- Amanda Farnsworth
- 31 Jul 06, 03:47 PM
Tommy Sheridan - who is he? Well, if you live outside Scotland you might not really know. But if you live in Scotland or are Scottish, you may well have been glued to your sets/PCs/newspapers/phone to home!
Mr Sheridan is, for the unitiated, a Scottish politician who is currently involved in a defamation trial which includes . It makes for a heady mix; but at what point does a story of interest to one part of the UK move into the wider national arena?
It's a hard question and I'm afraid there's not a one-size-fits-all answer.
In this case, we knew we would do the biggest story in Scotland at the end of the trial.
But then today we thought it might be good to introduce those non-Scotland viewers to it before then, and as Mr Sheridan is actually questioning his own wife in the witness box today (he has fired his top QC) it was a great opportunity.
Here's a flavour of the proceedings:
The politician, who has described himself as teetotal, later questioned her about claims he had drunk alcohol. Mrs Sheridan replied: "You would not know one end of a wine bottle from the next.
"If I had read tea but wine... ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous."
Mr Sheridan asked his wife if she believed the women who had given evidence had been telling lies. She replied: "Total, utter rot."
But more generally, we look for a national resonance to a story. That can be the characters involved; or the story can illustrate an issue that's equally relevant outside Scotland, England, Lancashire or wherever. And sometimes its simply a cracking good story with no national resonance but one that will interest all viewers.
There have been times when we've of course not reported a local story nationally quickly enough. And I'm sure there will be more. And there will always be Scots who say news about the English and Welsh NHS is irrelevant to them and vice versa. Tricky business this.
Amanda Farnsworth is editor, Daytime News
Amanda Farnsworth is editor of Inside Sport.
A guide to words and names in the news, from Lena Olausson of the 大象传媒 Pronunciation Unit.
"Today's name is the Lebanese village Qana, pronounced KAA-nuh. The letter Q is a uvular consonant, a sound which does not exist in English. We always anglicise the Q in names like al-Qaeda, al-Aqsa, Umm Qasr etc. to a K sound."
(.)
Among the audience research to the 大象传媒 in the past 24 hours were many calls about Sunday night's Panorama, about the charity Interpal (). Some callers thought it was inappropriate to be broadcast amid the current situation in the Middle East, others thought it was particularly timely. Some claimed it was unbalanced; others said it was well researched. Several objected to the style of the camerawork.
We also received these e-mails:
The Panorama programme tonight was courageous and much needed in the present climate.
I've just turned off tonight's Panorama in disgust because it was fundamentally anti-religious. All religions have a political sub-strata - vide Desmond Tutu's "Anyone who says the Bible isn't a political document isn't reading the same Bible I'm reading" - and to attack one religion because you don't happen to find the political sub-strata supportive to your own prejudices is to sanction an attack on any religion by anyone who doesn't like the implications of what that religion is saying. This morning a church I know sang "Soldiers of Christ, arise!" with great gusto. OK, it isn't as detailed as the songs the Palestinian kiddies were singing - but the basic call to believers is the same.
- Alistair Burnett
- 31 Jul 06, 10:55 AM
Since the Israeli assault on Lebanon began there have been accusations and counter-accusations about breaking international humanitarian law. On The World Tonight last week the UN's Humanitarian Coordinator, Jan Egeland, accused the Israelis of breaking international law in its assault on Gaza and Lebanon and accused Hezbollah and Palestinian militants of breaking the same laws for firing missiles at civilian targets in Israel.
In response, the Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Mark Regev, who has become a familiar voice on 大象传媒 radio over the past few weeks, quoted the Geneva Conventions and the International Red Cross in Israel's defence. For good measure, he argued that Israel is doing no worse than Nato did in Serbia during the Kosovo conflct seven years ago.
So who's right? If you look at lawyers arguments about international law at sites such as https://www.crimesofwar.org you'll see there are differing views on what actually does breach these laws. Some might say that this is not unusual where law and lawyers are concerned, but it certainly begs a lot of questions.
What exactly does international humanitarian law say about the legality of military action in areas populated by civilians which - let's face it - is pretty much anywhere people think is worth fighting over? How can international law be enforced? When we asked Jan Egeland what the UN could do about these alleged crimes, he said they could draw the world's attention to it and hope the parties themselves come to their senses, which highlights that unless there is consensus in the international community about enforcing these laws, nothing much happens.
Serbia is a recent example where the international community decided to enforce these laws and there is an interesting debate going in that country about why the parties to the present Middle East violence are not being held to account in the way the Serbs have - and that's before they go on to ask why Nato has never been called to account for its bombardment of their country.
All of which keeps our airwaves busy trying to explain why there is so much confusion over international humanitarian law.
Alistair Burnett is editor of the World Tonight
Alistair Burnett is editor of the World Tonight
The Guardian: "A war is raging over perceived bias in the media's coverage of the crisis in the Middle East." ()
The Independent: "Any self-respecting TV journalist evidently wants to head to the Middle East... 大象传媒 stars have been jostling one another as they vie for attention." ()
