The Jubilee celebrations & regatta on Sunday,,,,
Discussion
Asterix said:
Eric Mc said:
Being discussed on Radio 4 in a few minutes. The BBC are well aware they cocked this one up and are back pedalling like mad now.
I didn't get to see any of the BBC coverage - what was the overall problem?Asterix said:
Eric Mc said:
Being discussed on Radio 4 in a few minutes. The BBC are well aware they cocked this one up and are back pedalling like mad now.
I didn't get to see any of the BBC coverage - what was the overall problem?On the BBC I could watch Tess Daly and Fearne Cotton, and some annoying idiots. I could hear nothing. Completely pointless. Oh and I could see what was going on at Anglsey, Morcambe and Salford. Fecking great.
On Sky I could see pretty much everything, FAR FAR better. Couldn't hear much except faintly in the background but much better overall.
Didn't think to try CNN.
Dr Imran T said:
Again, not sure how celebrated this event was in France, showing a jubilee party in SW France (20 ex pats) doesn't mean that the whole country was behind the event.
Well that wasn't the point of that section, at all. It wasn't meant to intend the whole country was behind the event, so it's unsurprising - and a little unfair - that you're miffed it didn't.DJRC said:
Asterix said:
Eric Mc said:
Being discussed on Radio 4 in a few minutes. The BBC are well aware they cocked this one up and are back pedalling like mad now.
I didn't get to see any of the BBC coverage - what was the overall problem?A little bit of intelligence might not have gone amiss now and then.
Richard Bacon's comment on Radio 5 after the service yesterday "Well, that was a bit stiff, wasn't ir".
Kind of sums up where the next generation of presenters are coming from.
Eric Mc said:
DJRC said:
Asterix said:
Eric Mc said:
Being discussed on Radio 4 in a few minutes. The BBC are well aware they cocked this one up and are back pedalling like mad now.
I didn't get to see any of the BBC coverage - what was the overall problem?A little bit of intelligence might not have gone amiss now and then.
Richard Bacon's comment on Radio 5 after the service yesterday "Well, that was a bit stiff, wasn't ir".
Kind of sums up where the next generation of presenters are coming from.
Actually, Ive got 2 questions:
1. Wtf is Richard Bacon?
2. Wtf is Gillian whoeveritwas?
Ok, a 3rd question:
3. Why the hell do you care what presenters either think or say? They are background noise whose utterences are to be instantly dismissed the minute something more important in life happens. Like your cup of tea arriving. Or better yet if you dont like them...turn them off and go and do something more worthwhile. It never ceases to amaze me why or how people even know the names of any presenters anyway, to me they are the newspaper that holds your fish n chips.
One of the BBC presenters during the coverage described the Queen in having reached this jubilee as "an incredible achievement".
What there is in being born into a position and not dying yet be described as an "incredible achievement", I'll never know?
Even more ridiculous, was for John Inverdale to outdo that by proclaiming that Tsonga would become immortal if he mamaged to beat Djokovic during a quarter final of a tennis tournament.
No John, he wouldn't.
What there is in being born into a position and not dying yet be described as an "incredible achievement", I'll never know?
Even more ridiculous, was for John Inverdale to outdo that by proclaiming that Tsonga would become immortal if he mamaged to beat Djokovic during a quarter final of a tennis tournament.
No John, he wouldn't.
DJRC said:
The middle class defence rests its case M'lud!
Actually, Ive got 2 questions:
1. Wtf is Richard Bacon?
2. Wtf is Gillian whoeveritwas?
Ok, a 3rd question:
3. Why the hell do you care what presenters either think or say? They are background noise whose utterences are to be instantly dismissed the minute something more important in life happens. Like your cup of tea arriving. Or better yet if you dont like them...turn them off and go and do something more worthwhile. It never ceases to amaze me why or how people even know the names of any presenters anyway, to me they are the newspaper that holds your fish n chips.
