On Nov 23, 12:48*pm, "Mizter T" wrote:
[Sorry, ineptly managed to post this reply before I'd finished it - here's
the whole thing]

"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote:





Mizter T wrote:

"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote:

MIG wrote:

The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour.
You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague
idea about transport in London.

Would you? Why? Do you think it is a requirement for people who mention
London in the things they read out to be Londoners?

Except that's not what MIG said.

What isn't? I'm asking questions which are clearly about what MIG said.

He didn't mention anything about Londoners, let alone any requirement to be
one.



I don't think it's unreasonable that BBC *London* should strive for
accuracy when it comes to reporting London travel news.

All right, same question to you then, but unpacked. The implication
behind your (and MIG's) comment seems to be that staff whose job it is
to *read* the news ("newsreaders" above) on Radio Xtown should have some
intrinsic knowledge about Xtown so that they can correct the news in
real time if it is not correct on their script. Why should this be so,m
and how should it be achieved?

Well, in relation to MIG's comments it'd be useful if he unpacked them too -
it's unclear whether he's actually trying to suggest that corrections to a
script should be made on the fly, which does seems like a bit of a potential
recipe for disaster (that said, I think just that does occur a little in
these days of rolling news - one of the benefits of having journalists as
opposed to mere newsreaders doing the job).

However the bracketed comments in my earlier reply were actually quite
relevant - the travel news reports on BBC London radio are read out by a
member of the travel team who is actually involved in compiling said
reports, they are not just a newsreader (though again, see above - many of
those reading the news on television these days are 'proper' journalists,
not just readers of scripts). Therefore they may actually have been
responsible for compiling the report themselves, or else one of their
colleagues may have done so - so one could argue that they should be able to
spot mistakes and correct them in later broadcasts.

I hardly ever watch breakfast television (too preoccupied coming to terms
with consciousness!), but racking my brains I do now seem to recall that on
the local London inserts on the Beeb they do use (or at least have used)
members of their London travel team to present the travel segment - so again
whilst correcting something on the fly is going to be a bit of a stretch,
they could get it right next time round. Also, if there are other members of
the travel staff around who were able to monitor the output (whether on
radio or tv), then again corrections could be made.



Should newsreaders be employed on the basis of what they know, or the
quality of their vocal projection? My view is that presenters on radio
should be employed on the basis of their ability to speak so as not to
be misunderstood by listeners. Anything else (e.g. unscripted banter
e.g. Eddie Mair, interesting regional accents e.g. Ian MacMillan, or the
propensity to dissolve in fits of giggles e.g. Brian Johnston, are all
bonuses.)

See all my comments above about the decline of 'pure' newsreaders - BBC
television news now has its programmes presented by journalists not
newsreaders (see the case of Moira Stuart); Eddie Mair on PM is a
journalist; the various presenters on Radio 5 are generally journalists, at
least w.r.t. the news orientated output (not necessarily saying some of them
are any good though!); and I think on BBC London local radio and television
the presenters are often journalists too (FWIW, 'BBC London' is a so-called
'tri-media' operation - tv, radio, online).

That said newsreaders of the more traditional mould do live on in radio at
least, e.g. on Radio 4 - and they're not just script readers either as they
partake in the process of compiling the script - indeed some of them have
come from a journalistic background (and arguably they are by their nature
journalists - cue debate on the definition of journalism!)





(MIG doesn't however state which outlet this was - i.e. whether it was
BBC
London radio, or the local London inserts on BBC Breakfast television
programme - I never watch the latter so don't know how it's presented,
but
the former are read out on air by members of BBC London's travel team who
are also involved in compiling the information - they also 'tweet' here
http://twitter.com/bbctravelalert - my impression is that they're
fairly
on the ball, TBH.)

If you *know* the BBC is broadcasting something that is inaccurate, then
wouldn't it be constructive for you to contact them directly to correct
it? Complaining about it here won't achieve anything.

Plus, I don't think the inaccuracy that prompted MIG's post was really
all
that heinous either!

Me neither.


Coming back into this rather late, I wasn't particularly interested in
taking the PIS out of them getting the TOC wrong, and I certainly
didn't have time to be phoning the BBC or looking up the London news
email address (it was TV news, by the way).

Getting the TOC wrong is not so terrible, given that I don't think
TOCs are worth mentioning anyway.

In this case, I heard "Major discruption ... South Eastern ..." and
began to curse before cottoning on that this was a story about
disruption on the WCML.

Is there no human being in a London newsroom capable of recognising
that it was a WCML problem and that a more significant bunch of
services were affected than those from Shepherds Bush, which ought to
have got first billing?

On Nov 23, 6:07*pm, MIG wrote:
On Nov 23, 12:48*pm, "Mizter T" wrote:





[Sorry, ineptly managed to post this reply before I'd finished it - here's
the whole thing]

"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote:

MIG wrote:

The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour..
You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague
idea about transport in London.

