-
I'd say a march of thousands was more newsworthy than "Kate and William pose on bench"
It's not actually. There have been hundreds - probably thousands - of anti-austerity marches all over the world since the global financial crisis to the extent that they are essentially no longer newsworthy or notable. The difference can be the context they happen in: we covered the big Greek one in November because Tsipras had only been re-elected in September on a platform of cushioning economic hardship, plus the thing was huge. Flights were grounded, hospitals operated with skeleton staff, ships remained at port and public offices shut down. Also Greece's foreign lenders were meeting in Athens to review compliance with (what was at the time) the latest bailout to rescue the country (again), so there couldn't have been a much more fitting backdrop.
The image of Diana sitting on that bench was genuinely iconic. Martin Keene's picture wasn't unprecedented - it wasn't unusual for celebrities to be photographed on the bench, alone - but when Diana was it spoke of loneliness and isolation and became more iconic a few months later when Charles and Di split. Seeing her son with his wife, years later, sat on the same bench was something nobody expected to see, the first time it had happened (news = new stuff) and said more about the changing nature of the British Monarchy than most journalists could in the proverbial one thousand words.
We didn't cover the London austerity march in mid-April as far as I can see and I'm absolutely confident that this was because we didn't think it was notable enough to cover. There weren't lots of influential people there, it was going to make sod all difference to the political reality inside Westminster and there was no context which elevated it to any greater meaning or importance.
As I've said in this thread before, news organisations cover what they think their clients want to see. I suspect the BBC thinks that most of their viewers don't have that much interest in yet another austerity protest and I suspect they are right. It's important not to confuse something being newsworthy with wanting something to be newsworthy.
Please don't confuse any of this with my personal opinions. I'm paid not to have them but I'm actually anti-austerity, anti-monarchy and pro-defenestration.
Fox-
iconic
*pukes*
-
pro-defenestration
What's wrong with glazing? It's one of the good things the Romans did for us.
-
You are defining newsworthy thus:
"...a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment; newsworthy material."
I am guessing you are a journalist (my apologies if you made that obvious somewhere along the line) but there's a difference between being 'newsworthy' and 'commercially viable', to which I am sure you will agree. Just because loads of people want to see pictures of members of the Royal Family sitting on a bench doesn't make it any more newsworthy than an austerity march, in the sense that many of us would perceive the term 'newsworthy'. I don't agree that just because there have been loads of these marches they become less newsworthy. Surely the sheer number suggests that the matter is being taken very seriously and continues to be newsworthy. And the sight of two chumps sitting on a bench really shouldn't be worthy of news at all (although I understand why it is).
Interesting that you use the word 'clients' to describe the subscribers to news....
NotThamesWater
Emyr
The_Kindness_of_Trees
I'd say a march of thousands was more newsworthy than "Kate and William pose on bench", personally. Now of course you might contest that point - but to me, and I suspect others, it is a conspicuous absence, and one that makes it impossible to trust the BBC to accurately reflect what is going on in the UK.