|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 12, 2014 21:05:03 GMT
On BBC News's "Newswatch" this week, Peter Horrocks was asked what were the highlights and lowlights of his broadcasting career. He said the highlight was directing the 1997 general election coverage, because it was such a good story.
For the lowlight he selected the 1992 election, when he was also director, and the first result came in from Sunderland South where the BBC did not have a camera and ITN did. He said David Dimbleby rescued it by having a chat with Kate Adie, who had been sent to Torbay to report on the expected first declaration, but who Dimbers remembered comes from Sunderland.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Dec 12, 2014 21:30:58 GMT
On BBC News's "Newswatch" this week, Peter Horrocks was asked what were the highlights and lowlights of his broadcasting career. He said the highlight was directing the 1997 general election coverage, because it was such a good story. For the lowlight he selected the 1992 election, when he was also director, and the first result came in from Sunderland South where the BBC did not have a camera and ITN did. He said David Dimbleby rescued it by having a chat with Kate Adie, who had been sent to Torbay to report on the expected first declaration, but who Dimbers remembered comes from Sunderland. In 1992 they had cameras at South Derbyshire with Tom Mangold as correspondent but failed to show the declaration. They also didn't have cameras at Bolton NE which was an exciting contest whereas ITN did (although they mucked up showing the declaration). But I nonetheless thought the BBC's 1992 election show was one of the best they've done so I'm a bit surprised by his comments. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 22:42:26 GMT
BBC programmes of elections between 1955 and 1979 - ie. when David Butler was a main player in them, were much more scientific and more focused on the actual individual results than they are today. Since then the focus has gradually changed to make the programmes more dramatic and slightly less civilised by broadcasting more declarations and introducing ever more modern graphics. 1979 was excellent in terms its analysis, but surprisingly dull due to the lack of declarations being broadcast. 1992 probably brought the best of both worlds, so I tend to agree with Andy.
By 2010, the attitude seemed to be "sod the detail and the constituency results, let's have a celebrity boat party and speculate about coalitions all night".
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Dec 12, 2014 23:49:13 GMT
The first time I saw 1979 I thought the fact that it didn't show many declarations was simply because they couldn't afford to have many outside broadcast cameras at that time, but then when you see earlier shows from the 1960s and early 1970s where they seem to have more it makes you wonder what the problem was in 1979. Maybe something to do with the economic situation at the time, or the threat of industrial action, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 23:56:39 GMT
I suspect next year we're going to have cameras fixed at South Thanet and barely anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 13, 2014 0:52:48 GMT
The first time I saw 1979 I thought the fact that it didn't show many declarations was simply because they couldn't afford to have many outside broadcast cameras at that time, but then when you see earlier shows from the 1960s and early 1970s where they seem to have more it makes you wonder what the problem was in 1979. Maybe something to do with the economic situation at the time, or the threat of industrial action, etc. I confess that the declarations leave me cold. And I don't want to hear any speeches at all unless they are brilliant or dramatic. What I want is the results quickly in the same format each time and without any errors. Having a bar along the top for running totals for each party and frequent shows of highest and lowest turnouts, interesting party or regional trends, average and particular swings if they have any meaning, and a running forecast as to final outcome. Much more analysis than speculation on coalitions and choices of leaders and ministers. Carefully chosen politicians who are interesting and intelligible and experts who are good at rapidly getting to the essential points in the analyses. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 13, 2014 0:53:44 GMT
I suspect next year we're going to have cameras fixed at South Thanet and barely anything else. That would be a huge mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Dec 13, 2014 0:58:23 GMT
