Why.....

[Kathyan]

do the newcasters and reporters have to present the news from the flooded areas? And also why do they ask such stupid questions, reporter to a soldier 'are you doing your best to help people?'!

[emmie]

because they have to spend the taxpayers money in the case of the BBC, no idea why ITV people do it, because they would feel left out if they didn't.
as to asking stupid questions, the ones that get me are after a sportsman/woman has given their all, their guts are all over the floor, they are sobbing their heart out having lost that all too important game,
they have to face a commentator with a microphone who says, how do you feel, now you have lost,
what could anyone say...
most of what i would say after getting my breath back is unprintable.

[emmie]

i am sure the army guys are just as delighted to have microphone shoved in their face, grimaces all round.

[SlackAlice]

When they report on the floods, they have to stand in the nearest puddle as well.

[emmie]

getting absolutely soaked, does no one own a big enough brolly.

[jno]

because they're supposed to give eyewitness reports perhaps? Or would you rather they just dug out five-year-old footage of floods to show you?

Do you want news or not?

[sandyRoe]

The silliest outside broadcast I ever saw was a reporter standing on a traffic island in the Dublin Rd talking back to the studio in Ormeau Avenue which must have been all of 200 yards away.

[boxtops]

Personally, I like to see outside broadcasts - it helps to give the rest of us a feeling of the flood conditions (which thankfully we haven't got here). I wouldn't have an idea of the extent of it, otherwise.

[Hopkirk]

It's a bit like the political reporters who have to stand outside the Houses of Parliament in the dark and in the rain, to report what happened inside a few hours ago.

[jno]

exactly, boxy. Anyone who doesn't want to see what it's like can switch off the telly and listen to radio news instead, after all.

[Kathyan]

I'll do that in future then jno. Would hate to upset you.

[emmie]

perhaps there are local news stations that can add their tuppence worth,

[jno]

you asked a question, I answered. They go out and look at things so they can tell you what's happening. More reliable than sitting in a studio and relaying the news from someone else who's out in the floods.

[lyall]

Doubt the silly questions will ever stop. I remember a few years ago a reporter asked an accident victim with a bandaged head where he had been injured duh! what gets me more thought is when a reporter or newsreader says “it’s almost exactly 2 years ago” It's either exact, or it isn’t!!

[sherrardk]

I like to see what's going on and I suppose they ask stupid questions because there are only so many relevant questions you can ask in each situation, they have to fill up the time somehow.

[zebo]

It's not just the front of camera people, there's a whole crew, cameras, sound make-up etc, and I seem to recall something about if they're a certain distance from the studios, they also have catering.

[ludwig]

If there was a news program that had no outside broadcasts, but just consisted of a bloke behind a desk reading an autocue, no-one would watch it.

[anotheoldgit]

It's called 'visual effect'.

What I have often wondered is why there is need for two news presenters in the studio, yet in the later regional news there is only one?

[Kromovaracun]

I agree with Kath. It's silly and doesn't tell us anything we don't already know.

[Zacs-Master]

AOG, apparently we take things in better when information is presented in 2 different tones of voice (bekos we is thik).