King Charles diagnosed with cancer

[Matt N]

Sorry for inserting something slightly more random in here, but I’d be interested to know people’s thoughts on this.

For those who are unaware, King Charles III has announced this evening that he has been diagnosed with cancer. The palace has announced that he will be stepping back from certain duties, with other members of the royal family stepping in.

The particular thing I’m “musing” about, though, is the coverage surrounding it. This evening, BBC News at 6 talked about it for 30 minutes straight. Nicholas Witchell was drafted in from Hong Kong at least twice during the program, as was Chris Mason from Belfast. They spoke about what felt like very little, which could easily have been condensed into a 2 minute feature, but it took up pretty much the whole 30 minute program until BBC Points West came on at 6:30. In fact, I think they actually had to delay BBC Points West for a few minutes because they were still talking about Charles.

I don’t mean to sound disrespectful towards our monarch, and I apologise if I do, but my musing tonight is; is it only me who felt that this level of coverage was slightly disproportionate? I get that he’s our monarch, and a cancer diagnosis is no small matter, but is this level of coverage really needed given that very little is actually known and that cancer is very treatable in this day and age, so a cancer diagnosis hardly means that the King is in any kind of imminent trouble?

For clarity, I wish King Charles well, and do not say what I said with any ill will towards him personally, but I did feel that the TV coverage of the matter was slightly disproportionate this evening.

Team Edit: The posts in this topic were initially split from the Serious Questions and Musings topic as this subject is likely to bring a lot of discussion

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Sorry for inserting something slightly more random in here, but I’d be interested to know people’s thoughts on this.

For those who are unaware, King Charles III has announced this evening that he has been diagnosed with cancer. The palace has announced that he will be stepping back from certain duties, with other members of the royal family stepping in.

The particular thing I’m “musing” about, though, is the coverage surrounding it. This evening, BBC News at 6 talked about it for 30 minutes straight. Nicholas Witchell was drafted in from Hong Kong at least twice during the program, as was Chris Mason from Belfast. They spoke about what felt like very little, which could easily have been condensed into a 2 minute feature, but it took up pretty much the whole 30 minute program until BBC Points West came on at 6:30. In fact, I think they actually had to delay BBC Points West for a few minutes because they were still talking about Charles.

I don’t mean to sound disrespectful towards our monarch, and I apologise if I do, but my musing tonight is; is it only me who felt that this level of coverage was slightly disproportionate? I get that he’s our monarch, and a cancer diagnosis is no small matter, but is this level of coverage really needed given that very little is actually known and that cancer is very treatable in this day and age, so a cancer diagnosis hardly means that the King is in any kind of imminent trouble?

For clarity, I wish King Charles well, and do not say what I said with any ill will towards him personally, but I did feel that the TV coverage of the matter was slightly disproportionate this evening.

BBC's charter is up for renewal, so you better be sure that you're doffing the cap, saluting the flag and belting God Save The King at full blast before heading into negotiations with DCMS.

Incidentally republicanism is pretty much the one thing that the BBC seemingly doesn't have to cover with impartiality and balance.

In all seriousness though, it IS a charter renewal year and the BBC will not want to be giving any ammunition about it not upholding British values, or being part of the beating heart of the nation.

Slight edit: It's not a charter renewal year, but it is a mid-term charter review year so similar logic will apply.

 

[Alsty]

Yes it is disproportionate. I suspect we're now going to get days of the media harping on, rehashing the limited information over and over again like they did with the late Queen

 

[Craig]

Sorry for inserting something slightly more random in here, but I’d be interested to know people’s thoughts on this.

For those who are unaware, King Charles III has announced this evening that he has been diagnosed with cancer. The palace has announced that he will be stepping back from certain duties, with other members of the royal family stepping in.

The particular thing I’m “musing” about, though, is the coverage surrounding it. This evening, BBC News at 6 talked about it for 30 minutes straight. Nicholas Witchell was drafted in from Hong Kong at least twice during the program, as was Chris Mason from Belfast. They spoke about what felt like very little, which could easily have been condensed into a 2 minute feature, but it took up pretty much the whole 30 minute program until BBC Points West came on at 6:30. In fact, I think they actually had to delay BBC Points West for a few minutes because they were still talking about Charles.

I don’t mean to sound disrespectful towards our monarch, and I apologise if I do, but my musing tonight is; is it only me who felt that this level of coverage was slightly disproportionate? I get that he’s our monarch, and a cancer diagnosis is no small matter, but is this level of coverage really needed given that very little is actually known and that cancer is very treatable in this day and age, so a cancer diagnosis hardly means that the King is in any kind of imminent trouble?

