging about their exploits on Twitter I'm sure that's true) but the anger has come from the alienation of these people in their community, I cannot stress that enough. Anyway back to Cameron. The idea that he could not make decisions from Italy is ridiculous and shows a real ignorance of the workings of government. If the riots had not escalated further the Prime Minister would have made his decisions via telephone or e-mail but apparently we needed to see his face, his slimy, pudgy and not exactly inspiring face. For what purpose? Today his statements have essentially been him condemning the riots, as if the talk was that he might support them. The words are not enough and will not bring comfort to shopkeepers whose livelihood has been taken from them. What Cameron needs is action, he needs to question the workings of the police force not cut their budget. He needs to stand with the country, encouraging those in the community to be present, visible and not just spectators. His good friend Boris needs to be here more than Cameron if anything, as Mayor of London it is his time and his responsibility to be a strong figurehead, not necessarily something you'd expect of him, but forget politics, we need leading. Sadly it seems at the moment that the government is not up to that job.

We need to keep the riot clean up going long after the physical damage to our cities has been repaired. The government is out of ideas so now we're up. This started because people felt a lack of community, let us end it by building a new one. Sites like Twitter and Facebook may have been the breeding ground for braking windows but it can be used to do more than fix those windows, it will be needed to build community from the ground up. Like the Norwegians though after their recent tragedy, we need more democracy, not less.

Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.

EDIT: Breaking news just as I wrote this article the Police confirm the first fatality in all this as a Croydon man, shot in his car, dies in hospital. It began with a death maybe it'll end with one but terrible that this had to happen for the events to sink in for some people.

Much better articles than I could ever write
Camila Batmanghelidjh - The Independent here
Mary Riddell - The Daily Telegraph here
and awlways worth a read, no matter your opinion of him. Littlejohn.

Goodbye, cruel World

Apologies to the Daily Telegraph for nicking their headline but it's a good one. So yes, as you may have heard, the News of the World phone hacking scandal rolls on taking it's biggest casualty yet as the paper is shut down. It was founded in 1843, bought by Rupert Murdoch and his News Ltd company in 1969 and is scheduled to close this Sunday the 10th of July in the wake of the phone hacking scandal.

Is the closure of the News of the World honestly addressing the problem? Already shouts have gone up from some media commentators at the cynical way in which the paper has been closed as a scapegoat for other, much more troubling issues. The first of which is Rebekah Brooks (nee Wade) still holds her job as head of News International when the majority of the hacking took place leading some to joke that Murdoch has gotten rid of the wrong red top (make the connections yourself, you're not stupid). I suppose you could be wondering what is so terrible about the hacking, after all, it was only celebrities hacked right? Sienna Miller won compensation, Andy Gray was hacked as was Hugh Grant (more on him later) and OK the odd politician like John Prescott but what's the big deal. Well I'll tell you. It wasn't just celebrities, in the last week alone we have discovered that the Private Investigators seemingly hired by the NotW hacked the then missing Milly Dowler's phone, the parents of one of the victims of the Soham murders, the families of those killed in the 7/7 bombings and families of soldiers killed on duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now this may seem bad enough or it may seem absolutely acceptable depending on your point of view but where they unequivocally crossed the line to me is when they deleted messages on Milly Dowler's phone to make room for more from worried family members, leading her family to believe she was still accessing her phone and therefore still alive which by this time she had sadly met her end.

The actions have been described variously as disgusting, unacceptable and all sorts of other big words which fail to actually bring about any real outcome. It seems that an enquiry will come but how soon and how independent, especially important given that there is a suggestion of corruption in the Metropolitan Police Force. The Police are currently holding their own enquiry and according to Chris Grayling, a judicial enquiry cannot run alongside it. Not knowing the law on this I cannot comment with much authority but I cannot understand why the two can not run concurrently. the suggestion by other panellists was that because the government is 'in bed with Murdoch' as the slightly sordid sounding phrase goes, they want to leave the enquiry as long as possible in the hope that we the public will somehow forget about it. And they are right. We need to act now to get to the bottom of this, this could be one of the most important times for the media, the government and even the public at large. The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) have been criticised, seen as an ineffective way of controlling the press but as their Chairman has pointed out in various interviews and press conferences, you can't regulate a company which consistently lies to you.

In yesterday's Question Time, Hugh Grant, a victim of the hacking himself, went down very well amongst the general public with his views on the NotW, Murdoch and has become a crusader against the hacking which, if nothing else has ensured his movie career will continue for years to come. One thing however was brought to my attention after the programme that, as a training journalist bothered me. Grant at one point spoke of a change in the way in which the press are regulated, something which many would agree with but the draconian measures he seemed to suggest the like of which haven't been seen since the 1800s and although he resorted in the end to cheap digs about Grant's tabloid past, Jon Gaunt was right in saying that too much regulation on the press will mean we no longer have a free press. A free press being essential in a true democracy to hold to account politicians, businessmen and the like.

Something that worried me in all the accusations and revelations was the reaction of the other newspapers to the stories. On the day after the biggest revelations that Milly Dowler's phone was hacked and messages were deleted, the reaction was less than some expected. The Daily Mail for example had a small front page article, a page inside and a small piece in the comment section of the paper. You can be sure it was the same across the board. Take what you want from this but it suggests that the hacking practice was not limited to the News of the World. To think however as some do that this makes all journalists scum is to be more foolish and naive than you could imagine. With the closure of the News of the World we lose the biggest selling newspaper in this country and around 200 staff will lose their jobs as the paper closes. Not all of these people would have been involved in the hacking, most will be PR people and journalists who were just going about their own business doing quality journalism on what used to be a quality newspaper.

