Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Why doesn't the BBC reporter in Wu Han wear a mask ?

24 replies

KurriKurri · 27/01/2020 12:38

Everytime I see him (it's the Australian chap) he's surrounded by people wearing masks as they've been told to do, but he isn't wearing one. Seems odd. Does he think he is miraculously immune ?

I do feel a bit sorry for him - last year he had to stand reporting in the middle of riots in Hong Kong, now he's been sent to a virus area. Maybe the BBC want to get rid of him'

OP posts:
cjt110 · 27/01/2020 13:11

I can't imagine his voice would transmit very well with a mask on?

Forestwitch · 27/01/2020 13:12

He does put a mask on, once he's said his 'piece' for the camera.

PhilomenaChristmasPie · 27/01/2020 13:12

Because the masks don't really protect apparently?

Original poster
KurriKurri · 27/01/2020 13:26

Well I agree the mask probably don;t offer much protection - maybe they are just being advised to make people feel safer rather than because they are of any use.
I don't actually see why he needs to be there - I doubt there is much more info he could get by being on the spot, than he could get by being elsewhere in China.

OP posts:
EmmaGrundyForPM · 27/01/2020 13:28

Every time I see him I just want to say "brush your hair for Gods sake"
I think I'm turning into my mother......

BertieBotts · 27/01/2020 13:30

Masks don't stop you from getting a virus, they just stop you from transmitting it as easily if you get one.

Cam77 · 27/01/2020 13:37

@KurriKurri
Exactly why the fuck does he even need to be there in the first place. I can read Chinese, have a lot of family and friends in China and my partner’s auntie has treated someone with the virus. I’ve never been to Wuhan but I probably know more about the situation than he does. These silly staged mic pieces are pointless in the internet age.

cjt110 · 27/01/2020 13:45

@Cam77 There was a piece on Points of View once that I never forget and it was journalists being flown to war torn countries, those ravaged by natural disasters and so forth and how they add little material value to the report by actually being there. Same can be said for any journo stood anywhere - What do we gain from seeing a police ticker tape and a bunch of flowers with them stood beside it - sod all. Just nuisance for the families/people etc involved.

VenusTiger · 27/01/2020 13:50

last year he had to stand reporting... he doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to OP.

wibblysnail · 27/01/2020 13:50

those ravaged by natural disasters and so forth and how they add little material value to the report by actually being there.

I disagree. I can still remember the scenes in Ethiopia with Michael Buerk that really raised awareness of how dreadful the situation was there. It was the same with the Romanian orphanages. I doubt that there would have been so much public support and donations raised to help if he hadn't been there with the camera team - who were as important (if not more so) than Michael Buerk and the team of journalists who were reporting on the situation in Romania.

VenusTiger · 27/01/2020 13:52

@cjt110 I've always commented on this too. I do think they get more information by being there though, chatting to police etc. It's the articles when they're standing in front of a building that I often wonder, what a waste of money!

bellinisurge · 27/01/2020 13:57

A mask wouldn't protect him.

megletthesecond · 27/01/2020 13:59

The dc's asked this yesterday.
We decided it was because he was in the fresh air and not standing near anyone. Maybe he put a mask on afterwards.

PurpleDaisies · 27/01/2020 14:03

They’re not one of the ways to limit virus spread recommended by the WHO.

cjt110 · 27/01/2020 14:04

@wibblysnail But surely a report could be done, filmed by local camera teams without the journo's being there. The same information can be delivered by voiceover or by the news reader?

@VenusTiger Yes, like when they are stood outside No10.

PurpleDaisies · 27/01/2020 14:06

But surely a report could be done, filmed by local camera teams without the journo's being there.

And that means relying on the local teams to be truthful and accurate. I think it’s really important that journalists are in risky places to get the real story.

MidsomerBurgers · 27/01/2020 14:07

Normal surgical face masks only offer any protection for about 3 minutes.

You need ffp3 ones.

MarySidney · 27/01/2020 14:08

There was a piece on Points of View once that I never forget and it was journalists being flown to war torn countries, those ravaged by natural disasters and so forth and how they add little material value to the report by actually being there.

I agree. They consume resources such as petrol, contribute to congestion on possibly poor or damaged roads - If there's been an earthquake, say - get in the way of essential workers doing their jobs and possibly cause problems for the miltary/security services if it's a warzone.

All the English speaking news organisations should cooperate so that one team is sent and they share the report.

hugecliche · 27/01/2020 14:09

I doubt there is much more info he could get by being on the spot, than he could get by being elsewhere in China.

Because Chinese media isn't exactly reliable?

wibblysnail · 27/01/2020 14:11

And that means relying on the local teams to be truthful and accurate. I think it’s really important that journalists are in risky places to get the real story.

^ This

All the English speaking news organisations should cooperate so that one team is sent and they share the report.

And also ^ This. I think this has happened before now.

Theworldisfullofgs · 27/01/2020 14:13

Masks have a short life span of protective ness. And even then, not that great.

katienana · 27/01/2020 14:20

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/21/buried-50-years-britain-shamesful-role-biafran-war-frederick-forsyth

I read this the other day. Journalists on the ground were able to uncover the truth. Sending only 1 team to war zones would make it really easy to cover up the truth by way of bribery, corruption, propaganda machine etc.

Original poster
KurriKurri · 27/01/2020 14:39

cam77

I tend to agree with you. Obviously there are arguments for and against - but witht he recent news thta fearghal Keane is suffering from PTSD from his years ofr reporting from a warzone, then you have to ask is it really necessary to subject reporter tot his - how muhc more do we know from having them there?
Frankly I don;t think reporters on events of a political or sensituve nature in this country get 'the truth' they will always get an edited version. Cue lots of shock and outrage whne the truth comes out years later.
As fro him not having to do it - yes technically that is obviously true - but it is his job and presemably he feels the same pressures to do what is asked of him as any other employed person, if he wants to keep his job. I imagine he has a family and bills to pay like everyone else. The question is realy whether those above him in seniority should be asking people to go into dangerous situations unecessarily.
There are well known cases of journalists being shot and seriously hurt, and having life changing injuries - for what exactly? There's a debate to be had over whether the extra 'reality and truth' factor is worth it.

And it is a debate - I'm not dismissing the arguments on either side, I can think of appalling situations that have c ome tolight from good investigative journalism i dangerous conditions, as much as I can think of situations where I don't think it was necessary to endanger a reporter.

As far as the man in Wu Han is concerned (I can't remember his name) I fall on the side of not really necessary.

OP posts:
Original poster
KurriKurri · 27/01/2020 14:40

apologies - typos ! Blush - well done if you can read it Grin

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page