Options
Ukraine Unrest
![[Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/587a2c7dd99e6d56fa29b127a757b149.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 1,031 Forum Member
✭✭✭
We have 24 hour news channels which are supposed to break into their tedious repetitive schedules when something serious is happening to keep us informed.
BBC News
Sky News
CNN
Have all been broadcasting live from Ukraine most of this evening for good reason.
22:00 UK Time is Midnight Ukraine time, this was when, as the channels themselves reported, that Kiev was to be sealed - there was a strong indication that the police would then begin to take action.
Indeed, most of the channels led with the story but very quickly went off to their routine broadcasts in spite of the fact that, as predicted, the police were beginning to take action.
In the live feed on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_LFrMcoEm4) it was quite clear what was unfolding. I saw what appeared to be a police officer dragged into the crowd, god knows what happened to him.
And what happened with the news channels? They continued to show ads, the weather and talk about the lighter stories of the day.
Am I the only person who sees this as utterly perverse? Aren't we supposed to care what is happening on the fringes of Europe? What treatment is being given to those demanding reform?
I can't fathom it out, I can't believe there wasn't one editor or producer who thought "this stuff we're talking about is banal, we should be following this story".
Even now, Sky and BBC are covering the papers and CNN is covering sport.
Amazing.
BBC News
Sky News
CNN
Have all been broadcasting live from Ukraine most of this evening for good reason.
22:00 UK Time is Midnight Ukraine time, this was when, as the channels themselves reported, that Kiev was to be sealed - there was a strong indication that the police would then begin to take action.
Indeed, most of the channels led with the story but very quickly went off to their routine broadcasts in spite of the fact that, as predicted, the police were beginning to take action.
In the live feed on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_LFrMcoEm4) it was quite clear what was unfolding. I saw what appeared to be a police officer dragged into the crowd, god knows what happened to him.
And what happened with the news channels? They continued to show ads, the weather and talk about the lighter stories of the day.
Am I the only person who sees this as utterly perverse? Aren't we supposed to care what is happening on the fringes of Europe? What treatment is being given to those demanding reform?
I can't fathom it out, I can't believe there wasn't one editor or producer who thought "this stuff we're talking about is banal, we should be following this story".
Even now, Sky and BBC are covering the papers and CNN is covering sport.
Amazing.
0
Comments
Given Russia is pulling the strings and Winter Olympics are going on, they should be connecting the dots. Whether or not Ukraine should become more integrated to Europe or not is their own issue but it is very clear their big neighbour is not allowing them to decide this. The same thing has been going on in Georgia for years.
are we supposed to have constant coverage of that then?
Perhaps. But I would argue there is a lot more relevance for British news in the Ukraine situation:
1). It is very close to the UK.
2). Part of the issue relates to some wanting to become part of the EU.
3). The issues include matters relating to the division between western powers and Russia.
they only go to it when something IS GOING TO HAPPEN, the other 80 percent of the time is lots of standing around watching things burn .....
I think you miss the point - something was happening precisely the moment they cut away.
Ultimately, these channels are presenting a distorted view of what has been going on.
Wonder how often such things happen when the story is somewhat less significant and can't be readily checked through another feed or source.
Distorted in what way?
When I tuned in there was a tiny window showing the live feed from youtube. I checked back a few times and it never seemed to get beyond that.
It is a complex and fast moving situation which makes it difficult to get a handle on who is "right" and who is "wrong".
Giving viewers access to the events as they unfold allows them to form their own view, instead, cutting away for less significant news leaves it down to the media to put their own narrative to events.
Case in point - the union building which was set on fire, allegedly by the police. We might not have seen the fire being lit but we may have had a feel for what was unfolding near the building at the time, we may have seen the protesters rescuing their comrades whilst the police took a back seat.
That may have played out as a very different story rather than just a count of how many died yesterday. When broken down and we hear of the number of police deaths, It is natural for us in the UK to feel some revulsion towards the protesters but I get the impression, from all i've seen, heard and read that it isn't as black and white as that - does the average Joe watching the news today get that same sense? I'm not convinced.
As a result, the interpretation amongst those who may wish to exercise their democratic right to ask their government to intervene in some way may not exist or be as informed as it ought to be.
Given that there were multiple high quality live sources of information available, I'm very dubious about the editorial decision making in this case.
Also, we must remember that the Ukrainian govt. is a democratically elected govt and therefore, in my mind, the protests are unlawful - even though I actually support their objectives. Mind you, that doesn't not condone the brutality being unleashed by the govt. but if the opposition stopped storming govt. buildings they might all be able to take pause and start negotiations and maybe hold fresh elections to clear the air.
It's interesting you say that.
Playing devils advocate If you watch the coverage on the RT channel their take on events in Kiev is wildly different to that of the western channels but then it would be easy to say 'but they would be'.
Somebody is wrong, it would be easy to say it's RT but in fairness they report on the ongoing appalling behaviour of the Bahrain and Saudi Governments, those events don't seem to receive much coverage on our own news channels unless (in the case of Bahrain) there's an F1 Race!
But I guess that all news channels have an angle.
You think that it is wrong for people to stand up to a government they do not support or endorse unless they obtain permission to do so from said government?
How utterly bizarre!
Ultimately, those buildings belong to the people, not the government. The state serves the people and as such, must do so by popular consent. It would appear to me that the Ukrainian government has lost a fair proportion of that consent.
As such, It is the responsibility of the government to hold free and fair elections at the earliest opportunity, thus allowing the population to appropriately express its will.
But I digress, the thread isn't really about that!
This is kind of the point. The initial incursion by the police occurred around 22:00 UK time and lasted for around 45 minutes to an hour (my estimate).
The events during that time were inadequately covered by all 24 hour news channels thus denying many casual viewers the opportunity to be informed to the fullest extent and form their own views on what was unfolding.
Sure, they all do to greater and lesser extents.
Best thing you can do is simply present a live, uninterrupted feed (excluding technical difficulties) with an informed and neutral commentary.
Instead people are now left confused and woefully uninformed about a massively serious situation on our doorstep.
As for events in other parts of the world, I see no reason why they shouldn't receive similar coverage but would reiterate the points I made earlier which relate to why this is of particular relevance to UK viewers.
As it stands, we're beginning to see cold war proxy behaviour by Russia and the US over Ukraine.
The opposition must have a voice. No democracy should fear protests.