Bad taste BBC?

Just flicked on the BBC news channel and had to switch off. The coverage of the funeral of the murdered girl from Wales left me feeling a bit sick in the stomach. is it really neccessary to show this live funeral. It felt very intrusive and hardly news. The news was the story of the murder. Does the BBC have to turn every private moment in these situations into a media circus?

«1

Comments

  • I agree with you.

    There seems to be this "collective grief" thing which the media has started tapping into (perhaps even promoting) which is not at all healthy.

    What happened to keeping a respectful distance? Unless you are a friend or family member of this little girl it didn't happen to you.

  • It's not just a BBC thing. But I tend to agree - it's very prurient.

  • Quite.  I never liked the period when they showed every repatriation through Wootton Bassett, with close-ups of the family crying as the coffin went past.  News just in: grieving people cry.

  • Actually, my biggest beef is with the makers of documentaries about sad subjects. They are by definition sad and tear-jerking - we don't need sad music to prompt us to feel sad about sad things. It's manipulation. The best docs don't have music soundtracks.

  • That does sound intrusive. Presumably they got the OK from the family ?



    What did disturb me is that on the BBC website (and lots of others) the US Authorities have released video footage of the gunman prowling the corridors at the US Navy Yard. I'm sure it's exactly what he would have wanted. Lots of attention and now it'll all be over Youtube - to inspire the future generation of psychopaths.



    I fail to see what they thought it would achieve ?
  • totally agree with screamy.seems like a trend where people have to feel that they have been peronally affected by a tradegy.....

    someone dies within 10 miles of them and they have to proclaim their grief....when they hardley even knew them image

  • If the family are ok with it it doesn't bother me - they may welcome the funeral being on TV.   Who says funerals shouldn't be public, very often the last thing grieving people want is to be left alone.

  • There's a vast difference between "public" and "live on TV" though.

     I don't doubt the family are in agreeement with it - it's still a step too far IMO.

     

  • In my opinion it is a step too far.  A funeral is a very private thing that should be limited to friends and family only.  There is a trend for this sort of public grief nowadays which seems very bad taste to me.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    Its TV.

    Its all about entertainment, even the news, even the weather. Even the biggest disaster on the planet is broadcast masquerading as concern but its still made to be entertaining.

  • This wasn't just some some cameras live outside the church. This was live minute by minute coverage of the whole thing. I couldn't watch it but kept putting it back on and it seemed to be blanket coverage. A murdered girl had a funeral. Yes we get that and maybe that should be reported but it just seems like sheer voyeurism to watch the whole thing. I wouldn't go to a funeral just because I was intersted in the death. I would go if I was a close friend or family member. So why  would i want to be a viewer watching the whole thing? 

  • Completely agree SR.

     

  • So presumably there was also a corrispondent commentating ? What was he saying; and there is the mother who is crying, and there are 2 friends looking very sad. Sick b#st#rds

  • The newsreader just read the headlines. " hundreds of voyeurs attend the funeral of ...." Surely she meant hundreds of mourners?

     

  • 24hr news has a lot to answer for.

    Shame the BBC is unable to resist joining in.

    Commentator said this (paraphrased, but close)   "You can see from the way the coffin is being carried, just how lightweight it is.........  Nobody has been able to find little April's body and all that can be buried are the tiny fragments found by police"

    Crass reporting  image

  • Some of you lot must be watching it just so you can be appalled ?  

    I can't comment on how it's being covered as I've been at work all day, it may have been crass, but I still don't see that covering the funeral is necessarily so.   

  • Funnily enough I put it on to get the latest news. The annoyance of not getting the news on the news channel was not the worst of it. Like i said, I felt so sickened by it I had to turn it off.

  • i agree that it isn't news. very cheap (as in cost, not taste) and lazy journalism.

    but i don't agree that the coverage is intrusive. the funeral (street procession, horse-drawn hearse) was a very public event. i don't think anyone's grief was exploited.

  • popsider wrote (see)

    Some of you lot must be watching it just so you can be appalled ?  

    I can't comment on how it's being covered as I've been at work all day, it may have been crass, but I still don't see that covering the funeral is necessarily so.   

    Well I haven't watched it at all. Covering it would be expected, possibly even live if the cameras were only outside the church but inside?  Ghoulish.

    But let's face it, it's all faux sympathetic stuff - the media would be gutted if paedophiles stopped killing little girls.

  • What I don't get is there being a service in Welshpool 40 miles away at the same time as her funeral.

  • Screamapillar wrote (see)

    But let's face it, it's all faux sympathetic stuff - the media would be gutted if paedophiles stopped killing little girls.

     

    I'm sure that there isn't a single journalist that would remotely adhere to that view - and I guess that most would be genuinely hurt at the suggestion.

    We all know you love to go OTT from time to time, for effect.  And it's very often entertaining.  But not this time. That last phrase is badly misjudged.

