In the news

I can't imagine two poshos sitting on a bench requires the same level of review and sign off before someone can hit the publish button.

Katie Hopkins and a topical robot mix-up of [Ken Livingstone + Boris Johnson]?

Andy Burnham to stand for Greater Manchester mayor

Great

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.

Playing devil's advocate but was the anti austerity march actually that newsworthy?
Did it change anything? Did it stop austerity?
Marches and protests happen a lot in London. Even the huge ones generally achieve bugger all. This is basically why we are still allowed to have them.
Did it have some specific aspect to make it more interesting than all the others? The last one I can remember being talked about was the one at which people threw fire extinguishers off a roof. Nobody talked about the aims of the protest, just the behaviour of some of the protesters and the dodgy police tactics.
And was the march in question of wider interest? The interested people were most likely on it, and they knew about it already.

iconic

*pukes*

basically what Fox said.

pro-defenestration

What's wrong with glazing? It's one of the good things the Romans did for us.

name the beaver competition launched
what could possibly go wrong

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Public-asked-new-beaver-mascot-Devon-Wildlife/story-29282657-detail/story.html

Beaver McBeaverface?

Damn, some wag on Twitter beat me to it four hours ago. I quite like Justin Beaver.

I don't think I've ever seen this iconic Diana photo - was genuinely unaware what the fuss was about Wills+Kate sitting on a bench.

I'd have preferred to be told about an anti-austerity march, but there you go - it was deemed to not be newsworthy it would appear.

Which in my opinion is bollocks, but there you go.

1. formal, humorous
   the action of throwing someone or something out of a window.
   "death by defenestration has a venerable history"
   

I've got nothing against windows, just the people I'd like to throw out of them.

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....

Unless Internet traffic suggests people are not reading about it/don't care or maybe don't trust you as a source so go elsewhere.

There were actually multiple photos (there was a press pack and it was opposite Diana with a pond in between) and the one above is by Tim Graham of Getty but the ones that worked (IMO) were the landscape ones as they lead your eye up to the Taj at first before you notice the relatively tiny Diana in the foreground. She looks small and demur and helpless and coy but above all she looks alone (Charles was meant to go on the trip but didn't, not sure why).

I'm not apologising for my use of iconic @TW -not many people are/were but I would say Princess Di makes the cut.

Personally I think anti-austerity marches are more important events too, but the public gets what the public wants. The grim reality is that the public accepted Osborn's ideologically driven demands for austerity as practically necessary when they weren't, just as they accepted his orthodoxy that Labour spent all the money (when the hole in the budget was mostly caused by the financial crisis and Labour's spending was no more or less sustainable than any other governments).

"...a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment; newsworthy material."

That is what editors do - no? Make that choice? We cover this? Yes? Why? What is new about this? Why would people care? It's a pretty standard definition - not just Fox's

Hilariously in the US there is a massive perception that major network news has a very left leaning bias - leading to the echo chamber that is Fox News. I have a close relative who has worked in the major national network news sector for some 25 years. He'll probably vote for Trump as will most of his colleagues. (They are all angry older white men who are pining for the 1980s)

Yeah, I get you.... (weeps).

I would say Princess Di makes the cut.

I didn't realise that it was the Daily Express you worked for...

Yes and no: there are certain news sources that will make a point of avoiding the fluffier stuff, whereas others will embrace it completely. The point you make about the differing perceptions in the US shows this to be true.

Not a journalist but work for a very large news organisation and spend a lot of time explaining how the news works to people so it's something I've had some practice at :)

Absolutely agree and the output of news organisations is driven by both client demand and newsworthiness.

Putting aside the commercial factors though, I would still argue that given the history and who was sitting on the bench that Taj Mahal MkII was a more newsworthy event than yet another austerity march with no influential/powerful people involved which wasn't going to affect anything. Also like it or not Will and his wife sitting on a bench is a global story - a relatively inconsequential anti-austerity march in London isn't.

It's quite depressing really isn't it? This is why nearly all seasoned hacks are miserable sods ;)

Ha ha. I just buy it and collect the vouchers. My commemorative plate is in the post.

4evaonarbencheswifderangles

#killemall

can the BBC be considered a news organisation, at least in the traditional sense of the word? It has to adhere to a trust for starters, and presumably there is something in said trust that says it should endeavour to serve the public interest at all times.

etc.

My commemorative plate is in the post.

Doesn't @EEI do Di plates?

Changing the topic slightly but how the fuck do the government think they will be able to have age verification checks on porn sites?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36321169

If the site is US based and free to access, how will they enforce age checks?

Smacks of saying what concerned parents want to hear when in reality you are powerless to do anything about it.