As a final thought what will happen with Rupert Murdoch's take over of BSkyB. The decision will obviously be postponed but surely recent events will stop the sale which appeared to be taking place despite laws which should prevent any one person owning such a high percentage of the media. Will Rebekah Brooks ever leave? Andy Coulson has today been arrested and how long can Murdoch protect Brooks with the comprehensive investigations and inquiries ahead of us. Her ability to stay on has lead to many speculating on what it she has (from a nuclear bomb to bikini pictures of Murdoch. Obviously a twitter source). What will it mean for journalists in the future? The phone hacking scandal has surely changed the face of journalism forever leaving common practices of journos in doubt. As always stick with this blog for any developments, as I'm writing this blog the story is no doubt already changing and I'll have missed some new revelation. Such is the nature of news in the new media age.

Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
(and check your phone hasn't been hacked, the police are contacting over 4000 people so it might have been).

Some good links for you on the subject:
Daily Mail Cameron's response
Guardian NotW Closure
Fellow Student blogs. Ewan Kennerell and Daniel Mackrell

Elections and stuff and a bit of AV

Yesterday, purely because I would have been lost in a place I didn't know without him, I went canvassing with my housemate Ross. Ross is a conservative and in fact, is an active member of the party (or youth party at any rate). This has always been fun for me and the rest of my housemates, not because I have strong opposing political views, but because politics makes Ross quite angry at times which can be pretty funny. So with a clipboard in hand I went around one of the local council estates, helping to canvas students in the area with pretty mixed results.

It didn't start well with the majority of people not actually being in when we came to annoy them with leaflets, (it was a lovely day after all), but even the people that Ross did try to canvass/convince seemed quite apathetic. The general consensus seemed to be, "I'm not here for long, local politics doesn't really have much effect on me." And that's fair enough really. People complain about voter apathy and in particular the apathy of student voters but when it comes to students at university, the time they spend at university only adds up to about a year and half there and a year and a half at home. Hardly likely to be too bothered about the local politics when it's really such a short time of your life, we don't even have to pay council tax for some reason so what impact do the council have on students? And then people wonder why we (in general) aren't voting. The best but possibly worst reactions we received were a door to the face by someone who turned out not to be a student and a long conversation with a Liberal Democrat supporter who Ross tells me they have to try and speak to because the support isn't so strong for them at the moment.

I really hope that a lot of students turn out on Thursday for the local elections but more importantly really is the election on the alternative vote (AV). Now I've got my own opinions on AV and since your voting preference should be kept private that's what I intend to do. I hope though to explain to you what AV is and also whether it is right for us at this time to change to a system which is only half heartedly backed by the Liberal Democrats who admit it is a miserable compromise and generally, aside from Ed Miliband and a few of his best friends in the Labour party, most other MPs appear to be against it (looks like I've failed already to keep my opinion out of it). Anyway, what is AV? Well it's a bit complicated really, but as I understand it, AV is much like the current first-past-the-post system, but with numbers as well. You can just put a 1 by your first preference and be done with it, but you can also put a 2nd preference or a 3rd or however many candidates there are in that election. To win under first-past-the-post you need to have received the most votes out of any party, there isn't actually a specific 'post' to pass. This is seen by some as unfair because you can gain a majority with only about 36% of the votes, as Labour did in the 2005 general election whilst 64% of the population didn't vote for Labour and presumably didn't want them in power. Under AV you need 50% of the votes to get into power which at first glance seems much fairer but the chances of someone getting 50% are low and so after the first vote is counted, the 2nd preferences of the people who voted for the losing party are added to the pile. So in an example where there are five parties in an election, the second preferences of the losing parties voters could be as important as peoples first preferences, if not more important. Under this system there will also be an increased chance, (not an absolutely certainty as some MPs have tried to paint it), of ending up with coalition governments. Coalition governments are often weaker because they have to compromise with each other and so they are less powerful.

I hope I've helped explain AV and why it will be one of the most important votes you may ever have. In the interest of fairness, here is a link to some of the No to AV campaign posters which I believe actually hinder a legitimate campaign issue in their ridiculousness. First poster, secondly an article from the New Statesman.

P.S. It's quite ironic that you will have to vote for AV on a first-past-the-post system.

Will Cameron be as flexible with the Economy as he was with Libya

Well that's the question addressed in a column by Mary Riddell in the Daily Telegraph.

First of all she looks at how the conflict might impact David Cameron's tenure as Prime Minister and how it will possibly be his defining moment, (for more on that see earlier blog with link to a Mail story).

"Resolution 1973 was voted through as Gaddafi told 700,000 citizens of Benghazi that he would show them "no pity and no mercy". To suggest that Mr Cameron made the wrong call is tantamount to saying that the world should have closed its eyes to slaughter. The Prime Minister was right on Friday, and he is right today. The question is whether he will still be right when the Libyan intervention gets difficult, as it surely will."

This is just one more of the issues Cameron will face in his time but will he be up to it; time will tell.


The telegraph article can be read by clicking here.


Until next time. Stay Classy Internet.

Will the Libya Conflict define Cameron

Well an article in today's Daily Mail certainly thinks so.

In a piece written by Mail journalist Ian Birrell he points to the defining moments of other Prime Ministers terms in office such as Winston Churchill and World War Two, Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands War, to some extent even Tony Blair and the war in Iraq. Will this mean that the Libya conflict will define David Cameron's reign?

Read the article (link below) and decide for yourself.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1368023/Libya-David-Camerons-battle-Gaddafi-desert-despot-define-him.html


Until next time. Stay Classy Internet.