I wish you would refrain from the expletives as it does nothing to further your comments - apart from making you sound extremely angry - which is a bit uncalled for.Actually, Ive got 2 questions:
1. Wtf is Richard Bacon?
2. Wtf is Gillian whoeveritwas?
Ok, a 3rd question:
3. Why the hell do you care what presenters either think or say? They are background noise whose utterences are to be instantly dismissed the minute something more important in life happens. Like your cup of tea arriving. Or better yet if you dont like them...turn them off and go and do something more worthwhile. It never ceases to amaze me why or how people even know the names of any presenters anyway, to me they are the newspaper that holds your fish n chips.
Gor your exclusive information, Richard Bacon is a Radio 5 presenter who currently hosts an afternoon magazine show on Radio 5. I don't listen to his programme that often. I preferred it when it was hosted by Simon Mayo.
Gillian Reynolds is a radio, TV and film reviewer. She writes regularly for the Daily Telegraph on such matters and makes occasional "appearances" on radio, usually BBC Radio 4.
Sadly. the presenters on BBC over the weekend were far more than background noise. Indeed, they were FOREGROUND noise and very annoying at that.
There are plenty of other presenters that could have been used. In a way, it is not the presenters that were really at fault. It was the style and format of the presentation chosen by the producers of the programme. The presenters were out of their depth for this type of programme.
Globs said:
Asterix said:
Eric Mc said:
Being discussed on Radio 4 in a few minutes. The BBC are well aware they cocked this one up and are back pedalling like mad now.
I didn't get to see any of the BBC coverage - what was the overall problem?On the BBC I could watch Tess Daly and Fearne Cotton, and some annoying idiots. I could hear nothing. Completely pointless. Oh and I could see what was going on at Anglsey, Morcambe and Salford. Fecking great.
On Sky I could see pretty much everything, FAR FAR better. Couldn't hear much except faintly in the background but much better overall.
Didn't think to try CNN.
10 Pence Short said:
Even more ridiculous, was for John Inverdale to outdo that by proclaiming that Tsonga would become immortal if he mamaged to beat Djokovic during a quarter final of a tennis tournament.
No John, he wouldn't.
You'll have to backtrack on that when Tsonga beheads Djokovic and screams "there can be only one!"No John, he wouldn't.
Eric Mc said:
Sadly. the presenters on BBC over the weekend were far more than background noise. Indeed, they were FOREGROUND noise and very annoying at that.
They were indeed. Surely they could have got a Dimblebey? That would have been lovely, Rather than have ageing "yoof" presenters getting the stories of "real" people and not doing a very good job of it. Jonathan Dimbleby has just announced his retirement from hosting Radio 4's "Any Questions", so I presume that put him out of the frame.
David is still hosting the TV version, "Question Time" so can't see why they didn't consider him. He's probably not "inclusive" enough - whaatever the hell "inclusive" means.
I certainly didn't feel that "included" in their coverage over the past few days.
David is still hosting the TV version, "Question Time" so can't see why they didn't consider him. He's probably not "inclusive" enough - whaatever the hell "inclusive" means.
I certainly didn't feel that "included" in their coverage over the past few days.
I started with the BBC on the weekend and soon realised it was going to be dire
I switched to Sky not expecting much better and was pleasantly surprised, I know these very long OB's can be hard work but it would appear the BBC got it very very wrong
I ALMOST wish I had stuck with it as I have no idea what a lot of people are talking about now
I switched to Sky not expecting much better and was pleasantly surprised, I know these very long OB's can be hard work but it would appear the BBC got it very very wrong
I ALMOST wish I had stuck with it as I have no idea what a lot of people are talking about now
Debate on Radio 4 this morning. It starts 1:33:40 into the programme -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jhdgb/Toda...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jhdgb/Toda...
Watched the BBC for the Thames pageant,it was dire,with some key moments missed due to the BBC cutting to some so called celebrity or hopeless presenter doing stuff that quite frankly was far from interesting compared to what was happening on the Thames.
Changed to Sky,which on the whole was good,with the exception of tubby.
