News 24/World is currently doing a split screen between correspondents/interviewees; and what appears to be a somewhat dodgy live feed of Reagan's herse driving along the califorian streets - complete with instances of the feed cutting out and hastily being faded to a still picture of Ronald.
http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/news24reaganherse.jpg
Just watching Fox News, Shepard Smith is very solumn.... in fact it seems at times that it's only the result of his extensive plastic surgery that's stopping him from bursting into tears.
I do find it interesting that NBC has come under fire for apparently not giving enough time to Regan's death.
The end result is that a former US president has died. He did not die under tragic or unexpected circumstances, he did not die unusually young either, to be quite blunt about it, the only surprise is that he didn't die sooner.
Having reported his death, and run the obit that has probably been queued up for years, where is there left to go? Report his death again? Run the obit again? Then report his death yet again before 'analysing' this death which is completely without tragic or suspicious circumstances? It's hardly like there would be any new developments to be had by staying with the story is it?
It's fair enough if rolling news channels want to keep reporting it; they constantly repeat the same news anyway, but why should the networks feel obligated to ditch their programming to keep reporting what is, looking at it objectively, a story which won't go anywhere?
And I also question whoever it was who lauded up the British way of doing things - suspending programmes for hours on end. I think this is often misplaced, the most recent example being when the queen mother died. I felt so sorry for BBC News and ITN on that day - BBC1 and ITV both felt the need to suspend their programmes and report the death for hours and hours, but beyond 'The Queen Mother has died' there was pretty much nothing left to report.
I do feel that, every time a major figure dies, people in this country (if only subconciously) compare it to the way Diana's death was handled. That was entirely justified, given the rather confused nature of the story (still confused now 7 years later in point of fact) and the tragic circumstances surrounding it, but every other death of a prominent figure does not necessarily deserve the same treatment.
The way it is, I am absolutely dreading the day that the queen eventually dies - knowing that every broadcaster in the country will suspend programmes indefinately, and that her death is unlikely to hold any story beyond the headline, we probably won't be able to see anything else for weeks yet we we will have absolutely nothing said beyond 'The queen has died' followed by constant analysis of her life.
Seconded. With the Queen Mother, as far as I'm concerned there's been far more tragic things that have happened in this country's history than the expected death of a woman who, personally I have nothing against, but really hasn't done anything to merit such fake mourning. The fact that a large swathe (I'd say the majority) of the country don't care is ignored as the networks do all they can to keep the vocal minority happy.
RE: US network procedure when someone important dies...
I don't see anything wrong with how the US networks responded contrary to what James said. Mr. Reagan is not the current president of the United States. Now if George Bush Jr. died for some reason, then the networks would probably do something drastically different.
Seconded. With the Queen Mother, as far as I'm concerned there's been far more tragic things that have happened in this country's history than the expected death of a woman who, personally I have nothing against, but really hasn't done anything to merit such fake mourning. The fact that a large swathe (I'd say the majority) of the country don't care is ignored as the networks do all they can to keep the vocal minority happy.
Actually, I have done research on this subject and the MAJORITY DO still care about the monarchy and it is only right that regular programmes should be postponed to pay tribute to our head of state. (Yes she is still head of state-NOT Tony Blair!) Frankly I find your comments a little disrespectful even if you are a republican. The fact is you are discussing the event so flippantly it's as if society only cares about their own little interests now and nothing else. The Queen passing WILL be a major event. Firstly there will be her sad death. Then there will be coverage of the ascension of King Charles III followed by coverage of the Queen lying in state. Then of course will be the funeral and finally months later will be the King's coronation. For God's sake, how can anyone actually admit to "dreading" the Queen's passing for fear of disrupting TV schedules. It is people like you who are in the minority. When you watch TV today and see those thousands of D-Day soldiers, they fought for King and country and believe me they loved their King as they no doubt do their Queen. This is Britain. This is a monarchy. The monarchy is the BIGGEST money maker we have in terms of tourism and pageantry. People should feel proud in what we have as a country rather than worrying about TV schedules being disrupted.
As for Ronald Reagan dying. Sad Yes. Inevitable? yes. Relevant to our country? No. Why do we care more about his death than we do our own Queen's? For God sake, people should start taking pride in this country all the time and not just during football matches.
Seconded. With the Queen Mother, as far as I'm concerned there's been far more tragic things that have happened in this country's history than the expected death of a woman who, personally I have nothing against, but really hasn't done anything to merit such fake mourning. The fact that a large swathe (I'd say the majority) of the country don't care is ignored as the networks do all they can to keep the vocal minority happy.
