Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú in the news, Monday
| 08:40 UK time, Monday, 26 June 2006
The Sun: "Viewers flooded the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú with complaints over a spoof Newsflash claiming there was a major incident at the Palace." ()
The Guardian: "Jonathan Ross is a chancer and politicians who accept an invitation to sit on his Friday night sofa know they are taking a chance too." ()
The Telegraph: In an interview, chairman of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú says criticism of the corporation's development of digital media is unjustified. ()
Comments
I think that viewers have complained about the 'fake' newsflash, and the 'fake' news bulletin on Jeremy Vine's show last week demonstrate that the news can't be messed about with.
Viewers and listeners seem to accept Dead Ringers or other programmes doing a take on the news and using the real idents, or the time signal on Radio 4, but by setting it up as being authentic, and in both cases using real and recognised newsreaders, it can lead to confuse.
I admit I thought both were real reports and that something had happened. As soon as the stories got past the first few lines you knew they weren't real, but if in the case of last nights programme a bulletin was presented by Jon Culshaw as Dermot Murnaghan it would have been much funnier and immediately recognised as a joke.
In the Jeremy Vine case I don't think the fake bulletin really added anything to the debate on tabloid journalism in the last hour of the programme.
Of the Jonathan Ross complaints, the show itself prompted four, and the Sunday tabloid story a further 128. Is this the normal ratio?