I remember Amy Whitehouse's death happening on the same day as the Breivik bombings in Norway. The news channels concentrated on Oslo for a while before getting reaction to her death.
As far as people dying goes, even if it was the Queen, the only actual news to report on is how it happened, particularly if it wasn't basically natural causes. If someone old who hasn't been very well dies, all you need is a ticker and then basically leave it at that, particularly in terms of non news channel channels. If it's a new channel you can keep all the boring trash with people paying tribute on there, with just a ticker on any other seemingly relevant channel. That'd even go for if the Queen died as far as I'm concerned. No reason to interrupt programmes or change schedules etc just because someone has died, just have a rolling ticker telling people to go to the news channels for more coverage/tributes/blah blah blah and keep every other channel carrying on as normal. Once you've heard the announcement, all you're going to hear after that is tributes, which will all be repeated, and will all say basically the same thing but just different people saying it.
You speak as a Republican maybe?
HM The Queend is Head of state, a position she has been in since 1952. Yes BBC One (and depending what else the BBC News Channel), wioll alter schedules at the first UK Head of State to die in 60+ years, This will be the first Serving British Monarch to die in a mass television, internet era.
Whilst some smaller channels may go as normal Dave Alibi etc. The bigger channels will be giving over time to HM Queen.
Although if say she passed away in The Commonwealth Games, or the IAAF World Athletics 2017, would these events played to a global audience continue as normal?
People dying in natural circumstances isnt really that much of a breaking story. They are dead, its usually not wholly unexpected, there are no further developments. Its really just running pre-planned packages and getting the usual talking heads to say the expected things. It might be resource consuming getting to those people but hardly unplannable.
Flooding, terrorism or other unexpected events are more difficult to cover since you are starting from zero planning and prepared packages.
Still think it should be that BBC1 will be Queen, News Channel other event. Similar Sky One and Sky News Channel.
As ITN provide news for ITV, Channel 4, Five, would they 'pool' news resources. Think ITV would be Queen, Channel 4 other story, Five not sure....mind you would anyone watch?
Still think it should be that BBC1 will be Queen, News Channel other event. Similar Sky One and Sky News Channel.
As ITN provide news for ITV, Channel 4, Five, would they 'pool' news resources. Think ITV would be Queen, Channel 4 other story, Five not sure....mind you would anyone watch?
Not a chance. ITN produce the coverage FOR these. So Channel 4, Channel 5 & ITV all have a huge say and would not become ITN 1, ITN 2 & ITN 3 for 48 hours.
They would all have something on the Queen and then other stories.
Depends, if the royal death is one of the press favs which are Liz, Phil, George Sr, Camila, Willy, Katy, Harry, George Jr, they will get full coverage
If the attack has either
- took place somewhere important ie UK Parliament, Palace, White House, Wall Street
- has resulted in over 50 deaths and counting
That will result in coverage of the royal death getting more coverage regardless but the terror attack getting with updates every 15 mins and report straight away if another bomb or whatever went off
If it was a minor royal (Prince Andrew) who the press cars very little of it won't get the full coverage more 50/50
What they should do is just cover both every 15 moms for every 15 mins but as we know the royals are more important :rolleyes
Not for the people affected or potentially affected by the storms. Mandela's death was not a surprised, many even thought he had already died and the South African government were holding back the news. There was very little actual 'news' to report about his death, just lots of politicians and luvvies giving tributes which they (or more likely, their PR people) had probably written long before the event.
Exactly. Mandela's death was sad but not unexpected as he had been sick for a long time. I was studying for an exam the night he died and my parents were in the living room watching the news. I remember going into the living room for a couple of minutes, listening to the news and then going back to the study. The floods should have been more important as they affected loads of people in the UK and I assume many had to evacuate their homes because of the floods and storms. If I had to evacuate my house in an emergency at the same time a major public figure died (even a major one like Mandela or even the Queen) the death would be the last thing on my mind.
They are only where they are because their ancestors were the biggest bullies of the day, killing the most people and stealing the most money / gold etc.
Nothing special about them at all!
Believe me when Liz or Philip go, there will be absolute wall-to-wall coverage for about three weeks.
No, I speak as a 'it's just someone dying, it doesn't require a change in schedules' person. Simple as that. Doesn't matter if she's been Queen for donkeys years or the first to die in a TV/internet era or whatever, no reason to change the schedules or not show specific types of programmes etc.
