SP
It's part of the link. It's not part of the valid address that Billy was attempting to link to.
OM
A behind the scenes video from the BBC Washington studio has been uploaded to YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CASMaTw9IxM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CASMaTw9IxM
IT
How ridiculous. This kind of statement infuriates me.
Millions are watching David Dimbleby at the helm tonight - I am pleased the BBC still understand his worth and competence - he's leading the coverage for a reason.
There are alternatives if his approach isn't favoured - VR and iPads cannot, should not and will not replace a respected anchor.
Well said. It's iPads and assorted gimmickry that's the problem with television news these days. Technology is merely a tool for accessing and displaying information; it should not be the main focus of coverage. An anchor with the experience and gravitas of Dimbleby is worth his weight in gold. The sheer thought of Emily Maitliss holding proceedings together sends a shiver down my spine.
Which is why you are probably watching in Black and White!! Look people - I've nothing against Dimbleby... he has delivered BBC coverage since I was old enough to understand... so let's say that year was the early 80's. But it beggars belief how the hell you and especially you 'itsrobert' can hold up such an argument? Come on..... Mailtlis would be an incredible anchor for such occasions. Dimbleby has had his time. We're in a new digital age, the new BBC news HQ is way beyond what DD is able to adjust to (because he won't).... his choice.... My point is..... this should be his last.
Sorry Newsroom, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm really not a fan of Emily Maitlis' presentation style; I just don't think she'd be suitable for anchoring an election programme. I'd much rather Huw Edwards take over from David Dimbleby when the time is right. I think he has the most experience to pull it off. He's also the BBC's most recognisable face and a respected journalist and presenter. Notice that the US networks always have their most well-known and senior anchors involved - Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric, Scott Pelley? They don't promote a lesser known individual to take charge of election coverage.
itsrobert
Founding member
Dimbleby needs to step aside with the utmost self respect. He has delivered every election since I can recall with Katty has an iPad, guests have iPads, Emily has a wall, he has nothing...
Please David... step down!
Please David... step down!
How ridiculous. This kind of statement infuriates me.
Millions are watching David Dimbleby at the helm tonight - I am pleased the BBC still understand his worth and competence - he's leading the coverage for a reason.
There are alternatives if his approach isn't favoured - VR and iPads cannot, should not and will not replace a respected anchor.
Well said. It's iPads and assorted gimmickry that's the problem with television news these days. Technology is merely a tool for accessing and displaying information; it should not be the main focus of coverage. An anchor with the experience and gravitas of Dimbleby is worth his weight in gold. The sheer thought of Emily Maitliss holding proceedings together sends a shiver down my spine.
Which is why you are probably watching in Black and White!! Look people - I've nothing against Dimbleby... he has delivered BBC coverage since I was old enough to understand... so let's say that year was the early 80's. But it beggars belief how the hell you and especially you 'itsrobert' can hold up such an argument? Come on..... Mailtlis would be an incredible anchor for such occasions. Dimbleby has had his time. We're in a new digital age, the new BBC news HQ is way beyond what DD is able to adjust to (because he won't).... his choice.... My point is..... this should be his last.
Sorry Newsroom, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm really not a fan of Emily Maitlis' presentation style; I just don't think she'd be suitable for anchoring an election programme. I'd much rather Huw Edwards take over from David Dimbleby when the time is right. I think he has the most experience to pull it off. He's also the BBC's most recognisable face and a respected journalist and presenter. Notice that the US networks always have their most well-known and senior anchors involved - Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric, Scott Pelley? They don't promote a lesser known individual to take charge of election coverage.
HO
How ridiculous. This kind of statement infuriates me.
Millions are watching David Dimbleby at the helm tonight - I am pleased the BBC still understand his worth and competence - he's leading the coverage for a reason.
There are alternatives if his approach isn't favoured - VR and iPads cannot, should not and will not replace a respected anchor.
Well said. It's iPads and assorted gimmickry that's the problem with television news these days. Technology is merely a tool for accessing and displaying information; it should not be the main focus of coverage. An anchor with the experience and gravitas of Dimbleby is worth his weight in gold. The sheer thought of Emily Maitliss holding proceedings together sends a shiver down my spine.
Which is why you are probably watching in Black and White!! Look people - I've nothing against Dimbleby... he has delivered BBC coverage since I was old enough to understand... so let's say that year was the early 80's. But it beggars belief how the hell you and especially you 'itsrobert' can hold up such an argument? Come on..... Mailtlis would be an incredible anchor for such occasions. Dimbleby has had his time. We're in a new digital age, the new BBC news HQ is way beyond what DD is able to adjust to (because he won't).... his choice.... My point is..... this should be his last.
