Leading the bulletins
Sunday brought one of those editorial dilemmas that we often face.
In the early morning, news came through that . It led the bulletins on radio and television. At around 10.30am, .
So which of these events should be at the top at lunchtime and later?
We know some of our viewers hate sports stories, and we were also aware that these tragic deaths in Afghanistan were very important too. Equally, around a third of the entire UK population watched England's World Cup quarter final, and it was a huge national as well as sporting event.
Also, when two British soldiers died last week in Afghanistan we not only led with it, but had a second report from one of our defence correspondents analysing the controversy over the mission itself, and the equipment our troops had been given to accomplish it, and another live interview. That previous coverage was also part of our thinking.
For people who don't like sports stories, the choice would be clear. But if you accept that the World Cup should be big news, the question is how big? In the end we put David Beckham at the top, although I suspect even some of our team thought it should have been the other way round. But then on the same day eight people were killed in two separate road accidents, and two women were found murdered at a massage parlour - where did those stories belong?
These sorts of choices confront us most days, and all you can do is weigh the factors as best you can, and accept that there is more than one valid view on what course was right.
Comments
Sorry but that's a simplistic excuse for getting priorities wrong and using the tragic deaths of other people within the UK to provide cover for that decision is pretty shameful.
The other deaths you mention would be expected to lead the local news and have proportionate on the main ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ One news.
Football is a huge commercial activity, and the 'resignation' of a player should in no way be allowed to trump the fact that soldiers who are far less well paid and whose names are unknown to the wider public until their deaths, lost their lives carrying out their far more important duties.
It's pretty clear that people's personal interest in football has over the last few weeks been allowed to play far too large a part in decision making.
The issue isn't so much what is important to people, its what _should_ be important to people. As such, a footballer resigning may matter to people, but it isn't important news. That's why they put sports on the back of a newspaper. I can see its a hard decision, but surely the football fans can wait 2 minutes?
I imagine it would be worth drawing up some guidelines for deciding cases like this.
Martin is bang on here. The results or goings on of the sports world simply never compare to news that should be leading bulletins when such other serious events are occurring.
If the Editor looks into his heart this decision is not about the quality of the news, but about how popular the story will be - he even goes some way to saying this by saying how many people watched the final. Around a quarter of all people watch EastEnders - this doesn't make it headline news.
News is more complicated than giving people what they want - it's about providing information and adding to the knowledge of the nation. There have been a number of occasions this world cup when ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ's coverage, particularly on News 24, has shown some very questionable editorial guidance.
Playing devil's advocate... Have any of you considered the idea that having a more popular story on first might have encouraged more people to keep watching the news? Therefore ensuring more people heard the news from Afghanistan?
Soldiers get killed in battle zones all the time. How many times does David Beckham quit? That's why it's news. It hasn't happened before. If he goes back to playing and quits a second time, then you can put it at the bottom of page 6.
I think the decision to lead with David Beckham was the right one. There's always a vocal minority protesting against any sport story, but like it or not, football plays an enormous role in the cultural life of the nation, and the resignation of the England captain is major news.
The big World Cup story was England's exit and that was the previous day. Beckham's resignation was a minor aftershock and could have been predicted in retrospect. Leading with Beckham was cheap in my view. It is a pity that ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ editors have lost their sense of having a public service duty and want to emulate magazine and red top editors. Why don't they go and work in that industry if that is the kind of glory they crave?
It was wrong decision to lead with Beckham, and the "excuses" for doing so are laughable.
The fact that the soldiers were in the British army, and Beckham captained England should be enough of a clue to report on a major story that concerns the whole of the UK first.
Next time the captain of Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland resigns, will we see that outwith the sports segment? I think not.
Yet another example of sport coming first. Oh well I suppose more money is made out of sport. Selling weopons to dveloped and undeveloped countries must be up there too in the money making. I actually think it would be a bigger money earner. Forget soldiers dying, forget overpaid sports stars (not really sport anymore it's just who'se got the most money). Lets do articles on weopons manufacturers and the route from factory floor to bullets in people.
Sport should NEVER be the lead story unless someone dies. The Hillsborough disaster clearly went beyond sport, so was an obvious front page lead. David Beckhan's resignation is a talking point, for sure, but of no real consequence, even to those of us who were glued to the set the day before.
You work for the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ, not ITV or Channel 5.
