Seems Radio 4 did a 2008 Now Show round up and our ‘quake video was on it.
I’ve been trying (a little) to shake off that video for three reasons. First, I sound a bit drunk. Second, its shoddily shot — but that can be blamed on the previous point, rather than poor video skills. Promise.
Thirdly, and by far the most important, I feel the message portrayed in the video doesn’t adequatly describe how I feel about the situation. It seems I’m annoyed at the BBC for not going big on the earthquake like Sky did. Not so. I’m annoyed because it wasn’t mentioned. Equally, Sky’s coverage was a bit over the top.
(On a side point, Sky made a promotional video using my footage – and I understand they’ve used it to promote their breaking news pedigree. Good — I’m very pleased with that. The key fact here is that Sky gave the public what it needed: information. The BBC lead with deathly silence.)
Luckily, some weeks later, I was given the chance to add to my thoughts on the BBC’s NewsWatch program. Sadly I can’t link — it’s no longer online.
Their defence was not that the BBC was slower, but that as it was early in the morning, the coverage on News 24 was in fact BBC World. And, thus, a minor earthquake is not important in the complete international agenda. Can’t argue with that, can you?
Well yes, I think you can.
Firstly, the first comment made by the BBC anchor was along the lines of “We’re just hearing reports…”. This suggests that it’s the first they new about it and it would also suggest that it hadn’t been held back because it wasn’t in keeping with the international news agenda — the reason given on NewsWatch.
If indeed the BBC knew about the earthquake straight away, why did they wait until an hour later to mention it? Surely this ‘unimportant’ story is even less important an extra hour after it occurred? For me it’s a choice of mention it straight away, or not mention it at all. Everything points to the news team being too slow.
I’m convinced that nobody at News 24 knew about it until the very first moment the anchor mentioned it.
But let’s get back to the BBC’s defence. I can see the logistics (and economics) of simulcasting BBC World and BBC News 24. On a normal night, I don’t have a problem with it. But what happened on earthquake night was a sizable amount of people were awoken from their sleep by a large, continuous thud. My first thoughts were that our stairs — already a bit shaky — had collapsed. My second thought was earthquake. When we went outside, a lady was telling us there’d been a bomb. Another said that the pharmacy they were building down the road had fallen down.
All silly assumptions. The point is, though, that we DIDN’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. Yes, it was minor. Yes, by midday the next day, it was nothing more than a nib on the national news. But when it had just happenened, nobody knew what was going on.
Sky News told us. BBC News didn’t. Which provided the better service to the public?
“Minor earthquake in Lincolnshire”…. good, let’s go to bed. That’s how it should have all happened.
The irony of all this is that I now work for the BBC. And it’s no exaggeration to say that I love it. Even in my small role, I’m extremely proud of my contribution to the greatest news-gathering organisation in the world bar none.
Plenty of people have used my video to see it as some sort of ammo to fling at the licence fee. Bunch of fools, I say.