Would you? Why? Do you think it is a requirement for people who mention
London in the things they read out to be Londoners?

Except that's not what MIG said.

What isn't? I'm asking questions which are clearly about what MIG said.

He didn't mention anything about Londoners, let alone any requirement to be
one.

I don't think it's unreasonable that BBC *London* should strive for
accuracy when it comes to reporting London travel news.

All right, same question to you then, but unpacked. The implication
behind your (and MIG's) comment seems to be that staff whose job it is
to *read* the news ("newsreaders" above) on Radio Xtown should have some
intrinsic knowledge about Xtown so that they can correct the news in
real time if it is not correct on their script. Why should this be so,m
and how should it be achieved?

Well, in relation to MIG's comments it'd be useful if he unpacked them too -
it's unclear whether he's actually trying to suggest that corrections to a
script should be made on the fly, which does seems like a bit of a potential
recipe for disaster (that said, I think just that does occur a little in
these days of rolling news - one of the benefits of having journalists as
opposed to mere newsreaders doing the job).

However the bracketed comments in my earlier reply were actually quite
relevant - the travel news reports on BBC London radio are read out by a
member of the travel team who is actually involved in compiling said
reports, they are not just a newsreader (though again, see above - many of
those reading the news on television these days are 'proper' journalists,
not just readers of scripts). Therefore they may actually have been
responsible for compiling the report themselves, or else one of their
colleagues may have done so - so one could argue that they should be able to
spot mistakes and correct them in later broadcasts.

I hardly ever watch breakfast television (too preoccupied coming to terms
with consciousness!), but racking my brains I do now seem to recall that on
the local London inserts on the Beeb they do use (or at least have used)
members of their London travel team to present the travel segment - so again
whilst correcting something on the fly is going to be a bit of a stretch,
they could get it right next time round. Also, if there are other members of
the travel staff around who were able to monitor the output (whether on
radio or tv), then again corrections could be made.

Should newsreaders be employed on the basis of what they know, or the
quality of their vocal projection? My view is that presenters on radio
should be employed on the basis of their ability to speak so as not to
be misunderstood by listeners. Anything else (e.g. unscripted banter
e.g. Eddie Mair, interesting regional accents e.g. Ian MacMillan, or the
propensity to dissolve in fits of giggles e.g. Brian Johnston, are all
bonuses.)

See all my comments above about the decline of 'pure' newsreaders - BBC
television news now has its programmes presented by journalists not
newsreaders (see the case of Moira Stuart); Eddie Mair on PM is a
journalist; the various presenters on Radio 5 are generally journalists, at
least w.r.t. the news orientated output (not necessarily saying some of them
are any good though!); and I think on BBC London local radio and television
the presenters are often journalists too (FWIW, 'BBC London' is a so-called
'tri-media' operation - tv, radio, online).

That said newsreaders of the more traditional mould do live on in radio at
least, e.g. on Radio 4 - and they're not just script readers either as they
partake in the process of compiling the script - indeed some of them have
come from a journalistic background (and arguably they are by their nature
journalists - cue debate on the definition of journalism!)

(MIG doesn't however state which outlet this was - i.e. whether it was
BBC
London radio, or the local London inserts on BBC Breakfast television
programme - I never watch the latter so don't know how it's presented,
but
the former are read out on air by members of BBC London's travel team who
are also involved in compiling the information - they also 'tweet' here
http://twitter.com/bbctravelalert - my impression is that they're
fairly
on the ball, TBH.)

If you *know* the BBC is broadcasting something that is inaccurate, then
wouldn't it be constructive for you to contact them directly to correct
it? Complaining about it here won't achieve anything.

Plus, I don't think the inaccuracy that prompted MIG's post was really
all
that heinous either!

Me neither.

Coming back into this rather late, I wasn't particularly interested in
taking the PIS out of them getting the TOC wrong, and I certainly
didn't have time to be phoning the BBC or looking up the London news
email address (it was TV news, by the way).

Getting the TOC wrong is not so terrible, given that I don't think
TOCs are worth mentioning anyway.

In this case, I heard "Major discruption ... South Eastern ..." and
began to curse before cottoning on that this was a story about
disruption on the WCML.

Is there no human being in a London newsroom capable of recognising
that it was a WCML problem and that a more significant bunch of
services were affected than those from Shepherds Bush, which ought to
have got first billing?

(Rushing again.)

And I should also have said that I was kind of assuming that I was
posting against a background of threads on the lines of "Yet yet yet a
nother nother nother disruption on the WCML" and noting BBC London
News was reporting it as major disruption on South Eastern.

However, this background may not have been correctly assumed, given
that it's hardly news any more.