Too much coverage?
Some of our radio listeners yesterday contacted us to say they thought we had given the death of Nick Clarke too much prominence. Of course it’s easy to lose perspective when a close colleague and friend dies but I really don’t think we misjudged our response to Nick’s death yesterday.
Nick was an outstanding journalist and broadcaster who touched the lives of the Radio Four audience through a range of programmes including The World At One. This was already very clear from the evidence of vast audience interest in and sympathy for Nick’s condition when he was diagnosed with cancer.
We knew therefore that there would be very, very many people who would want to know the news of his death and who would be saddened by it. In this context it was appropriate to lead the programme which he had presented since the late 1980s with the first news of his death and to carry a special, extended edition so that we could carry other news in full within the hour as well as a proper tribute. Later programmes on the network did not lead with the news about Nick.
We understand that for a minority of the audience the coverage was excessive - but not for the majority, as is clear from the massive feedback we have received via e-mails and phone calls. For example, were posted on the Have Your Say site. Moreover, the story was one of the most read pages on the ±«Óãtv News website yesterday in the UK - in the top four.
This wasn't a case of grieving colleagues having their news judgements distorted by a sense of their own loss; we took a considered view about the most appropriate way to handle the news of his death.
Comments
Praise for the ±«Óãtv employees who had to receive such insensitive complaints. Again, sympathies for all who knew Mr Clarke.
This will probably sound hypocritical within the context, but I understand completely why Nick Clarke's death was reported so widely and with such emotion. I cannot understand why Richard Hammond's accident was given the same treatment - even more coverage perhaps, as there was the added tabloid hysteria with that incident.
Nick Clarke was a giant of radio, and he deserved all the recognition and praise that he never sought. I would have been far more surprised had there been little coverage, or had the ±«Óãtv noted his passing with just a sentence.
Perhaps the people who complained about the coverage are not radio listeners: But if they aren't, then they should start, maybe then they will understand why so many people have been affected by this.
I wouldn't say that your response was excessive, and I can understand that a show that he presented would wish to devote a large section of time to covering his death.
However, as a non-listener to Radio 4, I am sorry to say that I have only heard about this man since his death. I can therefore see why some would consider the coverage to be excessive even though I myself to disagree with them.
I do have to disagree with Belinda's comment above, as I feel that the coverage of Richard's accident kept the millions of people around the world who are his fans and those who are fans of Top Gear (one of the most popular programs on ±«Óãtv2) upto date with the changes in his condition. I seriously doubt that I was the only one who was regularly checking on the story for any news of changes in his condition.
In Richard's case there was a duty on the media to keep us informed on his progress, which required coverage of the incident for a period of weeks (the same is true of the detailed coverage of the illness and now death of the former Russian spy).
I do hope I have misunderstood Belinda's post as it does read that she feels that detailed coverage of the death of a broadcaster she likes is news while detailed coverage of the near-fatal accident of a broadcaster she doesn't like is tabloid trivia.
A person's contribution to life is best measured by his contemporaries,
colleagues and peers. A public figure is also judged by his/her audience. It is churlish to deny any person's regard for another. Those who thought (or think) that the coverage of Nick Clarke's death and the tributes that flowed in was excessive needed only to turn the page or change the channel to pick up another report or article and proceed with their lives. In a world that sorely needs examples to look up to and remember with fondness and regard it is only those who are themselves empty of value who seek to object to the success of those such as Nick Clarke and who choose to try and depreciate his contribution to life. RIP Nick Clarke your footprint on this earth is secure.
Ajit Dugal
Mark E (3): Told you I was being hypocritical!
Richard Hammond was not at the top of his profession (such as it is), was injured driving a car too fast for his job and, perhaps most importantly, was not killed - as a result of that, yes, I did feel the coverage of his own tragedy was completely over the top. I'm sorry he was injured and I am not saying at all that I wished he had died, but the day-by-day coverage of his injuries and his recovery was not news at all. Just because the man is on TV, does not make his unfortunate life events automatically news-worthy. You could argue the same with people on the radio of course, and I would agree, but I think in this particular case, the coverage was not over the top. For a start, it has barely been mentioned today in the media.
Comparing Richard Hammond's injuries with Alexander Litvinenko's death does not make sense at all. The story of the poisoning isn't just about one man but about the entire history of the cold war and reflects on the relationship between the 'new' Russia and its people, and perhaps it's international relations.
The coverage was NOT excessive. It only lead the bulletin on the programme he had presented for years and as is the nature of these things it was a "one day story" in terms of the programme not one that is returned to every day. (Clearly for his family and friends it isn't a one day story) For listeners to complain seems extraordinary to me. Some people seem to wait by the radio or TV so they can complain, moan or be insensitive
Helen,
It does seem extraordinarily insensitive to have complained about yesterday's coverage. I don't think I would have bothered to apologise and might have sent them away with a flea in their ear.
That said, I suspect Nick Clarke would have tried to see their point of view. He might even have given them the benefit of thinking that their sole interest was to ensure that the story about lives lost in Iraq yesterday wasn't overlooked.
