´óÏó´«Ã½ in the news, Thursday
| 10:09 UK time, Thursday, 19 October 2006
The Times: Reports that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has decided that religious symbols can be worn by newsreaders, but that they must not distract viewers (based on this blog entry). ()
The Guardian: A report on the ethics of reporting on the Mills/McCartney divorce, featuring comments from the head of ´óÏó´«Ã½ TV News, Peter Horrocks. ()
The Telegraph: "A secret guide that has helped generations of ´óÏó´«Ã½ newsreaders pronounce difficult words and odd-sounding names is to be made public for the first time." ()
Comments
According to the Times the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has decided that religious symbols must not distract the viewers.
Are they referring to viewers who are not distracted by religious symbols, or religious symbols that no none regards as religious symbols?
My main distraction is the newsreaders. Some of them should be replaced by plainer, more ordinary newsreaders. What is the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to decide about that?