Sorry Newsroom, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm really not a fan of Emily Maitlis' presentation style; I just don't think she'd be suitable for anchoring an election programme. I'd much rather Huw Edwards take over from David Dimbleby when the time is right. I think he has the most experience to pull it off. He's also the BBC's most recognisable face and a respected journalist and presenter. Notice that the US networks always have their most well-known and senior anchors involved - Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric, Scott Pelley? They don't promote a lesser known individual to take charge of election coverage.
I like Emily - and she's an awful lot better than Jeremy Vine - but I wouldn't want Huw Edwards in place. Huw's not great at ad-libbing, I wouldn't say, and wouldn't be much of an improvement over Dimbleby. Though I have no problem with Dimbleby, I think he should go on as long as he can.
Must say, though I'm not sure how much live television presenting either have, James Naughtie and Bridget Kendall were great on Radio 4 last night from what I heard - I'd happily have either of them on the main TV coverage.
Dimbleby needs to step aside with the utmost self respect. He has delivered every election since I can recall with Katty has an iPad, guests have iPads, Emily has a wall, he has nothing...
Please David... step down!
Please David... step down!
How ridiculous. This kind of statement infuriates me.
Millions are watching David Dimbleby at the helm tonight - I am pleased the BBC still understand his worth and competence - he's leading the coverage for a reason.
There are alternatives if his approach isn't favoured - VR and iPads cannot, should not and will not replace a respected anchor.
Well said. It's iPads and assorted gimmickry that's the problem with television news these days. Technology is merely a tool for accessing and displaying information; it should not be the main focus of coverage. An anchor with the experience and gravitas of Dimbleby is worth his weight in gold. The sheer thought of Emily Maitliss holding proceedings together sends a shiver down my spine.
Which is why you are probably watching in Black and White!! Look people - I've nothing against Dimbleby... he has delivered BBC coverage since I was old enough to understand... so let's say that year was the early 80's. But it beggars belief how the hell you and especially you 'itsrobert' can hold up such an argument? Come on..... Mailtlis would be an incredible anchor for such occasions. Dimbleby has had his time. We're in a new digital age, the new BBC news HQ is way beyond what DD is able to adjust to (because he won't).... his choice.... My point is..... this should be his last.
Sorry Newsroom, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm really not a fan of Emily Maitlis' presentation style; I just don't think she'd be suitable for anchoring an election programme. I'd much rather Huw Edwards take over from David Dimbleby when the time is right. I think he has the most experience to pull it off. He's also the BBC's most recognisable face and a respected journalist and presenter. Notice that the US networks always have their most well-known and senior anchors involved - Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric, Scott Pelley? They don't promote a lesser known individual to take charge of election coverage.
I like Emily - and she's an awful lot better than Jeremy Vine - but I wouldn't want Huw Edwards in place. Huw's not great at ad-libbing, I wouldn't say, and wouldn't be much of an improvement over Dimbleby. Though I have no problem with Dimbleby, I think he should go on as long as he can.
Must say, though I'm not sure how much live television presenting either have, James Naughtie and Bridget Kendall were great on Radio 4 last night from what I heard - I'd happily have either of them on the main TV coverage.
IS
CNN were too much when I turned them on last night.... just too many figures and stats. I know they're covering several elections for a domestic audience but it was still information overload!
Not even bothered to check in with BBC or ITV. CNN doing a superb, if cautious job. Stats, facts and minimum punditry.
CNN were too much when I turned them on last night.... just too many figures and stats. I know they're covering several elections for a domestic audience but it was still information overload!
IT
You're not kidding JCB... I tuned into Fox News about an hour ago and they didn't mention Obama's victory once. They were obsessing over why Romney lost and qualifying the election result by saying that Obama doesn't have a mandate because although he won the Electoral College votes, his victory in terms of popular votes is too narrow. Hmm, funny how that didn't seem to matter when Bush won in 2000.
itsrobert
Founding member
Fox News has gone into meltdown. Highlight of the night.
You're not kidding JCB... I tuned into Fox News about an hour ago and they didn't mention Obama's victory once. They were obsessing over why Romney lost and qualifying the election result by saying that Obama doesn't have a mandate because although he won the Electoral College votes, his victory in terms of popular votes is too narrow. Hmm, funny how that didn't seem to matter when Bush won in 2000.
HO
Are you referring to UK broadcasters or US/ international ones? Our broadcasters are usually required to maintain objectivity wherever possible, where as in the US there are no such regulations. Hence Fox News exists.
I thought the TV news was supposed to be impartial?
Are you referring to UK broadcasters or US/ international ones? Our broadcasters are usually required to maintain objectivity wherever possible, where as in the US there are no such regulations. Hence Fox News exists.
DV
Surprised that BBC NC is being anchored wholly from the US so far today. Presume that this will end after PMQs.
NJ
Only in the UK. The US applies the same freedom of the press to TV that we also have on newspapers - hence why the Sun can announce who they are backing.
I thought the TV news was supposed to be impartial?
Only in the UK. The US applies the same freedom of the press to TV that we also have on newspapers - hence why the Sun can announce who they are backing.