You all did a great job yesterday, I am sure that Nick would have been proud of each and every one of you.
What I learned abt Nick Clarke was that he was kind and noble in his approach.
I heard it dozens of times.
Perhaps so much coverage,( which actually wasn't much in the overall scale of things) might filter through to those who operate on the opposite end of the spectrum....Take a leaf out of his kind book. Be kind, be patient, be respectful.....
I don't think the coverage was excessive. I was at work all day so only heard the news later in the afternoon and hence only the evening tributes. I will 'Listen Again' to some of the others this weekend.
He was clearly a much-loved and respected person, colleague and broadcaster and it's good to see such a huge response from both programmes and audience alike.
No, not too much coverage. Nick had spent his beautiful morning, Sunny Noon and rimantic evenings for Radio. He always tried his best to cheer up his audience! Listener were first thing of his life, So how could it be too much coverage?
Have people lost all sense of compassion.
Even if it was slightly self indulgent is that not part and parcel of the grieving process.
I enjoyed the tributes far more than the news. I think Nick was worthy of it. Nothing more will be heard of him in a week.
"Comparing Richard Hammond's injuries with Alexander Litvinenko's death does not make sense at all. The story of the poisoning isn't just about one man but about the entire history of the cold war and reflects on the relationship between the 'new' Russia and its people, and perhaps it's international relations."
I was not comparing them based on background, but on the fact that we were kept updated on their progress. It would have been irresponsible for the media not to have kept us informed of Richard's progress as I am sure millions of people not just in this country but around the world were following the story. This is not providing excessive coverage but providing updates as the status changes and is done all the time in the media (otherwise we would just get "breaking news" articles and then never hear any more).
Also, in both cases we get the associated fall-out debates. In Richard Hammond's case - the "should he have been driving?" debates. In the case of Alexander Litvinenko's the fall-out concerned relations with Russia.
Neither of these really apply in Nick Clarke's case. I doubt there is anything "new" to report on the story today.
Just because a news article does not have relevance to you does not mean it does not have relevance to others. On a daily basis there are news articles that I care little for, but that does not mean that they should not be reported. The progress of Richard Hammond was news and was followed by a lot of people.
You comment:
"Just because the man is on TV, does not make his unfortunate life events automatically news-worthy. You could argue the same with people on the radio of course, and I would agree, but I think in this particular case, the coverage was not over the top. For a start, it has barely been mentioned today in the media."
I mostly agree with you on this. However, I would say that a near-fatal car crash or actual death is more then an "unfortunate life event" - I personally don't consider a celebrity divorce news (both others do) but this was far more serious. I would also agree that it would not be news if Richard Hammond had just rolled a car (it has happened before and to my knowledge was not reported although it was shown in the show).
Helen,
As the DIRECTOR of ±«Óãtv News, if you believe that the ±«Óãtv blogs are a useful and legtimate way to INTERACT with the your employers/audience can you at least make sure you don't give it lip service and realise that this is actually a forum for DISCUSSION and INTERACTION, ie. you need to read AND participate in the discussion.
I recall, despite over 200 responses to another missive you yours dismissing institutionalised bias as ascribed by some of your own ±«Óãtv staff, you did not post a single reply or rebutal posted by ±«Óãtv viewers.
Please don't bother 'participating' unless you're going to take these blogs seriously.
Take a look at what Barron is doing with the Newsnight site to learn how its adding value to viewers and producers alike.
Same the senior management don't do likewise. You might learn something.
It was hugely indulgent, just like Grade's move - top of the news tonight according to the beeb. All the smug guardianistas in the newsroom discussing the intricacies of their little media-world and thinking the rest of the country (forced to pay for it on threat of prison time) is interested.
I'm sorry Mr Clarke is dead - but frankly, I've never heard of him - and neither has anyone I know. It's about time the beeb got its head out of its fundament and started to get in touch with the UK - do you remember us beeb??? We're all still here!
Elliot, If you have never heard of him then you are not a regular listener to "The World At One" so I'm unsure what you are complaining about. For people who do listen to the programme, he is worth the attention that was given.
Chris, if it had only been covered on "The World at One" then I probably wouldn't have complained, and neither would anyone else. However, it was covered as one of the top 3 stories on this website for some hours - is that proportionate? It was covered across the beeb - is that proportionate? Is the death of Mr Clarke so important that it ranks above Iraq etc? The answer is - NO. Perhaps if the beeboids and their chattering class friends mostly reflected the priorities of the people of this country then the occasional homage to a deceased employee would not be very noteworthy outside of their circle of family and friends - other people would shrug and let them have their moment - but it is symptomatic of the "we will tell you what the news is and you plebs will not diverge from our agenda" bbc-attitude. Unfortunately the guardianistas that run the beeb believe that nobody matters except those within their own little enclosed media world - and that they can foist their tax-payer funded world-view onto us all at their whim - this incident is a small facet of a much wider bbc problem.