It's traditionally rare for the Royal Household to be so forthcoming with health details of the royal family, so there's usually an instant assumption that it's quite a serious problem.

Whether that's the case, or the royal household is getting ahead of the story because it's likely something will leak (or indeed something already had) it's difficult to tell. It could also be that they're just being increasingly transparent in the modern age.

That said, completely agree that despite changing feelings to the monarchy, news outlets go into overdrive over any morsel of information about them - especially when there's plenty of other places away from mainstream news shows where people who are interested in further background can see it. I certainly don't think you'd be in the minority either, or indeed disrespectful. ITV News also dedicated a full one hour news program to it, and it's crazy that a four paragraph statement is stretched into that. I think the death of the Prince Philip garnered a lot of complaints due to the level of coverage that received, I'd expect the same for this. The Queen is a little different due to the length of her rein pretty much resulting in her death being a worldwide moment in history.

If you think coverage is excessive now though, be prepared for the coming days, because this ain't going nowhere. It's the first time a situation like this has happened, and news outlets will go crazy with pages and pages of speculation, opinion pieces and more. You've had the usual people like Witchell dragged out as they're on short notice for major stories like this, they'll be contacting even more to say their piece tonight with even more coverage at the 10 o clock news and across tomorrow.

 

[Thameslink Rail]

I thought the coverage and mourning period went too far for Elizabeth II. There was no way to escape the constant coverage (after 7pm that evening the only BBC service unaffected was CBeebies Radio), for the next few days many popular shows were cancelled for even more coverage including most comedy and cancelling all football that weekend was frustrating just adding more congestion to an already full calender. I understand that it was one of the most important events of our lifetime but was it worth all that disruption?

 

[Craig]

BBC's charter is up for renewal, so you better be sure that you're doffing the cap, saluting the flag and belting God Save The King at full blast before heading into negotiations with DCMS.

While the Royal Family is an easy stick to beat the BBC with, this is a media wide problem in the UK. Each outlet can't be seen to "out royal" the other, so it just escalates into this crazy level of coverage as they all try to keep up with each other.

I've already mentioned ITV News, but take a look at most mainstream websites - The S*n, Guardian and The Mirror:

Of course, tabloids have a need to just pile in articles for the clicks - but equally The BBC then panic as a result too. Despite the changing attitudes to the monarchy, remember there's still around 60% of the UK who want to have it. There'd no doubt be an outcry from a lot of people should the national broadcaster not provide adequate coverage, despite a lot of people willing to complain and say the opposite.

 

[BarryZola]

It's weird how they have revealed that he has cancer, but then what kind of cancer it is seems to be a big secret. Peculiar behaviour. Red rag to a bull for the media to use whatever tactics to be the first to find out.

 

[Zeock]

Although I am anti-monarchist, I wish him a full recovery.

 

[Matt N]

It's weird how they have revealed that he has cancer, but then what kind of cancer it is seems to be a big secret. Peculiar behaviour. Red rag to a bull for the media to use whatever tactics to be the first to find out.

The only thing they've confirmed is that it's "not prostate cancer", so it's unlinked to his recent enlarged prostate procedure.

 

[Tom]

I’d say it was fairly consistent and proportionate. He is head of state.

You can condense anything into two minutes if you really wanted to, but I see this as consistent and about the expected level.

 

[Craig]

I'm not saying they should condense a short statement and say nothing else, but I'd also suggest they should perhaps avoid just repeating the same thing again and again over the course of a one hour news programme. Dedicate 10, 15 minutes maybe when the news has broke, but if you watch ITV News back from 6pm all you'll see is the statement being read out repeatedly. I'm all for coverage of important events, as pointed out he is the head of state. But, at the same time there's plenty of other things to be concentrating on when the poor bloke is still alive - you'd think the opposite watching the news this evening. It's clear from not wishing to share the kind of cancer he has that they wish to maintain some semblance of privacy, yet the media will speculate like hell over what it could be in the coming weeks. News, especially live news should be predominately factual with analysis on the side - it seems to be the complete opposite.

It's always something that's fascinating me, the world and how it consumes news has evolved over the decades since Elizabeth II became queen. But yet, the way we report news on the royal family, aside from a few changes has very much stood still.

 

[Matt N]

I must admit that I do also feel for Charles himself with regard to all of this coverage. On a personal level, it can't be nice having the world's media probing your health and speculating about your private health issues.

 

[Thameslink Rail]

I must admit that I do also feel for Charles himself with regard to all of this coverage. On a personal level, it can't be nice having the world's media probing your health and speculating about your private health issues.