Actually, I have done research on this subject and the MAJORITY DO still care about the monarchy and it is only right that regular programmes should be postponed to pay tribute to our head of state. (Yes she is still head of state-NOT Tony Blair!) Frankly I find your comments a little disrespectful even if you are a republican. The fact is you are discussing the event so flippantly it's as if society only cares about their own little interests now and nothing else. The Queen passing WILL be a major event. Firstly there will be her sad death. Then there will be coverage of the ascension of King Charles III followed by coverage of the Queen lying in state. Then of course will be the funeral and finally months later will be the King's coronation. For God's sake, how can anyone actually admit to "dreading" the Queen's passing for fear of disrupting TV schedules. It is people like you who are in the minority. When you watch TV today and see those thousands of D-Day soldiers, they fought for King and country and believe me they loved their King as they no doubt do their Queen. This is Britain. This is a monarchy. The monarchy is the BIGGEST money maker we have in terms of tourism and pageantry. People should feel proud in what we have as a country rather than worrying about TV schedules being disrupted.
As for Ronald Reagan dying. Sad Yes. Inevitable? yes. Relevant to our country? No. Why do we care more about his death than we do our own Queen's? For God sake, people should start taking pride in this country all the time and not just during football matches.
VERY WELL put. Very True as well. The flags only come out for England matches, and the general population actually think our team has a chance. We should take more pride in England and be proud! - starting with you p_c_u_k.
His death per se might not be "relevant", but then it is not "relevant" to anyone but those who knew him. Americans are not going to miss a man they never met.
HOWEVER, what you're saying rather insinuates that Reagan was in no way of consequence to the UK, or indeed the rest of the world.
And I also question whoever it was who lauded up the British way of doing things - suspending programmes for hours on end. I think this is often misplaced, the most recent example being when the queen mother died. I felt so sorry for BBC News and ITN on that day - BBC1 and ITV both felt the need to suspend their programmes and report the death for hours and hours, but beyond 'The Queen Mother has died' there was pretty much nothing left to report.
But they didn't with the Queen Mother. The BBC had at the most a couple of hours of coverage and then went back to normal Saturday night programmes.
Things have changed since Dianas death and the blanket coverage that was the traditional plan no longer happens. But then DIana was a whole diffrent sort of story
The other thing to consider is that not everyone is watching the TV at the same time. If the main TV channels had broadcast a five minute news flash saying 'Queen Mum dead' and then returned straight away many people (including myself) wouldn't have known about it for a while. For such a major news story that's not very good
His death per se might not be "relevant", but then it is not "relevant" to anyone but those who knew him. Americans are not going to miss a man they never met.
HOWEVER, what you're saying rather insinuates that Reagan was in no way of consequence to the UK, or indeed the rest of the world.
That is, of course, twaddle.
Actually, what I am saying is that as an ex president it has no relevance to our country just like if Edward heath died tomorrow it would be totally irrelevant to the US and other countries. However, if the current US president died while in office then that would be of relevance to the UK and rest of the world due to modern politics indirectly being linked to American policies. I am of course sad to hear of any death and it will be sad when Margaret Thatcher dies, but my main point is that some people seem to think that reagan's death is far more significant than the eventual death of our very own Queen.
They are actuaaly dissing her death as an inconvenience due to TV schedules being disrupted. That is what I am saying. I am pleased that the British media is covering reagan's death in a dignified and respectful manner without going into overkill. That is how an ex politicians death should be covered and we seem to have got that right in the UK.
In my view, a very strong and able president, especially due to belief in free market economics.
I think it's a two-sided coin as to whether he was strong and able. He was very charismatic, and appeared to work very well with a divided Congress (essential in the US political system if gridlock is to be avoided), however, he played the patriot card on most of his famous legislative packages - during the Cold War, any politician who opposed his policy of boosting military spending, for example, would be seen as being easy on Communism - not a good thing electorally.
The US isn't much better politcally now though is it!
In the end it led to the defeat of communism, even if it was by a bomb by bomb approach - and stopping Europe turing red could hadly be a bad thing!
Oh yes, I'm not disputing the fact that he ended the Cold War, and avoided a nuclear catastrophe, but I'm just questioning whether the way he did it was "strong and able". For me, a successful president is one who manages to pass controversial legislation through an opposing Congress, not one who "wraps himself in the flag", as Reagan, and arguably George W. Bush have both done. During the Cold War, any politician who opposed Reagan's policies geared towards the "war", would be seen as weak on Communism, and, as I said, would be committing electoral suicide.