  • Runny Knows wrote (see)
    Screamapillar wrote (see)

    But let's face it, it's all faux sympathetic stuff - the media would be gutted if paedophiles stopped killing little girls.

     

    I'm sure that there isn't a single journalist that would remotely adhere to that view - and I guess that most would be genuinely hurt at the suggestion.

    We all know you love to go OTT from time to time, for effect.  And it's very often entertaining.  But not this time. That last phrase is badly misjudged.

    No it isn't. Ask yourself why missing girls get more attention than missing boys. While you're at it, look up "missing white woman syndrome." 

    And please point me to an example of going "OTT for effect". I don't post anything "for effect" and am surprised you think I do.

  • I work in the media and I'm not hoping paedophiles will keep killing little girls.

    Just so that you know. But thanks anyway for the generalization.

  • I think the phrase was effective in getting over Screampillar's point. In what way was it badly misjudged? Journalist for years have traded on people's misery and not given a damn about the victims feelings. Like Milly Dowler's family for example? 

  • Individual journalists - no, probably not, although I have to wonder how some of them sleep at night sometimes when they're doing their editors' bidding.

    The media as a collective revel in it. It was revelling in it yesterday just as it revelled in Madeleine McCann, Holly Wells & Jessica Chapman and  Joanna Yeates. As it revelled in Jack the Ripper (incidentally, a nom de plume invented by the newspapers) all those years ago.

    It sells and, in the end, that's all that matters.

     

     

  • I know where you're coming from screamapillar - clearly they go OTT and sell a lot of TV advertising / newspapers on the back of these stories. But I took, and still take, offence at the original statement to which I took exception. And surprised that you now express that these predatory journalists want paedophiles to carry on killing little girls, over little boys.

    You do write things for effect... as I do sometimes.  It's not a criticism. I find you an interesting poster, because you put things across in a colourful way.  But sometimes, when we look for colour, we get flippant and make mistakes.    I had thought that was one of those occasions for you... but it seems you stand by your original statement.

    If you believe it, OK. It's clear. Apologies for thinking you'd made an error of judgement in posting it.

  • Runny Knows wrote (see)

    24hr news has a lot to answer for.

    Shame the BBC is unable to resist joining in.

    Commentator said this (paraphrased, but close)   "You can see from the way the coffin is being carried, just how lightweight it is.........  Nobody has been able to find little April's body and all that can be buried are the tiny fragments found by police"

    Crass reporting  image

    The problem is that successive BBC-hating governments have demanded that it compete with other broadcasters, rather than stick to its remit to educate, inform and entertain. So there's a sense in which it is given no choice but to join in with cess pool, 24-hour reporting of this nature.

  • Muttley wrote (see)

    I work in the media and I'm not hoping paedophiles will keep killing little girls.

    Just so that you know. But thanks anyway for the generalization.

    I also work in the media and would like to second your comments. Most journalists are ordinary people doing an ordinary, sometimes stressful job, and most aren't particularly well paid either. And 99.9 per cent of us simply try to do the best job we can, showing respect to the truth and to people.

  • Runny Knows wrote (see)

    I know where you're coming from screamapillar - clearly they go OTT and sell a lot of TV advertising / newspapers on the back of these stories. But I took, and still take, offence at the original statement to which I took exception. And surprised that you now express that these predatory journalists want paedophiles to carry on killing little girls, over little boys.

    You do write things for effect... as I do sometimes.  It's not a criticism. I find you an interesting poster, because you put things across in a colourful way.  But sometimes, when we look for colour, we get flippant and make mistakes.    I had thought that was one of those occasions for you... but it seems you stand by your original statement.

    If you believe it, OK. It's clear. Apologies for thinking you'd made an error of judgement in posting it.

    OK - no probs. Thanks for clarifying.

  • Peter Collins wrote (see)
    Muttley wrote (see)

    I work in the media and I'm not hoping paedophiles will keep killing little girls.

    Just so that you know. But thanks anyway for the generalization.

    I also work in the media and would like to second your comments. Most journalists are ordinary people doing an ordinary, sometimes stressful job, and most aren't particularly well paid either. And 99.9 per cent of us simply try to do the best job we can, showing respect to the truth and to people.

    Peter Collins wrote (see)
    Muttley wrote (see)

    I work in the media and I'm not hoping paedophiles will keep killing little girls.

    Just so that you know. But thanks anyway for the generalization.

    I also work in the media and would like to second your comments. Most journalists are ordinary people doing an ordinary, sometimes stressful job, and most aren't particularly well paid either. And 99.9 per cent of us simply try to do the best job we can, showing respect to the truth and to people.

    I don't doubt that you're above board Peter, but 99.9% of journalists show respect to the truth and to people? Do me a favour, I flatly refuse to believe it. That or the allegedly shady practices of the 0.1% as revealed by the Leveson Inquiry mean that the 99.9% must number about half a million.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.