"CD" wrote in message
...
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...999743,00.html

Oh dear, they seem to be learning from FoxNews, but in that case they suspended
an anchor because she refused to read a story she knew to be false.

Az.

^_^ wrote in
:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:20:57 GMT, "Aztech" wrote:

"CD" wrote in message
. ..
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...999743,00.html

Oh dear, they seem to be learning from FoxNews, but in that case they
suspended an anchor because she refused to read a story she knew to be
false.


And then AFAIK she _lost_ the court case for unfair
dismissal/suspension.

Land of the free.

Any links/info on this story/dismissal?

Z.

--
Please remove my_pants when replying by email.

"Stephen Neal" wrote in message
...
Aztech wrote:
"CD" wrote in message
...
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcas...999743,00.html

Oh dear, they seem to be learning from FoxNews, but in that case they
suspended an anchor because she refused to read a story she knew to
be false.

In some ways isn't this the opposite? Sky suspend a journalist whilst they
investigate claims that the story was fabricated by the journalist (i.e. Sky
management may have some integrity?) - Fox suspend a presenter for not
wanting to fabricate / broadcast an incorrect story?

You'd think the bosses at the time of broadcast could differentiate a scoop from
an highly improbable scoop, i.e. nobody else carrying the story, non of the
agencies reporting it on the wires.

Az.

Aztech writes
You'd think the bosses at the time of broadcast could differentiate a
scoop from an highly improbable scoop, i.e. nobody else carrying the
story, non of the agencies reporting it on the wires.

Did you read the Guardian story?

--
Dave

In article ,
says...

You'd think the bosses at the time of broadcast could differentiate a scoop from
an highly improbable scoop, i.e. nobody else carrying the story, non of the
agencies reporting it on the wires.

Er, the whole *point* of a "scoop" is that you're the only one running
the story...

--
"EDS herding cats? EDS couldn't herd a tortoise in a barrel
without ****ing it up!" - Anon

Ade V wrote:
In article ,
says...

You'd think the bosses at the time of broadcast could differentiate
a scoop from an highly improbable scoop, i.e. nobody else carrying
the story, non of the agencies reporting it on the wires.

Er, the whole *point* of a "scoop" is that you're the only one running
the story...

Yep - hardly likely when every member of the pool has to be provided with
the report before any member can show it... (In other words the BBC and ITN
will have had to have seen it before Sky could show it if it were part of
the UK pool)

From the MediaGuardian reports it sounds like some over-enthusiastic
editing-in of library to liven up an otherwise dull story about how missiles
would have been fired IF they had been fired... If the Sky reporter had been
the only person on the facility (and as a member of the TV pool he might
have been) - then an absence of wire copy would not be that unexpected - if
there were no AP or Reuters correspondents on the sub able to file then one
wouldn't expect corroboration from a 3rd party. (Most broadcasters actually
trust their journalists...)

Steve

"Ade V" wrote in message
news:MPG.1981036672303711989dd5@slave...
In article ,
says...

You'd think the bosses at the time of broadcast could differentiate a
scoop from
an highly improbable scoop, i.e. nobody else carrying the story, non of
the
agencies reporting it on the wires.

Er, the whole *point* of a "scoop" is that you're the only one running
the story...

--
"EDS herding cats? EDS couldn't herd a tortoise in a barrel
without ****ing it up!" - Anon
Is this any different from these "world exclusive"'s where EVERY
paper/channel get's a "one on one" interview?

"Ade V" wrote in message
news:MPG.1981036672303711989dd5@slave...
In article ,
says...

You'd think the bosses at the time of broadcast could differentiate a scoop
from
an highly improbable scoop, i.e. nobody else carrying the story, non of the
agencies reporting it on the wires.

Er, the whole *point* of a "scoop" is that you're the only one running
the story...

Yes, but that's the problem with SkyNews, they're all too keen to run with
stories from only one unsubstantiated source. Sometimes the bet doesn't pay off.

Az.

"David Marshall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Aztech wrote:
You'd think the bosses at the time of broadcast could differentiate a scoop
from
an highly improbable scoop, i.e. nobody else carrying the story, non of the
agencies reporting it on the wires.

You'd think - but even the BBC have run fictional stories.

Oh quite, the BBC are sometimes all too keen to run with a single unconfirmed
source, even when its veracity is extremely doubtful and opaque *cough*. News24
verifies from at least two independent sources before running with a story,
unfortunately during the war their presentation, lack of tact and loading of
elemental reports let them down.

Az.

In message , Stephen Neal
writes
Ade V wrote:
In article ,
says...

You'd think the bosses at the time of broadcast could differentiate
a scoop from an highly improbable scoop, i.e. nobody else carrying
the story, non of the agencies reporting it on the wires.

Er, the whole *point* of a "scoop" is that you're the only one running
the story...
Shurely, the title should be;
'Sky News suspends journalists for getting caught faking story'

Shouldn't it?
--
Clint