The first time I saw 1979 I thought the fact that it didn't show many declarations was simply because they couldn't afford to have many outside broadcast cameras at that time, but then when you see earlier shows from the 1960s and early 1970s where they seem to have more it makes you wonder what the problem was in 1979. Maybe something to do with the economic situation at the time, or the threat of industrial action, etc. I confess that the declarations leave me cold. And I don't want to hear any speeches at all unless they are brilliant or dramatic. What I want is the results quickly in the same format each time and without any errors. Having a bar along the top for running totals for each party and frequent shows of highest and lowest turnouts, interesting party or regional trends, average and particular swings if they have any meaning, and a running forecast as to final outcome. Much more analysis than speculation on coalitions and choices of leaders and ministers. Carefully chosen politicians who are interesting and intelligible and experts who are good at rapidly getting to the essential points in the analyses. I'm not particularly interested in the speeches delivered at declarations, but I do like to see the candidates lined up on the stage as the numbers are read out because it's the one time they have to face up to reality. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 13, 2014 1:05:59 GMT
I confess that the declarations leave me cold. And I don't want to hear any speeches at all unless they are brilliant or dramatic. What I want is the results quickly in the same format each time and without any errors. Having a bar along the top for running totals for each party and frequent shows of highest and lowest turnouts, interesting party or regional trends, average and particular swings if they have any meaning, and a running forecast as to final outcome. Much more analysis than speculation on coalitions and choices of leaders and ministers. Carefully chosen politicians who are interesting and intelligible and experts who are good at rapidly getting to the essential points in the analyses. I'm not particularly interested in the speeches delivered at declarations, but I do like to see the candidates lined up on the stage as the numbers are read out because it's the one time they have to face up to reality. No. It interrupts often interesting discussions, has longueurs of tedious waiting for the platform, has endless halting useless speakers stumbling over the figures and often speaking poorly and indistinctly..........just for the occasional Portillo or Goldsmith/Mellor moment. As an aside how can it be that the thoroughly pleasant Zac had such a poisonous arsehole of a father? |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Dec 13, 2014 2:27:07 GMT
1. The result is about to be declared in XYZ constituency.
2. The journalist in XYZ communicates to the programme director.
3. The director tells the interviewer in his earpiece.
4. The interviewer says to the politician "I'm sorry Mr Politician, I have to interrupt you there because we're about to get a result".
5. The Dimbleby says to the viewers "Let's go to hear the result from XYZ".
6. The director presses the button to show the declaration from XYZ on the screen.
7. The viewers get to see most of the declaration, but miss the numbers for the first candidate because of the delay in broadcasting the declaration.
I just want them to get rid of stages 3, 4 and 5.... and therefore avoid the 2nd half of number 7.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 13, 2014 3:16:05 GMT
1. The result is about to be declared in XYZ constituency. 2. The journalist in XYZ communicates to the programme director. 3. The director tells the interviewer in his earpiece. 4. The interviewer says to the politician "I'm sorry Mr Politician, I have to interrupt you there because we're about to get a result". 5. The Dimbleby says to the viewers "Let's go to hear the result from XYZ". 6. The director presses the button to show the declaration from XYZ on the screen. 7. The viewers get to see most of the declaration, but miss the numbers for the first candidate because of the delay in broadcasting the declaration. I just want them to get rid of stages 3, 4 and 5.... and therefore avoid the 2nd half of number 7. No it is far too disruptive to a programme, especially when the results flow is strong. Record them if you must and show them if there is a slow moment and if they have a meaningful element or a minister's concession on losing or a Farage triumphalism if he wins. I can do without all that. Its just fluff. The stats are all. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 13, 2014 10:40:12 GMT
I'm not particularly interested in the speeches delivered at declarations, but I do like to see the candidates lined up on the stage as the numbers are read out because it's the one time they have to face up to reality. No. It interrupts often interesting discussions, has longueurs of tedious waiting for the platform, has endless halting useless speakers stumbling over the figures and often speaking poorly and indistinctly..........just for the occasional Portillo or Goldsmith/Mellor moment. As an aside how can it be that the thoroughly pleasant Zac had such a poisonous arsehole of a father? This is a lot less bad than it used to be IMO - I watched the BBC 1970 GE coverage on YouTube recently and some of the announcers were shockingly poor. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Dec 13, 2014 21:08:08 GMT
I'm not particularly interested in the speeches delivered at declarations, but I do like to see the candidates lined up on the stage as the numbers are read out because it's the one time they have to face up to reality. No. It interrupts often interesting discussions, has longueurs of tedious waiting for the platform, has endless halting useless speakers stumbling over the figures and often speaking poorly and indistinctly..........just for the occasional Portillo or Goldsmith/Mellor moment. As an aside how can it be that the thoroughly pleasant Zac had such a poisonous arsehole of a father? The discussions of politicians in the studio are often the most tedious part of election night IMO. All they consist of is politicians putting the best possible gloss on the results from their point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Dec 15, 2014 17:46:48 GMT
