Then as I made coffee, further details of the attacks in the Belgian capital came through, not only on radio, but also, on Twitter.
It hit me once again, how not only has the way we consume news changed so dramatically in such a short period of time but so too has how it’s reported.
A day after the social media site’s highly-publicised 10th birthday, my timeline was now being filled with updates, pictures, videos and comments on the three explosions across Brussels.
— Anna Ahronheim (@AAhronheim) March 22, 2016
Meanwhile over on Facebook there were fewer news postings but far more personal statements of support and hoping friends and colleagues there were safe.
I imagine this says as much about my own social media settings as anything else, but this noticeable content variation also undoubtedly reflects one of the most important differences between how both platforms were designed and have developed.
What they had in common was the fact that once again it felt odd to see people posting a host of unrelated relatively flippant and light-hearted material in the midst of this very tragic story.
Nothing wrong with this, of course, in the same way that in the real world a multitude of conversations go on at the same time, but when something particularly solemn and gruesome has grabbed your attention, you’re always somewhat surprised that everyone else isn’t as taken by it as you.
At 9.00am I switched on BBC News on my TV. Unsurprisingly the Brussels bombings was the lead – and for the initial three hours I watched (and I expect it was the same on other news channels), the only – story.
And while I already knew by then the basic details of what had happened, as I expected, television had pictures and witness accounts I hadn’t yet seen, much of it coming in chaotically live and unedited, both via professional reporters and amateur eyewitnesses.
And as I also expected, given the nature of rolling news channels, very quickly pictures and reports began to repeat themselves, with new bits of information and images being added as they came in and were (you hoped) verified.
Two and a half hours later when I returned from a meeting, this time to Sky News the attack was still getting blanket coverage, though by now this coverage had moved on considerably.
Almost eight hours after the first bomb at Brussels airport we were now very much into the broader analysis sphere.
More details, images and witnesses had emerged, local and world figures had commented, commiserated and condemned, and speculation had gone into overdrive, with everything from the identity and backgrounds of the perpetrators, the reasons for the attack, possible lapses in intelligence and likely increases in security all going under the interrogative microscope, though without anything close to all the evidence.
It was particularly noticeable at this stage that the various networks were very comfortable with guest being interviewed over Skype and their journalists using their smartphones as newsgathering tools when necessary, even if the audio and picture quality weren’t what we’re used to.
At times like this low resolution sound and visuals are always better than no sound and visuals.
I saw numerous examples of reporters grabbing interviews with people caught up in the chaos or doing pieces to camera in front of pertinent backdrops on their own phones, I assume because they were for some reason somewhere camera crews couldn’t or hadn’t yet been able to access.
I was especially taken by a report I saw at least twice on Sky News of what I later found out was one of their staff, correspondent, Alex Rossi who was in the airport when the bombs went off and was now part of a crowd being evacuated, all the while talking to a news anchor on his own phone with synchronised visuals provided by someone shooting him on their phone as they walked alongside.