Sometime if you watch daytime television , especially live news ,then you see things you are
not supposed to. This afternoon I was in the gym,where there are quite a few wall mounted televisions, and you have to watch something if you want to lesson the boredom of cycling.
I was watching Sky news,where there was a non-stop coverage of the flood area ,when the reporter went to talk to a resident of Tewksbury. She handed him the microphone and moved aside. The man who was obviously fed up with the media circus spoke with great feeling and eloquence.
This , he said, is a dissaster area, but it is not a circus. There are so many journalists/ camera crews and others from the media that we cant move. He went on to say that their vans and cars were parked everywhere and it was getting increasingly difficult to move around. Go away, he said , peoples lives have become misery here,we dont want a constant presence of media here.
I tend to agree. Watching the 6pm news, there was the usual crowd, the chief reporter, then he had one or two assistants who were going round and talking to people. And when the regional news started, it had both the main presenters from Bristol, another female reporter who has waded into the water while the other two stood on dry land and then the weatherman ,who too has travelled to Gloucester to report.
And that was just the BBC`s Six O clock team. Then there is news 24, news on BBC4, Cannel4, ITV, and Sky,and so it goes on. Do we need to watch constant shots of people being un-ceremoniously winched up to the helicopter?
Constantly asking them how they are coping , and showing shot after shot of peoples misery and ruined lives.What purpose does it serve? I have heard stories of the Dunkirk spirit, and how during the war and in other times of crisis the British people helped each other and those who needed looking after. They did`nt have the media then showing these things. Those who are around and can will and do their best for others.
What is the point of twenty four hour rolling news I wonder. They go into the minute detaile of every news item to fill the time. Often not needed, but they cant just sit there not saing anything can they?
After the abduction of Madeline,the same media circus was in evidence,BBC alone had, when I last counted,about ten reporters there. The explanation given is that this is in public interest. Of course it is,but is any purpose served by having wall to wall coverage of a disaster/ a child abduction or anything else.
I feel quite guilty, sitting in my dry and comfortable lounge, watching the misery of these people. But it becomes after a while a kind of t.v.show,which you can turn off or over to another channel. That man was right ,it is becoming a kind of entertainment which we can turn on and off when we have had enough.
Would it not be possible to have just ONE t.v/radio presence there,which will broadcast in the main bulletin the progressor the devolpments from any such area, And the same footage could be released to other t.v.stations too.
What purpose is served by costant coverage, nne of us can do anything ,if we could then we wont need these condecending newspeople to tell us.