Why do the BBC insist on sending their news reporters out when weather conditions are really awful? On the past couple of days, when we've had really awful snow storms across most of the British Isles, on the early morning BBC Breakfast programme, it seemed necessary to send several news reporters out in the midst of what looked like blizzards, to stand next to a motorway (standing on a bridge, I might add, although I bet the producers would have liked them to stand on the hard shoulder or even in the central reservation) to do a piece straight to camera? What on earth does it add to anything? They did it when we had some really awful floods a few years ago, and even had a poor reporter actually standing in the middle of a flooded road, with the water lapping around his ankles. Why not just have them in the studio? Would it not be safer? Even when there are high seas, someone has to stand on the esplanade or as near as possible to the sea at some remote seaside location, with the waves crashing over the parapet. It wouldn't just be the reporter who's life is at risk. What about the cameraman, no doubt a sound recordist and probably an assistant. How do they justify this and what about doing some sort of risk assessment? I don't think it's just the BBC who do this, but we watch mostly their news output. I expect ITV and Channel Four do this, although ITN does the news on television for most of the commercial channels. I begin to wonder if the reporters get a choice for this type of reporting, or do they have to draw straws to go to these locations? Does it really add anything by putting these reporters in these locations? Would it be easier, and a good deal safer, to just let them do their report in a warm and dry studio?
No comments:
Post a Comment