why are network TV news brands falling over each other to get our pics and vidz from the terror zone? I can understand ‘one wants it they all want it’, but what is it they want?
Pictures of sub standard quality of no great importance, there are AP & Reuters vans in London and they will be beaming clean feed live within minutes of an incident. if the networks have broadcast quality pictures why go for wobble and smudgie low res. They want to be edgy. TV news wants a new angle and perspective. In doing so they are lowering technical and journalistic standards. Eye witness reporting, mixed with blogging and podcasting has its space. Its cross over to mainstream TV makes me a little uncomfortable. We have come through an era where the top story on the evening news was the location where a pre arranged SNG van would give a live piece to camera even when there was no news there, think of all the failed Northern Ireland talks, a break through never comes but the cameras keep rolling, keeping something else off the news agenda. Now with 3G and video phones prim proper news channels are giving way to me TV even if there is little value in the pictures and less in the sound on offer. There has been times in the past where amature footage was all that was available and it was used with the “amature footage” bar added to the graphic, think Omagh for example, this higher quality image and its news value and uniqueness is good use of available footage, 3 dozen nokia’s from any angel most times wont reach that level of need for our news intake, but still they use it, and still they beg for it to be sent to them and not rival TV services. Today I heard a live eyewitness report from London including bad language which was directed at reporters circling an eyewitness while she gave her story to BBC news 24. Each to their own, ham cams have their place and importance, we are not so hungry that we must lower the standard so far that what we end up with is citizen band reporting just because its cool.