When news of Queen Elizabeth II’s impending death arrived, media organizations around the world revived, sending reporters to Scotland’s royal courts to announce decades-long coverage plans.
The Queen’s passing at the age of 96 was no surprise. Still, the British royal succession is a media event on steroids, culminating in live coverage of the funeral from Westminster Abbey on Monday.
“That’s something I’ve always feared, predicted, and worried about,” recalled Deb Thompson, assistant London bureau chief for CBS News in the United States, spending the night obsessing over the details.
So far, everything is going well, and she is in awe of the sight.
However, woe to those who did not plan ahead.
The director of Britain’s Foreign Press Association said the organization has been inundated with applications for accreditation from TV and radio broadcasters around the world. The Society seeks to assist them in navigating government and royal protocol.
Director Deborah Bonetti said, “You may have thought the royal wedding reached the highest level of interest, but it doesn’t.” It’s a tsunami of people who don’t know.” Even accredited journalists are vying for positions.
Within Britain, well-crafted coverage of memorial and ceremonial events pays tribute to blunders, according to Stephen Burnett, professor of communication studies at the University of Westminster. Critical consideration of his role, which has been reported worldwide, has been almost entirely banished to social media, he said.
The New York Times has been criticized in Britain for an article that said the king’s funeral was being “heavily” funded by state funds at a time when many Britons were struggling financially.
Journalist Andrew Neale, former editor of London’s Sunday Times, said on Twitter, “There is no depth at which the New York Times does not dive into its anti-British propaganda.”
According to Marlene Koenig, who manages the Royal Musings blog from her Virginia home, the focus in the United States is largely on the end of an era and solemn worship.
“It’s respectful,” she said. “I don’t use pious words. We must remember that the British monarchs are part of our history and heritage.” While waiting to enter Westminster Hall, and as they leave On occasion, I met a crowd of reporters, microphones, and video cameras.
why did they come? What did that moment mean to them? How did you feel when you saw the coffin? Reporters asked to check the wristbands of those in line to figure out how many people were waiting.
On Thursday, the media’s desire to show as many mourners as possible passing by the monarch’s coffin conflicted with the palace’s desire for control over dignity and civility.
The palace has issued a list of rules regarding video coverage. This included, for example, not depicting “showing visible signs of distress” by the royal family or “inappropriate conduct” by members of the public.
When one of the guards at the Queen’s coffin faints, the BBC cuts off the live feed to show what happened despite a still image on the newspaper’s website Limited use of video.
Many news outlets had long-term agreements on where to place journalists for signing events. For example, NBC News uses the same location that covered the wedding of Charles III and Diana, Prince William and Kate his Middleton.
“The British create a glitz and circumstance like no other,” said Tom Mazzarelli, executive producer of NBC’s Today show in the United States.
American broadcasters are also doing their best to cover the Queen. The TV network is anchoring the biggest news her star on Monday’s funeral coverage. Robin Roberts and David Muir from ABC News. NBC’s Savannah Guthrie, Lester Holt, and Hoda Cott. CBS’s Gayle King and Norah O’Donnell.
Princess Diana’s funeral in 1997 was attended by a massive audience of 33 million people in the United States alone on Saturday morning alone.
Even without royalty, the funerals of major figures mark the end of an era and often receive significant television attention. According to Nielsen, viewership when Ronald Reagan was buried in prime time in 2004 reached 35 million.
The Queen’s death received major press coverage elsewhere in the world, often dictated or complicated by the relationship between Britain and the country in which it was shown.
In Hong Kong, where the former British colony was handed back to China in 1997, most local news outlets reported on the British ceremony. I’m here.
The Now TV network edited Facebook posts and news reports showing Hong Kong residents placing flowers at the British consulate, saying the long queues to pay tribute to the Queen were “a sign that people It shows what they want,” removed an interview with one resident. Local media reported that Now TV’s pro-Beijing news director ordered the change. The network gave no explanation.
Heavy press coverage of the Queen’s death in India, once Britain’s largest colony, quickly faded. To older residents, the British royal family represents a poignant piece of history, but to most Indians, they’re just a family of celebrities.
In Syria, President Bashar Assad has considered Britain as part of a coalition to fund rebels in an 11-year civil war, but state television paid little attention to the news.
The co-host of Australia’s leading morning television show, a constitutional monarchy where the Queen is sovereign, traveled to London to cover the event. Patrons of the program were obliged to wear dark clothes.
Widespread coverage in Japan has often paralleled an increasingly controversial state funeral plan later this month for assassinated former leader Shinzo Abe.
Britain’s ceremonies are a “television network hoax,” said Mark Lukashewitz, a veteran US network executive and now dean of the Hofstra University Communications Department.
But it hits its limits after a week or more, says British professor Barnett.
“We’re getting to where many people think. Enough is enough,” he said.
(This article is not edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
