| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 86860 | 2008-01-30 21:00:00 | Who cares if its live? | Roscoe (6288) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 635653 | 2008-01-30 21:00:00 | Many times on the TV news the newsreader will make the point that “we are now crossing live,” and the word “live” appears in one corner . Does that mean that there is the possibility that some are “dead”? Why do they put such emphasis on the fact that it is “live” and not recorded? Is the news they are imparting not as good if it is recorded? Not as immediate, certainly . Why does that matter? Is a recorded version not the same quality? No, that does seem to be the case . Is the story not as factual if it is recorded? No, the facts do not appear to change . Does the story lose some, or all, of it’s impact? That does not seem to be the case either . So what is the reason? I fail to see the difference between “live” and recorded apart from the fact that one is “live” and one is recorded . So what? Does anyone really care?:groan: |
Roscoe (6288) | ||
| 635654 | 2008-01-30 21:12:00 | Quite often "Live TV news" is a news item that I have listened to on the radio an hour or two previously. I thought it quite funny when they crossed "live" to the Auckland Domain during the preparations for Sir Ed's funeral - the subject: Plastic bags had been put over the loudspeakers in case it rained. Gosh, we all needed to hear that!! Ken :lol: |
kenj (9738) | ||
| 635655 | 2008-01-30 21:25:00 | They trust that you'll be impressed with their energy at arranging a "live" broadcast and thus not notice the journalistic quality of said broadcast. Alas, the ability to stand around at locations throughout the country and talk at a camera is no substitute for ensuring that when you talk, you actually say something worthwhile. |
Biggles (121) | ||
| 635656 | 2008-01-30 22:00:00 | And note that these days they don't interview their 'targets' live (much), they just interview their own reporters over a live feed. What a waste of bandwidth :groan:. | Erayd (23) | ||
| 635657 | 2008-01-30 22:58:00 | Live reports give you the impression that the news you are getting is the most up-to-date breaking news. Thats what people want... the latest news. For me, I hate live news, its usually not captioned, and if it is, its very brief. :groan: |
mister harbies (5607) | ||
| 635658 | 2008-01-30 23:05:00 | And note that these days they don't interview their 'targets' live (much), they just interview their own reporters over a live feed. What a waste of bandwidth :groan:. Thats its, It does my head in. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 635659 | 2008-01-31 05:44:00 | And note that these days they don't interview their 'targets' live (much), they just interview their own reporters over a live feed. What a waste of bandwidth :groan:. Damned lazy journalism too! And they're so pompous with it, like they're the judges of the public good, who the hell do they think they are! Why cant they just report the news without bias or favour (or their opinions (who cares what they think!)), like the days before they started chasing ratings; at one time journalists strived for even-handed and truthful reporting, that seems to have gone down the toilet. (The residents reeled in shock, then cried for the cameras) FOR GODS SAKE!, Who wants this crap, I don't! :annoyed::mad: |
feersumendjinn (64) | ||
| 635660 | 2008-01-31 05:57:00 | Hang on, reporters are allowed to have delusions of adequacy just like the rest of us. Allow them that small thing, they don't have much else, except a swelled head and an inflated salary . :D | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 635661 | 2008-01-31 06:01:00 | Why cant they just report the news without bias or favour (or their opinions (who cares what they think!)) :annoyed::mad: Very good point. While their opinions may be valid (but often are not) we are not interested. The news should not be what anyone thinks about the news. Report the facts and only the facts, please, "live" or otherwise. |
Roscoe (6288) | ||
| 635662 | 2008-01-31 06:12:00 | Many times on the TV news the newsreader will make the point that “we are now crossing live,” and the word “live” appears in one corner. Does that mean that there is the possibility that some are “dead”? Why do they put such emphasis on the fact that it is “live” and not recorded? Is the news they are imparting not as good if it is recorded? Not as immediate, certainly. Why does that matter? Is a recorded version not the same quality? No, that does seem to be the case. Is the story not as factual if it is recorded? No, the facts do not appear to change. Does the story lose some, or all, of it’s impact? That does not seem to be the case either. So what is the reason? I fail to see the difference between “live” and recorded apart from the fact that one is “live” and one is recorded. So what? Does anyone really care?:groan: Personally I think the difference may be the recorded item could/may be edited before broadcast whereas it may be difficult to edit the live broadcast. A lot of news media lives on speculation anyway. At least with a live broadcast you know what the interviewer actually said and also what any people interviewed said. How this gets interpreted by people is another matter. I do not actually care as quite a bit turns out to be wrong, bull excretia or straight out lies. For this reason I may have become somewhat cynical. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||