I remember Amy Whitehouse's death happening on the same day as the Breivik bombings in Norway. The news channels concentrated on Oslo for a while before getting reaction to her death.
No, I speak as a 'it's just someone dying, it doesn't require a change in schedules' person. Simple as that. Doesn't matter if she's been Queen for donkeys years or the first to die in a TV/internet era or whatever, no reason to change the schedules or not show specific types of programmes etc.
There is no point in worrying about it, if the Queen or other senior Royal dies then it is going to be a major news item with coverage across all channels. I had no interest in the deaths of Amy Winehouse or Michael Jackson died but had to put up with wall to wall coverage and over the top tributes to them.
There is no point in worrying about it, if the Queen or other senior Royal dies then it is going to be a major news item with coverage across all channels. I had no interest in the deaths of Amy Winehouse or Michael Jackson died but had to put up with wall to wall coverage and over the top tributes to them.
In 2009, it was the day before my grandad's funeral and I was thinking "What I'd give to have something to take my mind off it". Then the news about Michael Jackson's death was announced, and because he was only 50, I spent the rest of the evening, and some of the next day in a confused state of "WTF? Michael Jackons's dead??"
There is no point in worrying about it, if the Queen or other senior Royal dies then it is going to be a major news item with coverage across all channels. I had no interest in the deaths of Amy Winehouse or Michael Jackson died but had to put up with wall to wall coverage and over the top tributes to them.
Not really a balanced comparison though, the Country's Head of State for over 60 years versus a couple of pop singers!
Normal schedules will rightly be dropped for the rest of the day (or the following day if it's announced late in the day) on all main channels and quite a few minor channels too.
However, if there is another major event in the UK involving serious loss of life or risk to lives, it should be reported too in news bulletins, albeit inevitably in abbreviated form - with pointers to where full details can be found. It should not be ignored completely by any of the main extended news bulletins, as was done with Mandela/storm surge. Broadcasters' contingency planning should take account of this possibility.
Not really a balanced comparison though, the Country's Head of State for over 60 years versus a couple of pop singers!
Normal schedules will rightly be dropped for the rest of the day (or the following day if it's announced late in the day) on all main channels and quite a few minor channels too.
However, if there is another major event in the UK involving serious loss of life or risk to lives, it should be reported too, albeit inevitably in abbreviated form - with pointers to where full details can be found. It should not be ignored completely by any of the main extended news bulletins, as was done with Mandela/storm surge.
In the event of another major news story at the same time, then I can imagine BBC1 staying mainly on the Royal story and BBC News concentrating on the other story. BBC has the experience and flexibility to cope, I am sure they could even open up BBC2 as a third news service if there was the need though it would have to be a third independent major story.
In the event of another major news story at the same time, then I can imagine BBC1 staying mainly on the Royal story and BBC News concentrating on the other story. BBC has the experience and flexibility to cope, I am sure they could even open up BBC2 as a third news service if there was the need though it would have to be a third independent major story.
They couldn't do 3 surely.
If one of the stories was international related, they would share with Bbc World, but they couldn't do 3 Uk feeded stories on their own.
At the most they could do 2, involving Bbc World.
(Unless there is a third option I'm not aware of? )
In the event of another major news story at the same time, then I can imagine BBC1 staying mainly on the Royal story and BBC News concentrating on the other story. BBC has the experience and flexibility to cope, I am sure they could even open up BBC2 as a third news service if there was the need though it would have to be a third independent major story.
That would be acceptable, with occasional brief mentions or captions of the other major event on BBC1 and a pointer to where more details could be seen.
Sadly, nobody would make the necessary decision to change the Mandela contingency plan, not even by a little bit, and the most annoying part was the denials on Newswatch and in complaints responses.
If one of the stories was international related, they would share with Bbc World, but they couldn't do 3 Uk feeded stories on their own.
At the most they could do 2, involving Bbc World.
(Unless there is a third option I'm not aware of? )
It would have to be three really major unrelated news events but can't see why they could not do so if they had to. The BBC have plenty of newsreaders/presenters, plenty of studios available and often now a news story is reported direct from the scene. On the day after the Glasgow police helicopter crash, a relatively junior news reporter virtually ran BBC News channel from the scene (obviously with support from others) with very little from the actual studio.
