Perhaps because it was concerning Stephen King, a very well-known and popular author, and a character from The Shining, a well-known book by that popular author, and a popular film of the 80's. All of which have made the jump into mainstream culture.
Perhaps it was thought to have popular appeal outside of the normally niche arts market.
Possibly Mossy, but given the other articles on the day did you not find it oddly shoe-horned in?
If it happened regularly I would agree with you Mossy, but it doesn't. Arts stories - particularly lengthy pre-recorded interviews - never get room on prime time BBC news bulletins. So why this time?
It was on the News channel.
A channel that often runs interviews with authors (it's got a weekly show...), especially when it's something big.
Given Stephen King is one of the biggest horror writers around (both in number of books, sales, and adaptations), and that the Shining is still popular 30+ years on, him going back to it is likely to result in news stories and interviews.
Plus it probably makes good filler for when there isn't much new to report.
[edit]
I'd only read to near the end of page 1 when I started replying and got called away
Possibly Mossy, but given the other articles on the day did you not find it oddly shoe-horned in?
I honestly don't know as I did not watch the news programme in question.
However, how long was this piece, and what major stories that you expected to be covered could have been placed in that spot?
And if you really believe that "a bung" was involved (which of course would be contrary to BBC Editorial Guidelines at the very least, if not corrupt), then perhaps you should voice your concerns to the BBC Trust.
Featuring any new product/book/film/TV series on a programme cannot fail to be a form of advertising (Radio 5 has gone into overdrive this morning about Downton Abbey reinforcing the BBC's bizarre policy of promoting shows on rival channels). But where there is a critical appraisal I think it's fair enough.What is not acceptable is the glowing praise with which such items are met - any new Apple product can be guaranteed to receive a rapturous reception from the BBC's technology correspondent for instance, the most sycophantic of interviewers are to be found on The One Show.The BBC seems to have double standards on these occasions - when do you hear an interviewer say ''I've read your new book and frankly I find it tedious and without merit.''
It was on the News channel.
A channel that often runs interviews with authors (it's got a weekly show...), especially when it's something big.
Given Stephen King is one of the biggest horror writers around (both in number of books, sales, and adaptations), and that the Shining is still popular 30+ years on, him going back to it is likely to result in news stories and interviews.
Plus it probably makes good filler for when there isn't much new to report.
Maybe there isn't a lot of footage of Stephen King and he's getting on a bit so they want something for his obit.
Or they can re-edit the interview and sell it around the world.
Therefore promising his agent to show it on the national 6 o'clock news would be a good deal.
What is not acceptable is the glowing praise with which such items are met - any new Apple product can be guaranteed to receive a rapturous reception from the BBC's technology correspondent for instance...
And the tech. world in general with thousands lining the street to the stores to buy them on release.
So you're not an Apple fan I assume? That's bias right there then
...when do you hear an interviewer say ''I've read your new book and frankly I find it tedious and without merit.''
When it's merited and not just for the sake of it?
Nothing wrong with a feature on the new Stephen King book, it's definitely "news".
Actually the more I think of it, the more I'm not necessarily surprised it might merit a spot on the BBC1 news.
For one it's a relatively light bit (that could have been dropped if something important came up that needed the time), but it's also rather uncommon for a book to have a sequel written 30-40 years after the original, by the same author.
Especially when it's a big name author and well known book.
I can't remember the last time I saw any author go back to a book and write it's first sequel 35 years after the original was published (the closest I can remember are the cases where an authors family have allowed a sequel to be released after his death, or when Great Ormand Street had a sequel to Peter Pan written to keep the characters in copyright/trademarkable).
In book news it's probably one of the biggest stories of the year.
Actually the more I think of it, the more I'm not necessarily surprised it might merit a spot on the BBC1 news.
For one it's a relatively light bit (that could have been dropped if something important came up that needed the time), but it's also rather uncommon for a book to have a sequel written 30-40 years after the original, by the same author.
Especially when it's a big name author and well known book.
I can't remember the last time I saw any author go back to a book and write it's first sequel 35 years after the original was published (the closest I can remember are the cases where an authors family have allowed a sequel to be released after his death, or when Great Ormand Street had a sequel to Peter Pan written to keep the characters in copyright/trademarkable).
In book news it's probably one of the biggest stories of the year.
I had similar thoughts that it could be dropped easily if something more important came on, I also wondered if it had been packaged up for use on BBC News and some other report had to be dropped or failed to be available.
You need some lighter items on the news, if it was solid boring things like Syria, political conferences, Scottish referendum etc then many would switch off / over.
It is after all more a business item than 'arts', he writes novels rather than make widgets but it is a new product on the market that is going to sell in huge numbers. I can't see why it is OK to treat a new car model, work of art being sold, new gadget from Apple or a football match as news but not any other commercial items.
Comments
Possibly Mossy, but given the other articles on the day did you not find it oddly shoe-horned in?
It was on the News channel.
A channel that often runs interviews with authors (it's got a weekly show...), especially when it's something big.
Given Stephen King is one of the biggest horror writers around (both in number of books, sales, and adaptations), and that the Shining is still popular 30+ years on, him going back to it is likely to result in news stories and interviews.
Plus it probably makes good filler for when there isn't much new to report.
[edit]
I'd only read to near the end of page 1 when I started replying and got called away
No - it was on the Six.
However, how long was this piece, and what major stories that you expected to be covered could have been placed in that spot?
And if you really believe that "a bung" was involved (which of course would be contrary to BBC Editorial Guidelines at the very least, if not corrupt), then perhaps you should voice your concerns to the BBC Trust.
Maybe there isn't a lot of footage of Stephen King and he's getting on a bit so they want something for his obit.
Or they can re-edit the interview and sell it around the world.
Therefore promising his agent to show it on the national 6 o'clock news would be a good deal.
I would have hoped the Beeb's flagship news programme would have been about news rather than doing good deals for the corporation at large
So you're not an Apple fan I assume? That's bias right there then
When it's merited and not just for the sake of it?
More mere speculation I assume? So we can safely ignore it as irrelevant then
Of course it is. Unless anyone has proof to the contrary.
Actually the more I think of it, the more I'm not necessarily surprised it might merit a spot on the BBC1 news.
For one it's a relatively light bit (that could have been dropped if something important came up that needed the time), but it's also rather uncommon for a book to have a sequel written 30-40 years after the original, by the same author.
Especially when it's a big name author and well known book.
I can't remember the last time I saw any author go back to a book and write it's first sequel 35 years after the original was published (the closest I can remember are the cases where an authors family have allowed a sequel to be released after his death, or when Great Ormand Street had a sequel to Peter Pan written to keep the characters in copyright/trademarkable).
In book news it's probably one of the biggest stories of the year.
I had similar thoughts that it could be dropped easily if something more important came on, I also wondered if it had been packaged up for use on BBC News and some other report had to be dropped or failed to be available.
You need some lighter items on the news, if it was solid boring things like Syria, political conferences, Scottish referendum etc then many would switch off / over.
It is after all more a business item than 'arts', he writes novels rather than make widgets but it is a new product on the market that is going to sell in huge numbers. I can't see why it is OK to treat a new car model, work of art being sold, new gadget from Apple or a football match as news but not any other commercial items.