Phones, letters, e-mails
| 09:11 UK time, Monday, 3 July 2006
Among the audience reponse received by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in the past 24 hours include this e-mail from Father Paul Nicholas:
Two soldiers are killed in Afghanistan and the top news on ´óÏó´«Ã½ One is Beckham's resignation?? The ´óÏó´«Ã½ seems to becoming more like a tabloid newspaper rather than a serious news giver.
The level of sport coverage, both on the TV schedules and in news programmes, is often a cause for some complaint. Though some viewers yesterday said had not been given enough coverage.
A radio listener complained that warnings about the dangers of the hot weather for old people were given only in Celsius, when most of them would relate more to temperatures in Fahrenheit. Others contacted us to welcome Nick Clarke back to the radio, after he presented Radio 4's Any Questions.
Comments
I totally agree. On the day the 60 people were killed in Baghdad England's defeat in the football was the top news item and on the day that an Israeli soldier was kidnapped and two others killed, again the football was the top story. I'm not anti-football or anti-England, I just think death and instability in the Middle East should be given higher priority than sport stories.
There are good reasons many of us complain about the priority sport is given within the news headlines - especially during big 'events'.
On ´óÏó´«Ã½ One Saturday's evening news was meant to follow the football. It's a sure bet that the first item would have been a story about an event anyone who was interested in would have watched and those tuning into the news might have chosen to avoid.
In the event the football ran late and someone sensible shunted the news back 45 minutes so that Doctor Who could start on time.
(BTW: a huge 'thank you' to whoever made that decision.)
On ´óÏó´«Ã½ News24 the World Cup has been given near blanket coverage across all bulletins despite the fact that the channel also has regular WC reports and general sports slots.
What makes it even worse is that the presenter's own enthusiasm for the sport is allowed to creep into every acre of coverage leading to an unwelcome increase in the amateur hour comedy routines the channel's daytime presenters seem unable to avoid at the best of times.
And let's be honest, the story about Eng-Ger-Land's exit from the cup could be summed up quite fairly as:
"players who spend too much time recording TV adverts for razors, pizzas and phones can't play world class football".
I agree with the comments about priorities on the News. Too much obsession with football. I'm sure those young soldiers would have loved to be at home watching the World Cup, but they were in some remote, dangerous country fighting and being killed (and for what??) Then to add insult to injury the news of their death is relegated to second place. Two more families with a genuine reason for tears, unlike the grown men shown weeping after England's defeat. Let's get a sense of proportion, please.
The decision to lead with Beckham's resignation was a terrible mistake. What twisted set of news values made that a more important story (covered at great length and with the presenter stressing at the end that it was the "main story" of the night) than the deaths of two soldiers in Afganistan? Especially given that was a day when it began to become clear that we seem to have sleepwalked into a full scale war in that country without any of our political or military elite seeming to have noticed - something which would have been obvious if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ News Sunday editorial team had read the impressive reporting by Christina Lamb in the Sunday Times. (Obviously they eventually did since she made it onto the radio news on both Sunday and Monday. But how much better to have got her on the TV together with the soldier story on Sunday night). The most baffling thing to me is that not only did the ´óÏó´«Ã½ make the error of leading the Six o Clock news with Beckham but no one had managed to put the mistake right by the time the 10 o clock news came round. Anyone might think it was a deliberate decision rather than a crass misjudgement. Why bother to have a public sector broadcaster if the news values it espouses are no better than the commercial sector.
Someone needs to stand up and take responsibility for the incredulous judgement call on both the 6 and 10 o'clock news on Sunday that Beckham resigning was somehow more important than 2 of our troops being killed in Afganistan.
Or in language that patricular editor might understand, you've done the equivalent of stamping on Lord Reith's Goolies, so do the decent thing and follow Darling DB's example before you get the Red Card.
People die all over the world every day. I'd rather hear about the world cup every four years than more of the same headlines day in, day out.
I wonder if, had the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish captains resigned, their departure would have been given such a high profile in the news running order. I'm guessing there is no way that they would have appeared ahead of the sad news from Afghanistan.
On the point about temperatures, the broadcast media in the UK has been giving primacy to Celsius over Fahrenheit for years and years. Virtually the whole world uses Celsius, for reasons that it is not necessary to go into here. People have had long enough to get used to the Celsius system.
If the UK changed its currency from sterling to euro, would you expect the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to continue quoting prices in pounds for years after conversion? I support the ´óÏó´«Ã½ 100% for only giving temperatures in Celsius in the 21st century!
I also sent a complaint to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ about the editorial decision that David Beckham's resignation was somehow more newsworthy than the deaths of 2 soldiers in Afghanistan. I also commented that I was equally upset that they relegated news coverage of the commemoration of the 90th anniversary of the Somme to second place, behind coverage of England's departure from the World Cup, a match which had immediately preceded the news. It seems that the editor faced with the choice World War or World Cup decided the former was less important than the latter. Very sad, very sad indeed.