It would have to be three really major unrelated news events but can't see why they could not do so if they had to. The BBC have plenty of newsreaders/presenters, plenty of studios available and often now a news story is reported direct from the scene. On the day after the Glasgow police helicopter crash, a relatively junior news reporter virtually ran BBC News channel from the scene (obviously with support from others) with very little from the actual studio.
Ain't the stuff got to be coordinated into a central studio?
You've also got 2 feeds out, one for Bbc World & one for NC.
Surely Bbc One /Two can only take one or the other, as that is why you never get a third option normally, as World & Nc are normally doing their own thing.
The only time Bbc One/Two do their own thing different to the Nc, is when the Nc can join with World, while a standard news bulletin is broadcast.
A good example was Whitney Houston's funeral where Nc joined World, but outputting their own graphics, apart from 20 minutes where the Nc studio had to transmit the BBC One bulletin, so their graphics disappeared on screen in favour of World's for that period, reappearing when Bbc One had finished their bulletin.
(I know that happened because I was watching it! )
Ain't the stuff got to be coordinated into a central studio?
You've also got 2 feeds out, one for Bbc World & one for NC.
Surely Bbc One /Two can only take one or the other, as that is why you never get a third option normally, as World & Nc are normally doing their own thing.
The only time Bbc One/Two do their own thing different to the Nc, is when the Nc can join with World, while a standard news bulletin is broadcast.
A good example was Whitney Houston's funeral where Nc joined World, but outputting their own graphics, apart from 20 minutes where the Nc studio had to transmit the BBC One bulletin, so their graphics disappeared on screen in favour of World's for that period, reappearing when Bbc One had finished their bulletin.
(I know that happened because I was watching it! )
Not saying that it is likely but I can't see what the problem is. It's only a studio, you don't need a dozen robot cameras and virtual studio just to produce a news programme.
There are other studios around London and regional newsrooms as well as Salford etc. They manage to produce BBC 1 carrying the breakfast programme, BBC News and BBC World all at the same time. The recent tribute to David Coleman told how he reported the Munich Olympic hostage incident for many hours, probably from quite a small studio.
The Queen dying would mean BBC News would take over BBC One, provide regular updates on BBC Two and BBC Four's 7.00 bulletin would be dominated by the story. I think BBC Three would carry on as normal, but with a summary every hour.
Of the commercial channels, ITV would probably suspend programming for the day, Channel 4 would extend its news bulletin and Channel 5 would carry on as normal as it has news at 5.00 and 6.30. Sky News would be dominated by the story, but the other satellite stations would carry on as normal as they are specialised and so few people would be watching, there would be no point showing a news bulletin.
Comments
You speak as a Republican maybe?
HM The Queend is Head of state, a position she has been in since 1952. Yes BBC One (and depending what else the BBC News Channel), wioll alter schedules at the first UK Head of State to die in 60+ years, This will be the first Serving British Monarch to die in a mass television, internet era.
Whilst some smaller channels may go as normal Dave Alibi etc. The bigger channels will be giving over time to HM Queen.
Although if say she passed away in The Commonwealth Games, or the IAAF World Athletics 2017, would these events played to a global audience continue as normal?
Hope those rules when the Queen pops her clogs
Still think it should be that BBC1 will be Queen, News Channel other event. Similar Sky One and Sky News Channel.
As ITN provide news for ITV, Channel 4, Five, would they 'pool' news resources. Think ITV would be Queen, Channel 4 other story, Five not sure....mind you would anyone watch?
Not a chance. ITN produce the coverage FOR these. So Channel 4, Channel 5 & ITV all have a huge say and would not become ITN 1, ITN 2 & ITN 3 for 48 hours.
They would all have something on the Queen and then other stories.
If the attack has either
- took place somewhere important ie UK Parliament, Palace, White House, Wall Street
- has resulted in over 50 deaths and counting
That will result in coverage of the royal death getting more coverage regardless but the terror attack getting with updates every 15 mins and report straight away if another bomb or whatever went off
If it was a minor royal (Prince Andrew) who the press cars very little of it won't get the full coverage more 50/50
What they should do is just cover both every 15 moms for every 15 mins but as we know the royals are more important :rolleyes
Exactly. Mandela's death was sad but not unexpected as he had been sick for a long time. I was studying for an exam the night he died and my parents were in the living room watching the news. I remember going into the living room for a couple of minutes, listening to the news and then going back to the study. The floods should have been more important as they affected loads of people in the UK and I assume many had to evacuate their homes because of the floods and storms. If I had to evacuate my house in an emergency at the same time a major public figure died (even a major one like Mandela or even the Queen) the death would be the last thing on my mind.
