All the news [that's not too shocking]

The Guardian, in its media section, picks out some of the new BBC editorial guidelines. On their commitment to “accuracy is more important than speed”, the BBC say – “We should be honest and open about what we don’t know and avoid unfounded speculation”. Indeed. And on the time-delay to be used in live coverage of potentially shocking events. The BBC have tried to minimize concern about the time-delay by emphasising that it will only apply in specific circumstances... But should the BBC be editing out [no longer] live news images that they judge to be “distressing” for viewers?

  • The Beach Tree

    I would hope the time delay might be used, not to edit these scenes out completely, but to possibly allow the insertion of appropriate warnings.

    That way everyone wins.

    Personnaly, I can’t say I see any particular good in showing the most horrendous barbarity for shock value. The key surely is to disemminate the truth, in whole, not to display it visually on every occasion without any form of control.

  • Gonzo

    Pete, I really hope that cough of yours gets better soon. Maybe you should take something for it before it settles.


    Anyway, I’m annoyed about the live coverage being delayed. The Beslan coverage had me glued to the TV, and I really doubt if even hardened news junkies would force their children to watch News 24 during a bloodbath.

  • peteb

    I’ll increase the medication, Gonzo


    It’s the implied sanitising of the news that concerns me.. We know distressing things happen in the world.