大象传媒

Ah, but there was the time -- the day Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1997 -- when every single correspondent insert in the 1800 was live, and the whole bulletin was read from Hong Kong by, er, me.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It's obvious why 大象传媒 doesn't like the thought of a live broadcast even by its own correspondents the way American newscasters do. The despotic tyrannical European mind does not like events it doesn't have complete control over. No telling what people might say if spontaniety were to be allowed to prevail. It might result in an unrehearsed slip of the tongue, a forbidden word, an unwelcome cough, sneeeze, belch, or worse. Or most frightful of all, it might result in...an original thought. Now that would surely be an intollerable event. Far better to tape, scrutinize, and delete. After all, what does 大象传媒 pay censors for anyway?

Whilst it's nice to have a calm, ordered programme, Live inserts into a news programme can, and do, work very well... when done properly.

Admittedly, this is what PM would do right before the 1800, and Today, and all the others, but if it works well to explain a story thats late breaking, it shouldnt be frowned upon.

The only other way to have it would correspondents filing live via satellite or whatever they use, but just before the programme goes on air.

As far as i'm concerned, with the 大象传媒, everything will have been checked and double checked against 大象传媒 sources and known facts, and have sound legal clearence before being broadcast, and the reporters should know to double check everything. This makes a live insert a very valuable way of imparting a story to the waiting public.

I'm all for them. Pre recorded packages as well, but a live insert to update the latest facts of the story... but with one condition. Only when necessary... a court case that was adjourned at 12md does not require one, whereas a important statement or meeting in government would.

#2 - it is in the 大象传媒 style guide, as far as I recall, and yes, the should get this right.

As for the 1800 being pre-recorded - I thought that was because all the live inserts were going to the 大象传媒 One news broadcast...

I wonder what Marcus did before the 大象传媒 had blogs.

#7 - probably the best post i've ever read on a bbc blog.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I agree with #2 ImusOnAir.

Unfortunately his/her comment has since been censored (although it didn鈥檛 break any rules).

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

So the reason why Radio 4 tend to not use live linkups is because of class?

Who are your essays aimed at?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The 大象传媒鈥檚 supervisory body said on Friday prank calls by chat show host Jonathan Ross and comedian Russell Brand were 鈥漡rossly offensive and should never have been broadcast鈥�, but did not call for Ross to be sacked".

In my opinion 大象传媒's Trust decision on Ross is offensive of greater magnitude than the offence caused by Ross and Brand!! Ross should have been sacked summarily along with those who had the responsibility to control his behaviour.

The whole episode has become a referendum on the way the 大象传媒 is funded to feather the lifestyle of its artists, presenters and the senior management.

The public has voted with profound disgust that the present funding arrangements of 大象传媒 is NOT fit for the purpose. The very people who can ill afford are being made to pay for the life style of those they hate. Politicians ignore this call at their peril. We need 鈥榩oll tax鈥� type protests to get rid of 大象传媒 in its present form. SELL off 大象传媒 now!! GWB could do with few billions of its proceeds

Looks like the daytime censor has an entirely different view of the rules than the nighttime and weekend censor. Tass had nothing on 大象传媒 when it came to censorship and propaganda.

I've been less and less happy about 大象传媒 radio news over the past few years, perhaps some will say that's because I'm just a grumpy old man, but the reason I am unhappy is because I'm hearing more and more of "the same".

That same sound clips come up time after time from 1300 to midnight. I'd love to know more about what went on across the UK, on radio, the way that the 大象传媒 Nationwide programme on TV used to do.


In response to comment #4 - I wonder why so many R4 and R5 shows seem to be run on a stopwatch without any flexibility (even at 0259 when "Up All Night" has someone from the USA or Canada (or elsewhere) on the phone, they have to wind up (no matter how interesting the material) because the jingle for the news starts up and the presenter has to bow down to the 大象传媒 schedule. On R4, the format for Today means they have so many trailers, weather, sport and news headline sections, that when there is a good discussion going, that gets 'cut short' for some (daft) 'package' and then the presents try not to crash the 0900 pips. It's like the final 2 metres in a sprint some mornings to end before the first pip!

The same happens on phone-ins which is really annoying - a US station I listen to (WGN in Chicago) has the time pips in the background but the presenters have the flexibility to break for the news or delay the news if something interesting is being discussed.

Seems far more 'friendly' handling (and while I'm on a roll, why do 大象传媒 presenters cut any interviewee off after saying their goodbye - so many N Americans must feel 'snubbed' that the 2 seconds it takes for them to say "bye" or "thanks" gets snipped - it may be "the way we do it" but it's plain rude, 大象传媒!)

probably around 50% of the time these live feeds... they either can't be heard right, or cant hear the response from the studio.
Either way, it doesnt really make for the best reporting. Yeah, as stated, some times wehn it cant be helped, it does add a certain element of urgency,but it sohould definitely be left for cases when it cant be helped.

On the Radio 4 Six O' Clock News (or simply "the 1800" as it's known within the 大象传媒) historically, we've tried to avoid live inserts from correspondents. Why do You have this policy or better said why do you do things this way? When I am listening to my favorite radio I like to hear some live appearances of some guest speakers or guest moderators.

Well Dominic you have me intrigued. Can you explain just what went wrong with the 大象传媒 rule book when it was announced that six gunmen had been shot at Delhi Airport? Was that not a "live" (and entirely accurate) insert that was later erroneously turned into a news story?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.