And the Budget was that same day as well.
Believe me when Liz or Philip go, there will be absolute wall-to-wall coverage for about three weeks.
No, I speak as a 'it's just someone dying, it doesn't require a change in schedules' person. Simple as that. Doesn't matter if she's been Queen for donkeys years or the first to die in a TV/internet era or whatever, no reason to change the schedules or not show specific types of programmes etc.
It was the day after the bombings Amy died.
Same with Mandela.
"Old man/fFormer terrorist died" The shock of it!
There is no point in worrying about it, if the Queen or other senior Royal dies then it is going to be a major news item with coverage across all channels. I had no interest in the deaths of Amy Winehouse or Michael Jackson died but had to put up with wall to wall coverage and over the top tributes to them.
In 2009, it was the day before my grandad's funeral and I was thinking "What I'd give to have something to take my mind off it". Then the news about Michael Jackson's death was announced, and because he was only 50, I spent the rest of the evening, and some of the next day in a confused state of "WTF? Michael Jackons's dead??"
So it certainly took my mind off it.
Not really a balanced comparison though, the Country's Head of State for over 60 years versus a couple of pop singers!
Normal schedules will rightly be dropped for the rest of the day (or the following day if it's announced late in the day) on all main channels and quite a few minor channels too.
However, if there is another major event in the UK involving serious loss of life or risk to lives, it should be reported too in news bulletins, albeit inevitably in abbreviated form - with pointers to where full details can be found. It should not be ignored completely by any of the main extended news bulletins, as was done with Mandela/storm surge. Broadcasters' contingency planning should take account of this possibility.
In the event of another major news story at the same time, then I can imagine BBC1 staying mainly on the Royal story and BBC News concentrating on the other story. BBC has the experience and flexibility to cope, I am sure they could even open up BBC2 as a third news service if there was the need though it would have to be a third independent major story.
They couldn't do 3 surely.
If one of the stories was international related, they would share with Bbc World, but they couldn't do 3 Uk feeded stories on their own.
At the most they could do 2, involving Bbc World.
(Unless there is a third option I'm not aware of? )
Sadly, nobody would make the necessary decision to change the Mandela contingency plan, not even by a little bit, and the most annoying part was the denials on Newswatch and in complaints responses.
It would have to be three really major unrelated news events but can't see why they could not do so if they had to. The BBC have plenty of newsreaders/presenters, plenty of studios available and often now a news story is reported direct from the scene. On the day after the Glasgow police helicopter crash, a relatively junior news reporter virtually ran BBC News channel from the scene (obviously with support from others) with very little from the actual studio.
Ain't the stuff got to be coordinated into a central studio?
You've also got 2 feeds out, one for Bbc World & one for NC.
Surely Bbc One /Two can only take one or the other, as that is why you never get a third option normally, as World & Nc are normally doing their own thing.
The only time Bbc One/Two do their own thing different to the Nc, is when the Nc can join with World, while a standard news bulletin is broadcast.
A good example was Whitney Houston's funeral where Nc joined World, but outputting their own graphics, apart from 20 minutes where the Nc studio had to transmit the BBC One bulletin, so their graphics disappeared on screen in favour of World's for that period, reappearing when Bbc One had finished their bulletin.
(I know that happened because I was watching it! )
Not saying that it is likely but I can't see what the problem is. It's only a studio, you don't need a dozen robot cameras and virtual studio just to produce a news programme.
There are other studios around London and regional newsrooms as well as Salford etc. They manage to produce BBC 1 carrying the breakfast programme, BBC News and BBC World all at the same time. The recent tribute to David Coleman told how he reported the Munich Olympic hostage incident for many hours, probably from quite a small studio.
Of the commercial channels, ITV would probably suspend programming for the day, Channel 4 would extend its news bulletin and Channel 5 would carry on as normal as it has news at 5.00 and 6.30. Sky News would be dominated by the story, but the other satellite stations would carry on as normal as they are specialised and so few people would be watching, there would be no point showing a news bulletin.