Instant information
We've got used to our news being served instantly, with pictures always available from anywhere in the world, and a correspondent appearing at the scene from a live link soon after. It's one of the reasons why the news channels have thrived - we've been able to use digital technology to satisfy the audience demand for instant information.
So what happens when the pictures or the interviews aren't available straight away? We've had two examples this week of stories where we wanted to provide detailed coverage, but where the logistics or the politics made it much harder to do so.
First, Iraq. The reports started coming through on Tuesday evening that there had been a near the city of Mosul. A curfew had been imposed so no journalists were being allowed to enter the area. None of the local news agencies were providing pictures, so throughout Tuesday night and much of Wednesday morning, our coverage was restricted to showing graphic maps of the area, and talking to our team in Baghdad.
Eventually some pictures of people being treated in hospital did emerge, but at the time of writing, there are still no pictures from the scene of the attack. And yet it looks as though it's led to the worst loss of life in Iraq in any incident this year, so we have a clear need to give the story a great deal of prominence. 
In our flagship programme World News Today we interviewed our correspondent in Baghdad, Richard Galpin. He was able to pull together information from local sources, and we've also been speaking to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ World Service Middle East analyst Roger Hardy, who has briefed us on the Yazidi minority group which has been the target of the attacks. But our staff are still trying to get hold of people who can give us direct eyewitness accounts and paint a more accurate picture of exactly how many people have been killed or injured.
The slightly easier task is to place the event in some sort of context - who might be behind the attacks, what they are hoping to achieve, what reaction has there been from the Iraqi government and from the White House. But first-hand accounts of what happened are vital to our reporting.
The same is true of the . The problems for us are similar - we know there has been a major loss of life, and unusually the North Koreans have asked for help. That in itself is seen as an indication of the seriousness of the situation. But North Korea is a closed country and Western journalists are rarely allowed to report from there. 
We have a team based in South Korea, and we're trying to get people into the North. But for now we have to rely on pictures emerging either on North Korean television or from any news agencies which are able to operate there.
We have no real idea of how many people have died, or how the rescue effort is progressing. Our journalists continue to push for new information - and these days we also routinely appeal for information on air and on our web pages. But once again, we're struggling to give the story the kind of coverage it probably deserves.
Comments
Richard, it's heresy I know, but you greatly over-estimate the value of pictures and reporters on-site for anything but the biggest stories. From the latter, most of what we get is speculation and guesswork; their contribution is often just not worth the effort. You ask "So what happens when the pictures or the interviews aren't available straight away?", to which I reply "does it matter?". I can wait for a more considered and accurate appraisal later. Besides, how many pictures of, for instance, maimed/injured/distressed people do I need to see? In your frenetic world, it's probably difficult to appreciate that many people now regard "news" as little more than background noise. There is so much trivia presented breathlessly (and badly) that I long for a more sober and considered approach to handling news events. I'm not holding my breath, though.
Reduce finances to the overall ´óÏó´«Ã½ News departments and there will be even less locally based ´óÏó´«Ã½ reporters.
Jon articulates many of the feelings I have about your coverage of current events. You value 'speed to air' above accuracy and detail. This is evidenced by the obsession with 'breaking news'. So often the presenter struggles to make sense of a brief report snatched from the printer one wonders how you can think this is useful to the viewing public. When did it become compulsory to operate a newsroom as if it were a battlefield? Take your time to get it right and your staff will benefit along with your viewers. I also don't appreciate the shaky pictures of body parts delivered without warning and then looped, over and over again. Richard, please put quality first.
I agree very much with John Anderson. Most of the things which journalists get excited about will barely merit a footnote in history. The obsession with having a journalist on site regardless of the value added to the story is at best costly and at worst inflates the importance of the story.
There is little new under the sun. Read Tony Benn's or MacMillan's diaries. We all have been here before.
News has increasingly become speculation, much of it uninformed or fed by a spin doctor. The new motto of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should be "Spin doctor will speak waffle to spin doctor". Too often political remarks are parsed and minutely analysed by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ high priests and augurs -- the political correspondents-- on the basis of nudges, winks and unattributable briefings from spin doctors.
We seem to have reached a situation where ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists on message are faced with politicians on message and this only generates and very little light.
Accuracy, objectivity coupled with speed are the hall-marks of ´óÏó´«Ã½ reporting.Your appraisal of the abject situation in Iraq and the floods in South Korea and the constraints on journalists to give timely reporting are extremely cogent.Readers are bound to realize that objective reporting is a real talent with mind-boggling constraints.
For all that strong, sometimes harsh comments on media chasing the 'big news' or 'do evertything to get live coverage', their job is merely bringing the news. The media is not responsible for the violent patterns of the behaviour in the modern world. And they are not that mighty to swith on your TV against your will (well at least not yet). They do their job of bringing the news that produces low quality coverage and poor footages. So what? the most important thing is that we get to know what is going on.
I also agree with Jon's comments. Television news really has deteriorated in quality over the past few years - it has become extremely Americanised and sensationalist, although not quite as jongoistic, thank goodness.
Why even bother trying to cover "breaking news" stories? Much of the information reported will inevitably be inaccurate, and yet if/when corrections are made they won't matter to the judgements and opinions that people already formed.
If we encourage this culture then journalists will be rewarded for "being first" rather than "being right". This just makes it even easier for governments to spread their propaganda - since 9/11 the Pentagon has set up a massive department specifically to bombard American news outlets with its propaganda.
I would like to see a much more sober form of journalism from the ´óÏó´«Ã½.
The only television news I can bare to watch anymore is Newsnight, but even that is deteriorating in quality.
´óÏó´«Ã½ One's 6 O'Clock news is nothing but a magazine programme nowadays.
Hearing two people alternate whilst reading autocue really annoys me, like canned laughter. Rant over.