It is worrying that no one else thinks that two women being found murdered in a shop should have been the lead. Someone suggests it might lead a local news. And yet it was the brand-new story that actually signified something greater: only lightly hidden activity long ignored by police and regulatory authorities ending with murders in an ordinary high street, revealing something that could well be going on in almost every town in Britain, just as the trafficking that is only starting to be tackled nationally. Not national news because.... ? Are we still back in the 1970s when the Yorkshire Ripper's murders were considered to be of women who partially deserved it, until an "innocent girl" was killed? This was something people needed to know about nationally. There was no way that either the soldiers or Beckham should have been, by any objective judgement, the lead. Every sports fan would in any case have already known about Beckham from sports programmes, the rest would not have been interested. The coverage of death in Iraq, or any other British military operation is another matter that it is astonishing the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ has not yet found how to ensure justified coverage of without it leading the news. Your running order, indeed whole contents, should be by balanced significance, not popularity, that's the Murdoch way, giving people what they want rather than what is news and likely to affect them, the whole range of them, because you're the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ.
Personally, I think the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ was right to lead on David Beckham’s resignation. Why? Because almost twenty million people watched England’s defeat on Saturday on ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ1, and therefore, David Beckham’s resignation as the captain of our country’s football team was in the interest of an extensive amount of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ1’s audience.
As for the soldiers’ deaths, wasn’t this story covered extensively on ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ News 24?
In response to mark, who writes:
'Soldiers get killed in battlezones all the time. How many times does Beckham quit? That's why it's news.'
What if one of the two killed was a mate of yours...your father...your wife even? I bet beckham wouldn't be so important then.
Jenny
At no time did I say the story of the two woman killed was "Not national news". In responding to the blog author's attempt to excuse the demotion of the Soldier's death I said:
"other deaths you mention would be expected to lead the local news and have proportionate [coverage] on the main ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ One news."
I stated the lead item on local news because people locally might have information which could help the police bring the killers to justice.
And at no time did I even hint that the victims "partially deserved it".
Some of your post appears to allude to the claims that the 'shop' was being used as a brothel.
Without commenting on the specific case, we could at a stroke ensure greater protection for prostitutes by legalising their activities, putting into place a system of health checks and inspections and ensuring that woman who choose to enter the trade do so willingly and that no-one sees it as the only route out of debt.
The answer by Ben Rich is a disgrace & an insult to those that gave their lives in Afghanistan.
Personally I love football and I would fully expect the story about Beckham to be covered - but in the SPORTS section not the leading News item and certainly not on the day that two British soldiers lost their lives.
How can you justify the decision to lead ith the Beckham story on account of the huge audience figures for the game - how many of those people actually care who captains the side?
I am astonished that Mr Rich can respond to valid complaints in such a smug and condescending manner
I am very disapointed with the news headlines today ( Sunday 02 July).
The top news story of the day, was the resignation of David Beckham
from
being England captain.
So are you really telling me that, that is more important than our
soliders being killed in Afghanistan? He maybe captain of a failed
football team, but in real terms, life and death, who really cares. To
much attention goes to those with fame and money. Our soliders risk
there lives day after day both in Afghanistan and Iraq for far far less
money, far less praise and far less attention, (unless its bad
attention).
My husband is in the army and he is not currantly out there, however he
has been in both Iraq wars and went again to Iraq last year. I would
rather hear about our boys out there, the good work they are doing, not
just the bad, but we don't hear that, we get more news on Becks, ohh
look at his hair, ohh Posh has a new dress etc etc, they have enough
media coverage.
Lets now focus on the real current events in the real world, the
england
team are home, we dont need to hear about them any more.
Shame on you for putting football first when two inocent men lost their
lives.
Beckham who has the public at his feet and more money than the soldiers
who are what this country is about, (unselfish, hardworking, determined
and see through all tasks to the bitter end)
It makes me sick, that no one cares
The explanation offered for the priorities displayed is inadequate. In essence you are saying that celebrity matters more than sacrifice. This is supposed to be the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ not Hello magazine.
Serious professional journalists weigh the significance of a story. The belated resignation of a failed football captain is pretty trivial, and I am speaking as an English football fan. The deaths of 2 young men in the service of their country, and the long term implications for the nation of being drawn into an Afghan war, are potentially very significant. Yes an editor is paid to make difficult decisions when weighing priorites. On this occasion you made a crass misjudgement.
Gus Krouwel
"These sorts of choices confront us most days, and all you can do is weigh the factors as best you can, and accept that there is more than one valid view on what course was right"
Pass the sick-bag Alice.
That's going straight to Psueds Corner.
Martin,
I was addressing Ben Rich, the blog author's comments rather than yours, really. The issue of the national news lead, rather than simple inclusion, in particular.
Of course I was alluding to the suggestions about the background to the two women's murders, which might be quite wrong, but I'm not seeing any further news on the subject. Local news outlets would of course have responded to police pleas for information, but why would one assume it was a local matter? Vice is clearly often international, and criminals are usually very mobile.
Your other comments, it seems to me, serve to boost my point that the women's murders were the big new story with wide and important implications. If a double murder on a local high street doesn't justify raising those issues, as well as those of police and local authority complicity, I cannot imagine what would. And yet the story seems to have gone to earth, nationally.