I found the results programmes far better in the 1960s and 1970s. In the last twenty years they have increasingly resembled a chat show in format with far too much reliance on gimmicks that do little more than trivialise the occasion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 19:51:56 GMT
Peter Snow is too old now, but if Dan could accidentally/deliberately push Jeremy Vine off a bridge shortly, that'd be a great help
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 15, 2014 20:15:49 GMT
Some of the Snow graphics were getting a bit silly by the end, if you remember.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 20:26:54 GMT
Some of the Snow graphics were getting a bit silly by the end, if you remember. I think some of it was over confident boasting from the graphics department, which for the time must have seemed like pushing the limits of what graphics could do. I have to say that just because they could animate a swingometer moving over and above his head doesn't meat they should have done so. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Dec 15, 2014 20:59:54 GMT
I found the results programmes far better in the 1960s and 1970s. In the last twenty years they have increasingly resembled a chat show in format with far too much reliance on gimmicks that do little more than trivialise the occasion. I think the attitude these days is that anyone who's interested in results should look online and use sites like this one, and that the TV coverage should be aimed at people who aren't particularly interested in details, which seems a bit ridiculous to me. For example during the BBC's 2010 election programme, Nick Robinson was constantly being apologetic to viewers about talking about constituency results because (he implied) the average viewer would find them boring. But surely the only people watching at 5 in the morning are precisely those who would be interested in detailed results. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Dec 15, 2014 22:06:54 GMT
1. The result is about to be declared in XYZ constituency. 2. The journalist in XYZ communicates to the programme director. 3. The director tells the interviewer in his earpiece. 4. The interviewer says to the politician "I'm sorry Mr Politician, I have to interrupt you there because we're about to get a result". 5. The Dimbleby says to the viewers "Let's go to hear the result from XYZ". 6. The director presses the button to show the declaration from XYZ on the screen. 7. The viewers get to see most of the declaration, but miss the numbers for the first candidate because of the delay in broadcasting the declaration. I just want them to get rid of stages 3, 4 and 5.... and therefore avoid the 2nd half of number 7. No it is far too disruptive to a programme, especially when the results flow is strong. Record them if you must and show them if there is a slow moment and if they have a meaningful element or a minister's concession on losing or a Farage triumphalism if he wins. I can do without all that. Its just fluff. The stats are all. What's more interesting in an election results programme? (a) Politicians X Y and Z in the studio waffling, putting the best spin on their results and so forth, shouting at one another (b) A Mayor in red robes saying "I the undersigned being the returning officer for Hyper Marginal West do give notice the number of votes cast was as follows..." If you poll the public, Carlton43, I'm sure they will say (a), but 99.9% of the public don't watch election night programmes at 3am If you poll this forum, I'm sure they will say (b), and 99.9% of this forum do watch election night programmes at 3am You talk about the stats being all but you don't get stats from politicians waffling, they have to be interrupted til you get that. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 15, 2014 22:11:50 GMT
Never forget that the BBC is virtually through its transmogrification from a renowned Public Service Broadcaster with a mission to explain, inform, educate and create interest, to one of Medya Entertainment of the Base Kind. Election Night is a fun night but only if there is human drama, rough provincials with funny accents stumbling over declarations, and party hacks lured into saying something the circling piranha can get teeth into. The stats and presentation are about impact and drama rather than careful analysis and the search for interesting nuggets. It would be better if the academics and specialists had their own programme hosted by a university and carried by say Channel 4, BBC Parliament or ITV 4.
RESPONSE TO GUEST
I don't want your a) or b). I want a moderated clear results system, without error, and with superb back-up graphics, aided by appropriate and expert commentary, with additional appropriate material from academics and specialists, and some erudite, witty and pleasant party hacks to leaven the enterprise from time to time.
|
|
