London Terror Incidents

I'm in two minds about it really. I think the comment is probably overly mean but on the other hand, if that's how the poster feels he comes across on screen he's entitled to have that opinion. I'm not sure I'd personally voice it though as I'd rather not be mean about someone, well apart from Theresa May and James Corden. Just because you know the guy that doesn't make AlexS objectively wrong and in fact it could be argued you're in less of position to make a comment on how they come across on screen as you're more likely to be blinded or defensive of any faults. Of course the poster wasn't making a comment on him as a person but how he finds him as broadcasters.

As someone who's worked on long with people that I had previously had an negative opinion of based on their broadcasting style, I can tell you your views soon change when you get to know them personally.

For the record I'm not aware of Lay so I have no comment to give and there is good chance I would get a different impression of the guy.

I think you've got to move away to someone extent of the position of 'I know them how dare you say that' but I admire the fact you voice your truly held opinion and are loyal to your colleagues.

I'm sure he is but I think his style of presentations comes across much better on appointment to view in depth/analysis type programmes such as Hardtalk and Dateline rather than on a rolling news channel or news bulletin.

Peter Sissions was a bit like that, I cant remember what it was be he had to deal with a live event- was its the Glasgow Airport? No idea but that is a fair point, some people are better at other things.

On how a merged BBC World News would have coped - the problem is that in the early minutes of both these incidents, more so the Manchester one, it's not 100% clear that they are terrorist incidents. That affects how much attention a story is given in that crucial first hour or two when people are looking for and trying to gather information. A domestic station is always going to pay that story much more attention than a world station wherever it's based. It becomes a lead story for World when it's known it's a terror attack.

As it stands I think the BBC has the best of all worlds - if you count the amount of hours the BBC actually has to produce dedicated programming for the BBC News Channel it's actually quite low now, but it can still react if something happens.

In terms of today's extended news I don't think that's ideal, but Question Time couldn't have gone ahead tonight and there's a hefty gaping hole in the schedule so it's the best solution.

Last night's incident was different not just because it wasn't clear whether or not the incident was ongoing but also because of the fact that it took place in the UK's capital city, i.e. proximity to government buildings.

Furthermore, it was initially thought by some people that the Manchester explosion was caused by malfunction of sound equipment. Furthermore, the Manchester attacker acted alone and, unlike last night's attackers, he actually was a suicide bomber.

There's a reason why on-air shifts aren't normally 8 hours long - it's quite a mentally exhausting thing to do, given that a fair chunk of the time on a rolling news channel will be spent ad-libbing, trying to make sense of the story yourself, and also filtering out the relevant bits of what a director's saying in your ear. Also bear in mind a presenter will usually start several hours before they appear on screen, to do some prep (and, you know, journalism) - so I think your expectations are a little unrealistic.

I met him about 20 years ago, at BBC Millbank. I concur 100%

No surprise Lorraine has been dropped in the morning for an extended GMB

Special extended @GMB w/@piersmorgan & @susannareid100 live tomorrow from 6am on air until 9:25 with the latest on the London Bridge attack

— Erron Gordon (@errongordon) June 4, 2017

I don't agree with this if anything it's slightly less of news story because it happened in the capital, because people expect things to happen there. There wasn't the same callous targeting a specific set of victims. It has however evil as I said before you can't compare these things each one is a tragedy.


ITV/ITN were probably more ready this time with Manchester fresh in the minds and as you said it took a while to work out was happening in Manchester. However there may be some institutional bias and bigger sense of urgently as the news organisations are based in London. But in the long run this it's a not as big a story.

That and a straight-up lack of resource.


Question, though... because I do think some of the criticism of ITV not getting on-air soon enough after Manchester was at least partially-valid... (though I thought they did alright last night given their limited resources)

Is there a precedent for an ITV regional newsroom providing a network flash? Surely, given the timing of the arena atrocity, the late news team up there would still have been in the building (albeit putting their coats on), and they could have stuck someone - anyone - in the presenter's chair to throw to a reporter for a two-2-3 minute summary of what was going on before trailing ahead to 6am and signing off, and sod it if the viewers weren't familiar with who they saw. Or is it just me?

The differences are that the Manchester attack was over once Obeidi has blown himself up and the fact that last night's attack took place in London meant that there may have been fears for the safety of the government and the Royal family (There'll definitely be rolling coverage on ITV when Prince Philip and the Queen pass away). Therefore, I don't believe there was a bias in favour of London.

Sorry but the royals are probably the safest people in the country in times like this, closely followed by senior government members. Additionally no-one including the police knew whether Abedi was acting alone at that point.