★★★★★ 0/5

Oops. A Current Affair: “The Queen is stepping down from public life.”

In the race to report breaking news, Tracy Grimshaw makes another royal announcement.

19
Leave a comment

In the race to report breaking news from Buckingham Palace, A Current Affair host Tracy Grimshaw told viewers that “the Queen is stepping down from public life” this evening.

With producers talking in her ear, she added “We have confirmation,” before a Nine reporter in London interrupted to advise it was actually Prince Phillip who was stepping down.

In what was clearly Live TV confusion, Grimshaw appears to have been let down by her production team as they sought to cover the news, which broke just after 7pm AEST.

19 Responses

  1. Noticed this report early on facebook, reported by TheWest and saying something serious about the queen etc. Very impressed the ABC held back reporting anything until it had some solid news! Goes to show the difference between a decent news organisation and the commercial ones!

  2. Lucky for Nine they weren’t relying on the UK “Sun” Twitter. “Prince Phillip dead at 95, how did the Duke of Edinburgh die, etc etc,” the headline screamed.
    At least 7 News (Sydney) was a bit more accurate, running 3 mins. over, having a reporter in London following someone’s (correct) Twitter info. Guessing Tracy was not too pleased with the goose who fed her fake news, all in the race to be ‘First on Nine’.

  4. This mentality that these networks have in having to be the first and having the exclusive and this kind of thing will happen. Maybe just wait till the official statement next time.

  5. Maybe it’s time for Tracy Grimshaw to step down from public life too.
    ACA should just stick to stories about Love Rats, Welfare Cheats and Xenophobia. 😉

        1. It’s harsh to suggest Tracy “steps down from public life” for an error which appears to have been made by production team, as the story noted. Anchors have to be supported in Live broadcasts.

  7. I thought Tracy did well, she clearly had a producer in her ear, a studio director she was looking at, plus a 4 second delay line to London. Would like to see how armchair critics would have handled the same situation.

  9. Channel 7 crossed to a reporter in the UK who said she new nothing and had to rely on information given to her by Peter Mitchell in Melbourne. Epic fail

    1. That’s so funny. It just goes to show how ridiculously pointless live crosses to reporters on location are when they are relying on feeds from back at the studio. I have hated this “reporting” style ever since they started doing it.

      1. For the most part, I agree. Sometimes when the reporter does have up-to-date on-the-spot info, or a live interview, live crosses can work. But I do recall many years ago – very likely on this website – that live crosses were introduced as a cost saving measure.

          1. Re cost saving … the reason given at the time was that live crosses reduced the need for editing work (thus reducing editors’ hours of work) prior to the news session going to air.

            Live crosses do add immediacy if the event is taking place at the time. Recently on Ch7 Melb’s evening news, they did a live cross regarding an event that occurred that morning. All the emergency crews had long since gone, and the reporter was standing all alone in a deserted suburban street at night time. The live cross was pointless.

          2. yep, “an attempt to add drama and immediacy to an otherwise weak story” – exactly. The reporter standing outside the parliament/police station/courthouse rarely has anything to say that the presenter in the studio couldn’t have covered. It’s just theatre to dress it up and add visual interest.

Leave a Reply