BBC's coverage of the concert,was again dire,and the credit's rolling over the climax of the fireworks was outrageous.
ITV's coverage yesterday was excellent,never bothered with the Beeb after the previous massive failings of the Pageant and concert.
I thought David Starkey provided a great historical input into ITV's contribution,although there were occasions when someone should have told him to shut the f£ck up when he went off on one of his many one man crusades!
Changed to Sky,which on the whole was good,with the exception of tubby.
BBC's coverage of the concert,was again dire,and the credit's rolling over the climax of the fireworks was outrageous.
ITV's coverage yesterday was excellent,never bothered with the Beeb after the previous massive failings of the Pageant and concert.
I thought David Starkey provided a great historical input into ITV's contribution,although there were occasions when someone should have told him to shut the f£ck up when he went off on one of his many one man crusades!
Eric Mc said:
The presenters were out of their depth for this type of programme.
This ^^.I only really watched the river pageant and frankly I expected more out of Tom Cunliffe. I have no idea whether what he and the others did was because of a deliberate editorial slant or simply lack of preparation. Accepted if you are not into boats then watching several hours of a thousand boats go by could be boring, but considering that many hundreds of those craft had significant historical significance then it could be expected that they could have commented on some of the craft, it didn't need a detailed review of every single vessel.
As somebody wrote in one of the papers, I don't want to know that a squealing Sophie Raworth is enjoying herself, I don't want to see Angela Hartnett trying to do Coronation Chicken in the pouring rain, I want to know why is that lifeboat there, and just why is the Duchess of Kent one of the people on board.
The BBC coverage did have the odd highlight, indeed I recall one stunning camera angle shot through a brass hawse pipe framing the view of the river back towards Tower bridge that would have stood up alongside some of the very bes camerawork on any documentary, or even Top Gear.
but overall a very poor effort.The new crop of know nothing presenters realy are dire and have zero gravitas. Next licence review BBC better be sorted or they really are in trouble. Technology has already made the justification and enforceability of the licence fee a complete joke.
ExFiF said:
This ^^.
I only really watched the river pageant and frankly I expected more out of Tom Cunliffe. I have no idea whether what he and the others did was because of a deliberate editorial slant or simply lack of preparation. Accepted if you are not into boats then watching several hours of a thousand boats go by could be boring, but considering that many hundreds of those craft had significant historical significance then it could be expected that they could have commented on some of the craft, it didn't need a detailed review of every single vessel.
As somebody wrote in one of the papers, I don't want to know that a squealing Sophie Raworth is enjoying herself, I don't want to see Angela Hartnett trying to do Coronation Chicken in the pouring rain, I want to know why is that lifeboat there, and just why is the Duchess of Kent one of the people on board.
This is exactly what I was thinking - pretty much each of these boats was there for a very good reason and had a story, the best I remember from the highlights there seemed to just be a couple of comments on the plant pots on a narrow boat, and the impact of the wind on the rowers! As this was essentially a snapshot of our recent seafaring adn boating history, it was pathetic.I only really watched the river pageant and frankly I expected more out of Tom Cunliffe. I have no idea whether what he and the others did was because of a deliberate editorial slant or simply lack of preparation. Accepted if you are not into boats then watching several hours of a thousand boats go by could be boring, but considering that many hundreds of those craft had significant historical significance then it could be expected that they could have commented on some of the craft, it didn't need a detailed review of every single vessel.
As somebody wrote in one of the papers, I don't want to know that a squealing Sophie Raworth is enjoying herself, I don't want to see Angela Hartnett trying to do Coronation Chicken in the pouring rain, I want to know why is that lifeboat there, and just why is the Duchess of Kent one of the people on board.
A dreadful own goal. I was there myself but recorded the coverage, on returning home was amazed to find out little more than the short piece in the paper I read on the way there and a couple of boats I looked up on Wikipedia because I was interested as they went by. Did nobody in the BBC do any research into the craft? Seemed to me a chance to just promote a few presenter's careers.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff