Young, TV personality, sudden death, mother died when she was young, famous father. It's going to have a lot of rolling news coverage. News Channels can do this, it is fine. The main evening news bulletins on the main channels is were you will find a comprehensive news round up of the day.
Yet there's not alot to say other than who she is, that she died, they don't know how, and a bit of reaction. In other words something that could be wrapped up in 3mins max.
Young, TV personality, sudden death, mother died when she was young, famous father. It's going to have a lot of rolling news coverage. News Channels can do this, it is fine. The main evening news bulletins on the main channels is were you will find a comprehensive news round up of the day.
Yes, just so. There will be rolling coverage because people are still just hearing of it and will want to know what's known.
Yet there's not alot to say other than who she is, that she died, they don't know how, and a bit of reaction. In other words something that could be wrapped up in 3mins max.
That's not how news channels work. It's about getting reaction, hearing from people who knew her, a look back at her life, reflection.
Any young death is sad, but it seemed odd to hear her described as a "broadcaster and writer". Would she have been on TV and/or written for a newspaper at a young age had she not been the son of a famous celebrity?
The answer is no. Nepotism works wonders.
But she wasn't the SON of celeb, was she? She was the DAUGHTER of one. You just called Peaches a bloke!
Clearly a tragic event for the family but I don't see why it is worthy of such coverage.
Similarly, I don't understand the wall-to-wall coverage of the Oscar Pistorius trial.
In the grand scheme of things they are not important world events.
But they are what the public are interested in so will get a lot of coverage. I would say the same about the recent MH370 plane crash which has had so much coverage because of its mysterious nature.
I'm not denying the story isn't newsworthy but I found the coverage a bit boring. There isn't really much to report on until they find out what caused her death. I watched the NBC Nightly News on CNBC and they didn't mention it at all. It's nights like this I'm grateful for foreign news channels.
Yet there's not alot to say other than who she is, that she died, they don't know how, and a bit of reaction. In other words something that could be wrapped up in 3mins max.
And what other story at the time deserved more screen time? Everything else going on had happened much earlier in the day and had been covered to death all day. Would the time really have been better served showing the same news report about Pistorious or Ukraine or MH370 that had been shown atleast 10 times already that day? No, the point of 24hour news is to be able to report news stories as they break so something that was still unfolding and which potentially had new information to come out should take precedent. If you want a round up that's what the news bulletins on non-news channels are for
I'm not denying the story isn't newsworthy but I found the coverage a bit boring. There isn't really much to report on until they find out what caused her death. I watched the NBC Nightly News on CNBC and they didn't mention it at all. It's nights like this I'm grateful for foreign news channels.
That's because Peaches i'm guessing isn't that relevant to the US audience. If it has been one of the Kardasians it would have been full of it
If people are not interested in this, then get a life and do something else to pass the time. It's not as if we don't have hundreds of TV channels and millions of news websites that can be viewed instead, if this isn't to peoples tastes.
So here we are, 20 minutes into the 7 p.m. bulletin on both BBC News Channel and Sky News, and both are reporting continuously on the death of someone who could be called a minor celebrity at best. No-one really knows how she died, so it's a gruesome mix of speculation and reading out of tweets from other minor celebrities saying how sad they are.
Meanwhile, on Al Jazeera, not a mention, as they're too busy reporting on real stories, from Crimea, Ukraine, India and Syria...we really do get the news coverage we deserve.
Errrr, it was only a 3-4 minute brief report at Ten O'clock on the Beeb and briefly heard from a correspondent.
There are people who are interested - it a shocking and sad event - same as when Paula Yates died - that alone would mean that it would be reported on in terms of the potential parallels.
Nothing to do with her being a "minor celebrity at best" - everyone knows who she is anyway.
There is significant public interest with these types of stories, same as with the Pistorious trial - that is wh it is decided that they get reported in terms of time on the news and are decided to be newsworthy.
If you don't like it, don't watch it - or switch over.
So here we are, 20 minutes into the 7 p.m. bulletin on both BBC News Channel and Sky News, and both are reporting continuously on the death of someone who could be called a minor celebrity at best. No-one really knows how she died, so it's a gruesome mix of speculation and reading out of tweets from other minor celebrities saying how sad they are.
Meanwhile, on Al Jazeera, not a mention, as they're too busy reporting on real stories, from Crimea, Ukraine, India and Syria...we really do get the news coverage we deserve.
Nothing stopping you from watching the news on that channel.
I don't usually comment on tragic events so I may be well out of my depth so please go easy if the following doesn't sit quite right but one thing I noticed was in the timeline of events the very eloquent tribute/response from Sir Bob was released very, very soon after 6.30pm: so 1.30pm Police called/informed. 6.30pm breaking story.
Does anyone think that the eloquent tribute/response from Sir Bob Geldof came very, very soon after the breaking of the story (1.30pm police called, 6.30pm breaking story, family statement alongside)? Not sure but could anyone read into that, that perhaps there had been some concern leading up to the Monday afternoon from family members, as the very personal (family) statement was constructed with such seeming rapidity yet deep meaning (despite it being classed as a sudden event)?
I know that timeline gives just over 5 hours for a statement to be provided by family from reported time of serious incident until breaking news story but does that seem a fast turnover if nothing had indicated issues preceding the 1.30pm concerns?
I don't usually comment on tragic events so I may be well out of my depth so please go easy if the following doesn't sit quite right but one thing I noticed was in the timeline of events the very eloquent tribute/response from Sir Bob was released very, very soon after 6.30pm: so 1.30pm Police called/informed. 6.30pm breaking story.
Does anyone think that the eloquent tribute/response from Sir Bob Geldof came very, very soon after the breaking of the story (1.30pm police called, 6.30pm breaking story, family statement alongside)? Not sure but could anyone read into that, that perhaps there had been some concern leading up to the Monday afternoon from family members, as the very personal (family) statement was constructed with such seeming rapidity yet deep meaning (despite it being classed as a sudden event)?
I know that timeline gives just over 5 hours for a statement to be provided by family from reported time of serious incident until breaking news story but does that seem a fast turnover if nothing had indicated issues preceding the 1.30pm concerns?
Assuming timeline is correct, Bob could have been told by 2pm which seems like more than enough time to compile a statement. He will be well-versed in media protocol, not least after Paula's death, and understand the quicker a statement is realised the more likely it is that the gutter press will swoop on him, looking for "reaction". I am certain his agent/PR people would have helped write it, which perhaps points towards it being more profound than it would have been had Bob written it himself.
So here we are, 20 minutes into the 7 p.m. bulletin on both BBC News Channel and Sky News, and both are reporting continuously on the death of someone who could be called a minor celebrity at best. No-one really knows how she died, so it's a gruesome mix of speculation and reading out of tweets from other minor celebrities saying how sad they are.
Meanwhile, on Al Jazeera, not a mention, as they're too busy reporting on real stories, from Crimea, Ukraine, India and Syria...we really do get the news coverage we deserve.
Because sadly the powers that be ie BBC, BskyB, ITN all believe that we are obsessed with so called celebrity culture. Even the once staid Radio4 is not immune to this disastrous kind of nonsense. If it's not celebrity or London/SE centric it hardly deserves a mention an occasional sensationalised international story will be allowed coverage too, but good honest staright forward news not speculation is very rare.
Comments
Yet there's not alot to say other than who she is, that she died, they don't know how, and a bit of reaction. In other words something that could be wrapped up in 3mins max.
Neither part of that is true.
Name three.
Interest in this goes well beyond those who "are interested in z-listers lifestyles rather than living their own lives".
The funeral will be a showbiz event and there'll be live coverage on Sky.
People who didn't know her will line the route to the church and we'll see a competitive outpouring of grief.
Yes, just so. There will be rolling coverage because people are still just hearing of it and will want to know what's known.
That's not how news channels work. It's about getting reaction, hearing from people who knew her, a look back at her life, reflection.
I feel down and sad at the news, but to do this over someone that a person doesn't know is a bit pathetic.
It's the school holidays as well meaning chavvy mothers will be dragging their offspring to the event.
Similarly, I don't understand the wall-to-wall coverage of the Oscar Pistorius trial.
That made me giggle.
Don't tell me, tell the others on here!
In the grand scheme of things they are not important world events.
But they are what the public are interested in so will get a lot of coverage. I would say the same about the recent MH370 plane crash which has had so much coverage because of its mysterious nature.
And what other story at the time deserved more screen time? Everything else going on had happened much earlier in the day and had been covered to death all day. Would the time really have been better served showing the same news report about Pistorious or Ukraine or MH370 that had been shown atleast 10 times already that day? No, the point of 24hour news is to be able to report news stories as they break so something that was still unfolding and which potentially had new information to come out should take precedent. If you want a round up that's what the news bulletins on non-news channels are for
That's because Peaches i'm guessing isn't that relevant to the US audience. If it has been one of the Kardasians it would have been full of it
If people are not interested in this, then get a life and do something else to pass the time. It's not as if we don't have hundreds of TV channels and millions of news websites that can be viewed instead, if this isn't to peoples tastes.
Errrr, it was only a 3-4 minute brief report at Ten O'clock on the Beeb and briefly heard from a correspondent.
There are people who are interested - it a shocking and sad event - same as when Paula Yates died - that alone would mean that it would be reported on in terms of the potential parallels.
Nothing to do with her being a "minor celebrity at best" - everyone knows who she is anyway.
There is significant public interest with these types of stories, same as with the Pistorious trial - that is wh it is decided that they get reported in terms of time on the news and are decided to be newsworthy.
If you don't like it, don't watch it - or switch over.
Nothing stopping you from watching the news on that channel.
Really !!??
Does anyone think that the eloquent tribute/response from Sir Bob Geldof came very, very soon after the breaking of the story (1.30pm police called, 6.30pm breaking story, family statement alongside)? Not sure but could anyone read into that, that perhaps there had been some concern leading up to the Monday afternoon from family members, as the very personal (family) statement was constructed with such seeming rapidity yet deep meaning (despite it being classed as a sudden event)?
I know that timeline gives just over 5 hours for a statement to be provided by family from reported time of serious incident until breaking news story but does that seem a fast turnover if nothing had indicated issues preceding the 1.30pm concerns?
Assuming timeline is correct, Bob could have been told by 2pm which seems like more than enough time to compile a statement. He will be well-versed in media protocol, not least after Paula's death, and understand the quicker a statement is realised the more likely it is that the gutter press will swoop on him, looking for "reaction". I am certain his agent/PR people would have helped write it, which perhaps points towards it being more profound than it would have been had Bob written it himself.