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?

If you know of specific examples of news programmes getting their facts wrong, do complain to that channel or programme. It might put pressure on the bosses to give staff time to check before broacast. And employ enough staff to do the job properly.

I really don't think we want the regulator getting involved in the nitty gritty of editorial policy and practice in news programmes, however distateful some errors might be. They wouldn't be very good at it and that way lies state censorship.

bundle, right there with you on that. We just won't have Sky at home full stop. Ds knows why

McEdam - I agree that the regulator's shouldn't get involved in editorial policy but they do have a role in policing the accuracy of reporting. Thats not censorship. For example the medical regulator the GMC would deal with someone pretending to be a doctor when they are not one. Ofcom should deal with a company pretending to be a news provider when their product is not news.

I could write to the big media owners 100,000 times with reasoned complaints about poor journalistic practise and it would not make a blind bit of difference. med like Murdoch are brilliant at business and know what style fo reporting brings in the masses - why care if that is at the expense of accuracy?

"Men" like Murdoch, not "med" like Murdoch. Sorry.

How on earth would they do that, though? Define 'news', for a start?

How about the Daily Express? I'm aghast everyday at them.

It is not the same as complaining about the quality of sky TV. Sky news, by definition, shows news. Made up, sensationalist, scaremongering crap in not news.

It's a bit like gossip magazines simply making up gossip about celebrities to sell copies.

I had a look at sky home and I don't see how "Downing street brings back the cat" can be "breaking news".

Someone has a cat? Oh goodness me that's worth a headline. In fact , let's list it under "breaking news"

McEdam - the way it might work is if enough people complained to the regulator that a story had been misleading then the regualtorcould start an investigation. They could ask the news provider what sources they had relied on and how they had checked the facts before airing the story as news. If it turned out they had relied on the wife-of-the-brother-of-the-desk-sargeant-at-the-police-station-10-miles-away-from-where-the-stry-was -taking-place, and if they ascertained that no effort had been made to verify the story, then the regualtor could impose a fine. If such a structure existed it would probably not take long for broadcasters to pull their coscks up.

The BBC is subject to greater scrutiny of its contant than the other broadcasters and it tends to do better. Maybe that is because it knows it has to be accurate to survive.

I'm fairly sure you can make a complaint about the sensationalist nature of news reporting, Ofcom is the place to start. I would also call sky news to complain too. I do work in television news and I agree that rolling news commitments can seriously jeopardise impartiality. The need to keep on air and keep things moving does often lead to so much speculation which can be so damaging.

I've thought for a long time there isn't really a market for rolling news, even more so now with the advent of the internet. The BBC is talking about shutting down BBC3 and BBC4 to save money, but in many ways I think these channels fulfill the BBCs remit to public service and minority broadcasting much more than say News24. News24 costs millions to run and at any given time only reaches a 100,000 people... MAXIMUM. Sky News' viewing figures are paltry, 20,000 at the most, but they can afford to lose money on the channel because they make so much from sport and movies. But it does mean they spend a pittance on news, and it shows.

Sorry, didn't mean to turn this in to a general is TV news falling apart debate, just a pet subject of mine at the moment

Pity me then; Sky 'News' is the only UK news we can access in Nigeria. Sometimes it's diabolical and sometimes it's even worse than that. I mean, what's newsworthy about one Sky reporter interviewing another Sky reporter, in Portugal??

I can't say that I like BBC much nowadays, either, although it isn't quite on Sky News levels yet. Channel 4 is my preference for news.

I like skynews - it's the latest news stories as it happens.

if the missed out the "news" bit of your sentance, MaisyM then your statement would be entirely correct. When I travelled a lot and Sky News was the only English news available to those of us out of the country, it affectionately became known as SkyNoNews.

LOL Kewcumber!! Breaking news Prince Philip farts....

I get my news from FoxNews and Aljazeera English. That way I hear the same stories from completely different perspectives...

Snort Kew - I quite agree. "The latest stuff some editor made up and published on t'internet so everyone would think it was fact". BONG! BONG! BONG!

The McCann case has been particularly dreadful for reporting speculation as if it were fact, but it makes you wonder what other cases have slipped under our radar.

When you think of the extraordinary history of investigative journalism - Watergate, for example - the current level of mediocrity and amateurism are a true disappointment.

Mrs Marr, that was a really good account of the political economy of news broadcasting..well said!

I've had to return to this thread because I have to admit, I do like Sky's foreigh affairs editor, Tim Marshall. I think he explains things very well, in plain language, and doesn't bore the pants off me.

And, come to think of it, I also like Lisa, who does the weather and occasional reports. She's sweet.

Lordy me, I'll be saying I like Rupert Murdoch next....