Libya reporting: Sky News or BBC?

I watched with interest my Twitter stream on Sunday evening. Things looked like they were coming to a head in Libya. And the Twitterati were berating the BBC for their allegedly woeful reporting, while praising the work of Sky for their up-to-the-minute coverage.

Alex Crawford was hailed a hero, reporting as she was from a busy street filled with celebrating rebel supporters. And I have to admit, her bravery in that situation was admirable.

Thirty-six hours later, things have not yet come to a head. Col Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, was reportedly captured on Sunday evening. Yet today, news suggests that this news was premature, as he vows to fight on, presumably not from a captured standpoint.

Sky News’ sensationalist coverage was gripping. But it led people, probably both in the UK and Libya, to think that the rebel situation was more advanced than was actually the case. Whether this risked lives, who knows.

I would much rather absorb the BBC coverage, lacking though it might be of street scenes and sensational reporting (in the traditional sense of the word)—unpopular though my stance might be.

Comments

One Response to “Libya reporting: Sky News or BBC?”

  1. Greg on August 23rd, 2011 09:34

    I find the BBC ‘live text’ updates to be far more useful than the BBC News channel and usually quicker to be updated (Rupert Wingfield-Hayes is particularly good); if I want a visual/video report however, I find myself switching to Sky News.

Leave a Reply