Am I alone in thinking Sky News (and others) should be called to account for their irresponsible appraoch to reporting sensationalised and unverified "news"?

[artichokes]

This is not just about the McCanns.

Time and time again Sky reports unverified hype under its breaking news banner. Six years ago today, when the tiwn towers were hit, Sky had us beleiving 11 other planes were missing and about to be used as human missiles. Today the Portugese police have had to release a statement attemtping to correct UK press specualtion about the DNA in the McCann's car. These are just two illustrations os a daily routine of reporting rumours rather than news.

Surely the regulators (in this case Ofcom) have some responsibility to ensure that news channels cover verified news not hype? Their aim should be to provide real information not soap-opera-type entertainment.

It is clearly a by-product of commercial news. To get ratings channels like Sky draw people in by trying to pre-empt all other news providers and in doing so they fail to check their facts. The BBC, which is not profit driven, rarely falls into this trap.

It is a serious issue because it leaves people with a distortied perception of what is happening. Even if people here that a story has been corrected their impressions have already been formed. e.g. thanks to Sky many beleive Sept 11th was more deadly than it was.

Does anyone know whether Ofcom or the Government can do anything about this type of reporting? Is it worth writing to them?

Do you work for another news channel?

Agree, Sky news and ITV are very very unreliable.

I thoroughly and totally concur
It leads or media frenzy and it is seriously unhealthy for the psyche IMO

well they shouldnt watch crap then, BBC only in this house

I don't watch it and if I hear something with Sky as it's source I suspend my belief until it has been verified by a more reliable source.

In fact dh has banned all news except BBC here.

They are meeting a demand for real-time news. People don't generally turn to them for the quality of their reports but because they might have the news first.

Next you will be expecting Sky to make quality tv.

That's what you get from 'the market'. Cut-throat commercial competition means you race to be first, not right. Murdoch channels in the US are openly biased. Good reason to keep the licence fee so at least we have one provider of news that waits until they can verify stories.

MaisyM - LoL. I wish I worked in news - it would be fascinating. This is not a work related post, I am just amazed that Sky is allowed to wind people up like it does. I honestly want to know if anyone has the power to require news providers to attain a certain level of accuracy if they are to keep their broadcast licenses.

Ladymuck - I am not sure that most people do question the accuracy of Sky reports. I think that many people take TV news reports at face value. Having been brought up on the BBC I think people have a trust in TV news that they don't have in print journalism.

They are only doing it cos of the abslolute hysteria following every little tit-bit of info that comes out.

Take a look at the ridiculous amount of threads on recent events in here for an example.

Every time a policeman coughs in Portugal a gaggle of women are ready to post it up here and discuss it to its death and all fall out with each other.

I completely agree with OP with regards to SKY, it sappalling and kay burley is too.
absolute disgrace imo, and I've thought this

I agree. I would never rely on any news Sky put out. The events of 9/11 made it very clear that they don't check any sources before putting "news" out. So, BBC news only here. They may be slower getting stuff out but at least there is more chance that it has been double checked and more likely to be reputable and accurate.

Yeah Sue - have you seen some of those 'chases' where they seem to be driving at 30mph with about 60 cops behind them?

What's that all about? It looks like the Police have arranged it cos they were bored.

I do watch the BBC news and read the papers - but i rarely discuss it with anyone or repeat it as a hard fact. I just read it and digest it.

In a big public case i think you need to wait at least a year before the true facts come out and you get the whole correct picture after all the evidence has been processed and the court case has finished.

Wow, LL, that is appalling. How could they state such specific details without being absolutely sure? I'm a print journalist and I'm shocked.

Sorry for the crew who were killed. One of my friends is a navy surgeon who has had to support a pilot whose helicopter ditched. His co-pilot didn't survive. Grim.

dd1 (who's 7) already knows that "daddy won't have that murdoch man/sky news in the house"

I was massively annoyed to to see the unconfirmed Sky News story of yesterday repeated by all teh tabloids on the front page packaged as "fact". Digging a little deeper EVERY story was sourced from the original Sky one. But now half the population has seen it on the front page of several newspapers and so it must be true.

Have no idea how to stop it though, as "according to sources" is the usual get out clause.

on a much less dramatic level - I recently feartured in a article in a national women's mag along with someone else I knew by reputation but nopt personally. The headline on her bit of the article was a but dramatic and I said to the journalist (a friend) "I was shocked to hear X say that". Friend checked her noted. X didn;t say it or anything like it, magazine had made it up because presumably it was a more dramatic headline but had quoted it in inverted comma's as if she had said it.

It was a lesson to me.

Kewcumber - that is exactly what got me worked up enough to start this thread. Sky report something and then the tabloids base whole front pages on an unconfirmed Sky report. Even if it is then proved wrong it has sunk into the Nation's psyche.

Surely the regulators should have some power, after a story is proven false, to investigate who the sources were and judge whether the news provider was right to rely on them? If the sources turn out to be questionnable then the broadcaster should be fined and forced to air a primetime apology for doing a shoddy job. If this happened a few times I believe that they would quickly improve their journalistic practise.

LL's story serves to illustrate how irresponsible they are even when it is not a HUGE story that the whole nation is in a frenzy about (I am not downplaying the tradgedy - but it serves to illustrate that Sky are not only unreliable when national hysteria has set in).

Whilst I understand the pressure 24 hour news teams must be under to come up with 'breaking' stories, it has got out of control with sensationalism and the most appalling speculative 'reporting'. Yes, sometimes they may get it right, but that does not make up for the mistakes that inevitably get made in the reporting.

I can't deal with it at all, and only watch a scheduled evening news (terrestrial) programme, where you feel that the news team has at least had a chance to sift though the crap, instead of just spouting their mouths off. Sky news almost mimics that dramatic American style of news reporting. A couple of weeks ago, DH put on Fox News where they reported on the environmental protesters at Heathrow, and referred to them as 'Eco Jerks'.

Won't be long now.....

couldn't agree more artichokes. I seem to remember Eamon Holmes left GMTV as he was fed up of the trivialisation of issues amongst other things. At least GMTV doesn't pretend to be anything but a fluffy breakfast show! It isnt just the McCann story where irresponsible and inaccurate reporting seems to be laying the foundations for trial by media, it's the general sensationalising and almost gleeful reporting regarding almost every story. And don't start me on Kay Burrell.....

I don't think the BBC is faring any better, esp. with a recent story.
shot of plane shot of people
-reporter - you can see their faces better describe how they look

they do themselves a de service by going all SKY instead of reporting they get presenters 'emoting' yuck yuck