|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Nov 7, 2016 11:52:46 GMT
Mostly online with Sky News on in the background. The referendum was the first major vote where I barely looked at the BBC at all, having given up on the notion that they might ever cover an election properly again (i.e. with serious analysis of the incoming figures, proper briefs for the presenters, informed reporters, minimal talking-point repeating politicians, no celebs on boats on the Thames, etc). Sky is not great either but a little less annoying. Having seen just about all British election night coverage that is available on YouTube, 2005 was the last time the BBC's results programme was bearable. It's no coincidence that it was also the last time Peter Snow and Professor Anthony King were part of the team. I was slightly amused that they brought in David Butler for some brief comments towards the end of both their 2010 and 2015 coverage, as if they were saying "hey, remember the days when our coverage was focussed on actual results?". |
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Nov 7, 2016 21:16:50 GMT
Can anyone recommend where I watch it? I have access to all the channels including the US ones its just this is the first US Presidential election I intend to stay up to watch on the night (watched the MSNBC coverage of 2012 on YouTube about a year ago) so I don't really know who provides the best coverage. Whose coverage really delves into the nitty gritty of results on a county level? I imagine the British broadcasters will all be useless in that regard so...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 21:22:42 GMT
Seems like I'm going to gatecrash a screening at a university residence where an American friend of mine is a warden. Hopefully the bar will be open.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 7, 2016 21:56:04 GMT
Early start on Wednesday morning and follow it on the Internet on my way to work and at work. I expect I won't be the only one as a large part of my office are very interested in politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Nov 7, 2016 22:17:52 GMT
Can anyone recommend where I watch it? I have access to all the channels including the US ones its just this is the first US Presidential election I intend to stay up to watch on the night (watched the MSNBC coverage of 2012 on YouTube about a year ago) so I don't really know who provides the best coverage. Whose coverage really delves into the nitty gritty of results on a county level? I imagine the British broadcasters will all be useless in that regard so...Ours. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 7, 2016 22:34:40 GMT
The real question is who on the forum can match the doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ meltdown of 4 years ago. Lol I just looked at the thread from 2012 - priceless. Link? Please ! |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 7, 2016 22:37:50 GMT
Ah, the ol' Devil's three-way...  I agree that the BBC has got the ratio of talking heads to actual data on screen very wrong over the past few US general elections, but I find that flipping the ratio on its head and turning a TV show into an info dump would also be the wrong approach. That's because the BBC is incapable of error. Their broadcasting is never poor - it's challenging, or innovative, or provocative, or ... But never just wrong. (Try listening to "Feedback" on Radio 4.) |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961 
|
Post by mondialito on Nov 7, 2016 22:40:40 GMT
Lol I just looked at the thread from 2012 - priceless. Link? Please ! It has been posted upthread.  |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 7, 2016 22:49:52 GMT
If I try to stay up all night then work a twelve-hour day, I will end up crashing the car into a fen ditch. Not a fan of hypothermia-induced heart stoppages, so I'll just get up a couple of hours early and watch from them. As an added bonus, that way I'll miss the first couple of hours coverage, when there's no news to report so they just talk obvious bollocks instead. Any random channel will do for the overall narrative, concession speeches etc., and I'll mute it and go dig out county-level results when I want to know what's actually going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 7, 2016 22:57:54 GMT
I ticked 'other' as I'll be watching from behind the sofa unless and until it's clear that Trump won't win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 7, 2016 23:04:57 GMT
Not happy about the weather forecast for tomorrow night: very cold and snowing. Sod's Law says there'll be a power cut in the middle of election night.
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,699
Member is Online
|
Post by Jack on Nov 7, 2016 23:28:31 GMT
I ticked 'other' as I'll be watching from behind the sofa unless and until it's clear that Trump won't win. I've been telling everyone I know that Clinton will win easily for about a year now. So if for some reason she doesn't, I may have no friends anymore.  |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 7, 2016 23:59:10 GMT
I ticked 'other' as I'll be watching from behind the sofa unless and until it's clear that Trump won't win. I've been telling everyone I know that Clinton will win easily for about a year now. So if for some reason she doesn't, I may have no friends anymore. You'll always have us, of course. Although that thought may make you more depressed. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Nov 7, 2016 23:59:14 GMT
I ticked 'other' as I'll be watching from behind the sofa unless and until it's clear that Trump won't win. With the way the world has been going this year, I'm surprised that you haven't just simply moved the TV to behind the sofa instead. |
|
|
|
Post by independentukip on Nov 8, 2016 0:41:13 GMT
I don;t have CNN or anythning like that so it will be BBC or SKy.. probably flick between the two as Sky will irritate me with all the ad breaks and the BBC will just irritate me full stop. I shall probably be online and following events on here too. On big events like this Sky News pretty well dispense with ad breaks once the action really starts. Not so sure about the BBC though with ads for Strictly, Poldark etc. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 8, 2016 1:45:20 GMT
One really stupid and annoying thing which the BBC has done for a number of years now is not to show us the results. Instead of showing the results (putting them on the screen for us to see) they show us the presenter looking at the results on the wall on the far side of the studio (distorted, at an angle, and far away). Or, if it's a map, they might have an idiot prancing about with the map underneath him on the floor.
I will probably watch mostly BBC but occasionally switch over to Sky to compare.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Nov 8, 2016 9:27:48 GMT
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 8, 2016 13:02:38 GMT
I don;t have CNN or anythning like that so it will be BBC or SKy.. probably flick between the two as Sky will irritate me with all the ad breaks and the BBC will just irritate me full stop. I shall probably be online and following events on here too. Are you sure you haven't got CNN? I didn't think there were any packages that had Sky News but not CNN. It's CNN (plus MSNBC) that I'll be watching since it's actually broadcast from the US, and they dispense with their piss-poor "international" service during the election. And they have a clear and detailed online data service edition.cnn.com/election/results |
|
|
|
Post by bungle on Nov 8, 2016 13:09:53 GMT
I can't watch the BBC. I happened to glimpse Jeremy Vine walking over a map yesterday doing his over the top, pound shop Peter Snow impression and it brought back memories of that awful cowboy themed attempt to explain what was happening....which iirc wasn't even for a US election! Ugh.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,056
Member is Online
|
Post by jamie on Nov 8, 2016 13:11:31 GMT
For those getting results online, the NYT is promising prompt and detailed results which were very good during the primaries.
|
|