Yes, unfortunately the tabloids are horrendous at this. This was printed by the Sun who suspected Freddie Mercury had AIDS (Mercury and his inner circle denied this publicly).
They could only have got this photo by following him from his house to the doctors at 5am. His friends have made it clear how disgusted they were (using language I can't repeat here). Queen actually wrote the song Scandal about this unwanted attention (as well as the tabloids focussing on Brian May's failing marriage).
Admittedly this is a bit of a tangent but I feel it is worth sharing just what some in the media are willing to do for sales.

 

[Tom]

I'm not saying they should condense a short statement and say nothing else, but I'd also suggest they should perhaps avoid just repeating the same thing again and again over the course of a one hour news programme. Dedicate 10, 15 minutes maybe when the news has broke, but if you watch ITV News back from 6pm all you'll see is the statement being read out repeatedly. I'm all for coverage of important events, as pointed out he is the head of state. But, at the same time there's plenty of other things to be concentrating on when the poor bloke is still alive - you'd think the opposite watching the news this evening. It's clear from not wishing to share the kind of cancer he has that they wish to maintain some semblance of privacy, yet the media will speculate like hell over what it could be in the coming weeks. News, especially live news should be predominately factual with analysis on the side - it seems to be the complete opposite.

It's always something that's fascinating me, the world and how it consumes news has evolved over the decades since Elizabeth II became queen. But yet, the way we report news on the royal family, aside from a few changes has very much stood still.

I’d generally agree, I’d just add that the statement was released moments before the 6pm news programmes came on air, so they were effectively breaking new flashes at that point and the editors probably just said stay with it. They do tend to read statements out repeatedly while everything else is prepared.

Would have been interesting to see how it were reported if it was released at say 2 or 3pm. Would it be a news flash with programmes interrupted or not.

 

[Matt.GC]

Very sad when anyone gets cancer. I wish him and his family well as I would anyone. Royal stuff sells however. Only a hardcore of flag wavers really cared seriously about Liz popping her clogs didn't they? We had some silly national mourning imposed on us, which I felt was extremely disrespectful amidst all the other suffering that was going on among her subjects at the time in the real world. Royal gossip surrounding this is big news, will get people tuned in, generate clicks and sell newspapers.

Although anything that shortens BBC Points West can't be that bad. The local news around here is terrible. Sadly, those poor teenage lads that were murdered in Knowle West was also in the national news and has dominated local headlines recently. But on Christmas Eve they did a 2 minute piece about people arriving back at Bristol Airport. I kid you not, the main headline really was "West people get off plane at Airport".

I mean, imagine working hard all your journalistic career, hoping to uncover a scoop like the Watergate scandal, John Delorean dealing cocaine, the fall of the Berlin Wall, or John Burton having a 'meow' bitch about Shawn Sandbrook on twitter (mmm, maybe not the last one). Then your producer tells you to grab Simon the camera man and hot foot it off to Bristol airport to film people arriving in a departure lounge. You'd wonder where you went wrong in life.

 

[rob666]

Be prepared for a long fuss.
My mum had terminal bone cancer...for twelve years...starting in her seventies.
Good general health the majority of the time, but masses of pills and limited chemo/radiotherapy occasionally.
She had a decent quality of life for a decade carrying the disease, but it was norovirus that killed her off in the end.
People can live for decades with cancer.
He will be getting the very best of treatment, no NHS waits for junior doctor/consultant strikes here.
This may not be a short story.

 

[Jb85]

I have a feeling that this is a shock to him and the family it is far advanced.

Is it the beginning of the end, i hope not as I am pro Royal, but the fact they have announced it is odd.

 

[rob666]

It is quite impossible to keep a big story secret these days, the joys of social media and fast technology, this would have leaked out quickly into another "All the media know, all the media can't say" situation.
Good look to the old fella.

 

[Benzin]

Might be another 2 bonus days off.

Such is life. He can afford the best treatment for it so excuse me for not particularly being bothered by it.

 

[Itgoeshowhigh]

I’m thinking this wouldn’t have been announced without Charles permission. I’m hoping for his sake and thinking that if it was a more serious or advanced cancer it would of took Charles a while to make that decision (to announce it) and we wouldn’t have been hearing about it yet.

There are a few, particularly male cancers that older gentleman die with rather than die of. When managed well, they can have these for many many years with minimal serious complications. Hope it’s one of those.

He will be getting the best treatment, no waiting lists etc.

Whatever he has, it’s never going to be nice having any sort of cancer diagnosis and that family are not having a great time lately.

I’m no fan of the royal family but fair play to Charles he seems to have made a decision to be open and honest about his health issues. Nobody need ever have known about his prostate issue. This is good especially for mens health issues because men have a tendency to not go to their doctors to get stuff checked out. So fair play to him for raising awareness and being open.