|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Oct 29, 2017 11:51:15 GMT
Nowadays election night coverage suffers from not having a psephologist as a key player.
Back in the day, David Butler was more or less a co-presenter alongside one of the Dimblebys or whomever and just about every seat seemed to get a comment at some point. Later on, Anthony King's role wasn't quite as central but he got a lot of opportunities to give his (valid and informative) thoughts, even if they had given up going into the statistical details to the extent that they did during the Butler era. These days, the best you can hope for is a quick comment by John Curtice every half an hour, and not even a majority of the marginal seats seem to merit a comment.
Interestingly, Australia still maintains an old-fashioned British-style of election night coverage (albeit with much more advanced technology of course) with the excellent Antony Green playing a central role on ABC. In fact I think they devote an entire section to a marathon summary of each division's result.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,054 
|
Post by jamie on Oct 29, 2017 21:53:02 GMT
Jeremy Vine's role is awful, seems to get more convoluted every election while not covering anything useful that a 20 second graphic + explanation couldn't. The general analysis was bearable, though not exactly deep eg; Main parties both gaining similar amount means that UKIP vote breaking evenly between main parties. I actually thought Maitlis' part of the coverage was probably the best bit as it actually focused on the result, though she's obviously not a psephologist and I think I saw 'LD gain Gordon' at one point!
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 29, 2017 23:12:36 GMT
BBC general election coverage classified.
Good: 1959 (friendly), 1970 (top notch analysis, captured the moment), 1987 (well put together despite the Mars Bar incident), 1997 (well prepared)
Middling: 1964 (tried too hard), 1974(F) (last-minute programme but struggled to work out what was going on), 1983 (coped well with three party politics), 2005 (good polling but dull programme), 2015 (good analysis but the results computer crashed), 2017 (struggling to keep up)
Bad: 1955 (plodding), 1966 (thanks to Harold Wilson), 1974(O) (chaotic), 1979 (worse), 1992 (failed to pick up on what was going on), 2001 (more interested in graphics than the election), 2010 (dumped the theme, and that awful boat party)
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 30, 2017 0:15:38 GMT
I actually thought Maitlis' part of the coverage was probably the best bit as it actually focused on the result, though she's obviously not a psephologist and I think I saw 'LD gain Gordon' at one point! Again, fairly sure this would not have been Maitlis' fault. Most likely a computer error and even if not, the LDs had won Gordon as recently as 2010 after all. On the Sky News ticker at different points during the night I spotted both 'Con gain Dagenham' (believable, but quite some way wrong in the end) and 'LD gain Tewkesbury' (utterly improbable and false)! |
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Oct 30, 2017 0:17:46 GMT
I actually thought Maitlis' part of the coverage was probably the best bit as it actually focused on the result, though she's obviously not a psephologist and I think I saw 'LD gain Gordon' at one point! Again, fairly sure this would not have been Maitlis' fault. Most likely a computer error and even if not, the LDs had won Gordon as recently as 2010 after all. On the Sky News ticker at different points during the night I spotted both 'Con gain Dagenham' (believable, but quite some way wrong in the end) and 'LD gain Tewkesbury' (utterly improbable and false)! And in 2015 there was "LD gain Newark", which was even more improbable than the idea of the Lib Dems gaining Tewkesbury. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Oct 30, 2017 7:40:18 GMT
If I was ranking the election programmes for content (as opposed to the results) out of 100% I would do the following:
1955: 50% (clear introduction, but then got muddled half way through)
1959: 66% (marked improvement on 1955)
1964: 70% (in vision scoreboard visible at all times and effective host)
1966: 66% (although the same as 1964, Michelmore's anecdote about the bird in Television Centre is nothing like as funny as George Brown's "Goodbye, Brother Day")
1970: 80% (if only for the "painting of the Sistene Chapel")
1974 (February): 40% (prior to the first result a smooth operation, but as soon as the results start to come in the operation collapsed)
1974 (October): 45% (slightly better than February, but it was still a very shoestring operation)
1979: 55% (boosted by the argument between Bob McKensie and the computer)
1983: 55% (it would have been higher but thanks to the results computer failing)
1987: 70% (a good overall presentation, a detailed explaination of how the government could lose the election)
1992: 90% (now this is how an election should be presented, just the right amount of exit poll analysis, detailed regional reporting and in a format that most can understand)
1997: 85% (as good as 1992 save for the fact that the regions didn't get anything like as much attention)
2001: 80% (good detailed exit poll analysis, but hardly any attention to the regions)
2005: 80% (for the introduction of the three party battleground)
2010: 75% (I realise it had to be long winded, but did it need to be that long winded with detailed constitutional discussions)
2015 and 2017: 60% (useful comment from Maitlis but the swingometer was barely seen in favour of battlegrounds)
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Dec 12, 2017 20:57:44 GMT
The Christmas Radio Times has been published today and shows that we are NOT going to get Election 1987 in 2017, however there is still one weekend (January 6th and 7th) when it could still be broadcast before Parliament reconvenes after Christmas.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Dec 12, 2017 21:24:43 GMT
The Christmas Radio Times has been published today and shows that we are NOT going to get Election 1987 in 2017, however there is still one weekend (January 6th and 7th) when it could still be broadcast before Parliament reconvenes after Christmas. Do they know it's Christmas? won't somebody think of the psephologists? |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Dec 13, 2017 9:09:54 GMT
The Christmas Radio Times has been published today and shows that we are NOT going to get Election 1987 in 2017, however there is still one weekend (January 6th and 7th) when it could still be broadcast before Parliament reconvenes after Christmas. Well we might do, they're only covering a few weeks TV. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Dec 13, 2017 9:10:26 GMT
BBC general election coverage classified. Good: 1959 (friendly), 1970 (top notch analysis, captured the moment), 1987 (well put together despite the Mars Bar incident), 1997 (well prepared) Middling: 1964 (tried too hard), 1974(F) (last-minute programme but struggled to work out what was going on), 1983 (coped well with three party politics), 2005 (good polling but dull programme), 2015 (good analysis but the results computer crashed), 2017 (struggling to keep up) Bad: 1955 (plodding), 1966 (thanks to Harold Wilson), 1974(O) (chaotic), 1979 (worse), 1992 (failed to pick up on what was going on), 2001 (more interested in graphics than the election), 2010 (dumped the theme, and that awful boat party) I've not seen 1987- what happened with the Mars bar? |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 13, 2017 11:14:33 GMT
Interesting to see the differing views on the 1992 election coverage.
IMO it was in many ways a BBC high point despite the fact they didn't wake up to the fact the Tories were winning outright as fast as they might have done.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Dec 13, 2017 12:47:24 GMT
BBC general election coverage classified. Good: 1959 (friendly), 1970 (top notch analysis, captured the moment), 1987 (well put together despite the Mars Bar incident), 1997 (well prepared) Middling: 1964 (tried too hard), 1974(F) (last-minute programme but struggled to work out what was going on), 1983 (coped well with three party politics), 2005 (good polling but dull programme), 2015 (good analysis but the results computer crashed), 2017 (struggling to keep up) Bad: 1955 (plodding), 1966 (thanks to Harold Wilson), 1974(O) (chaotic), 1979 (worse), 1992 (failed to pick up on what was going on), 2001 (more interested in graphics than the election), 2010 (dumped the theme, and that awful boat party) I've not seen 1987- what happened with the Mars bar? This is what happened in 1987 www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-2015-32595793/david-dimbleby-caught-out-in-1987 |
|
