WINOL Bulletin Crit #2

• The clip cuts to the street performer on the high street a couple seconds before the reporter gets to the subject of the high street, while still talking about the charity funding cuts. It's noticeable because the street performer has absolutely no relation to the story until the reporter contextualises it ("In comparison, the redevelopment of Winchester high street...").
• Why is Harry Verney interviewed in front of the vending machine? The background noise from the multimedia centre is also distracting - particularly the Windows log on sound effect. The interview is cut very abruptly, too, while Verney is still speaking (this is true of Michele Price's interview as well).
• "...but at least the streets are clean," probably wasn't meant to come across as sarcastic, but it did, giving the news report a biased slant.
• During Eleanor Bell's interview, she says that "as you know, Winchester's got a one-way system in the middle," at which point we're shown a van turning a corner. The small clip doesn't give any impression of a one-way system. I think the clip should have at least included a one-way sign, or a greater view of one of the one-way roads just by the high street. As it is, it's just a van turning a corner. 
• In Stuart Applebee's piece to the camera, he was standing very close to the camera and at an odd angle.
• I think it was a combination of bad audio, camera angle and lack of any physical acknowledgement of his presence, but Claire's "Thanks very much Tom," at the end of the sports report seemed oddly distant.
• I had a problem with the order of the news. The spending review has dominated the news for the last month and is one of the biggest issues politically, economically and socially. Why was it second in the bulletin after the charity fundings cut? I also think the news could have been ordered better. The bulletin begins with local news, goes to national news with the spending review, cuts to a court report, and then back to the spending review. I think a better order would have been:
1. Spending reviews
2. Rising tax fairs
3. Charity funding cuts
4. Convicted paedophiles
• This would have made more sense, organised by topic and importance/relevancy to viewers.

Overall, it's a big improvement to last week's. I know I haven't praised anything, but you can safely assume that what I haven't fussed about, I enjoyed.