MS
True, but in previous years they have done that by getting out of London. They did the same thing in 2005 by having a map spray painted on the Gateshead Quayside. In 1997 they had Jill Dando simply interviewing in Manchester. So they didn't *need* to go to the effort and expense of glamming up Broadcasting House. Indeed they mostly used that as a link to cross to the news which, again, they didn't need to do and the news could have come from Elstree.
Sophie's bit was just a way to get some real people involved, and hence ask them for comments and opinions throughout the night.
True, but in previous years they have done that by getting out of London. They did the same thing in 2005 by having a map spray painted on the Gateshead Quayside. In 1997 they had Jill Dando simply interviewing in Manchester. So they didn't *need* to go to the effort and expense of glamming up Broadcasting House. Indeed they mostly used that as a link to cross to the news which, again, they didn't need to do and the news could have come from Elstree.
DO
Whenever I was watch the BBC coverage, it was rotating that section through the overall prediction, the individual parties and the differences to 2010.
There are lots of good reasons to keep the news operation (and some filler) at NBH.
The graphics updated to show a predicted Conservative majority but there was no discussion of this for ages, and in fact I think the graphic disappeared. I've just seen it again now at 5.47am - Marr saying that they are now predicting the Tories on 325 yet the graphics are still only saying Con forecast to be largest party.
Whenever I was watch the BBC coverage, it was rotating that section through the overall prediction, the individual parties and the differences to 2010.
Quote:
Indeed they mostly used that as a link to cross to the news which, again, they didn't need to do and the news could have come from Elstree.
There are lots of good reasons to keep the news operation (and some filler) at NBH.
BA
Dimbleby certainly wasn't the problem - it was having too many presenters, along with the large number of technical problems.
Huw Edwards was excellent, but then he always has been. I don't see why that was a surprise.
Huw Edwards was excellent, but then he always has been. I don't see why that was a surprise.
BA
When John Curtice said "that result indicates that the Conservatives could have an overall majority" (or words to that effect), I took that to mean that was where things were heading - the revised prediction was therefore not a surprise to me.
Did they actually announce it when the prediction changed to be a full majority. The prediction was on 316 for ages, then it suddenly changed to 626. No one seemed to notice this which was really the main story of the night.
When John Curtice said "that result indicates that the Conservatives could have an overall majority" (or words to that effect), I took that to mean that was where things were heading - the revised prediction was therefore not a surprise to me.
DO
It had sat on 324 for a while, and they spoke to Curtice when it was revised to being a majority. There were at least a couple of Vine hits with it on 324, with him saying that would be a majority if you discount the SF seats.
Did they actually announce it when the prediction changed to be a full majority. The prediction was on 316 for ages, then it suddenly changed to 626. No one seemed to notice this which was really the main story of the night.
It had sat on 324 for a while, and they spoke to Curtice when it was revised to being a majority. There were at least a couple of Vine hits with it on 324, with him saying that would be a majority if you discount the SF seats.
MQ
FIrst and foremost, as a viewer from outside Britain, I'd emphasise that you guys don't know how lucky you are. For all the quibbles about the BBC's election coverage, the resources going into the operation - on and off screen - are vastly superior to what you would observe in many other parts of the world. (Of course, it may be that too many resources go into it - and that a less intensive effort could deliver better value to money for licence-fee payers. But from a TV presentation POV, let's start with the premise that more is better!)
That important declaration out of the way, I would agree that there were probably too many different components to the BBC's election night coverage that seemed to overlap - I wasn't really sure who was meant to be doing what. The VR studio vs. the touchscreen vs. the piazza is a case in point. While I was dipping in and out of the coverage, I only caught Jeremy Vine and the clock-tower swingometers once - and in the end, the segment didn't tell me that much. I even wonder about the point of having a separate interview panel (with Andrew Neil this year) - how does that differ from the interviews that the main host (Dimbleby) conducts? While I accept the need to share work around - no one presenter could carry the whole show on for hours on end - the more people you have doing small segments, the more disjointed the whole production becomes.
Purely in terms of the presentation, I thought the titles were a bit "meh" - although I still love the music. The on-screen furniture sat comfortably within the standard BBC News branding. Unfortunately, I think the standard BBC News branding is rather forgettable - yes, they do the job, but coloured blocks and text in Helvetica are not exactly distinctive. The only differentiation was the seat change colour coding on the main strap - the moving triangles in blue/red etc on the right hand side. In some applications, that motif worked well (Maitlis's touchscreen, in particular, looked magnificent) - but shoe-horned into an otherwise plain white one-line strap, it didn't really work for me.
For what it's worth though, I thought Laura Kuenssberg was a great performer. I was worried the social media aspect might involve picking up random comments from the Twitter-verse, but she zero-ed in on some great comments by politicians and insiders that were relevant and timely.
That important declaration out of the way, I would agree that there were probably too many different components to the BBC's election night coverage that seemed to overlap - I wasn't really sure who was meant to be doing what. The VR studio vs. the touchscreen vs. the piazza is a case in point. While I was dipping in and out of the coverage, I only caught Jeremy Vine and the clock-tower swingometers once - and in the end, the segment didn't tell me that much. I even wonder about the point of having a separate interview panel (with Andrew Neil this year) - how does that differ from the interviews that the main host (Dimbleby) conducts? While I accept the need to share work around - no one presenter could carry the whole show on for hours on end - the more people you have doing small segments, the more disjointed the whole production becomes.
Purely in terms of the presentation, I thought the titles were a bit "meh" - although I still love the music. The on-screen furniture sat comfortably within the standard BBC News branding. Unfortunately, I think the standard BBC News branding is rather forgettable - yes, they do the job, but coloured blocks and text in Helvetica are not exactly distinctive. The only differentiation was the seat change colour coding on the main strap - the moving triangles in blue/red etc on the right hand side. In some applications, that motif worked well (Maitlis's touchscreen, in particular, looked magnificent) - but shoe-horned into an otherwise plain white one-line strap, it didn't really work for me.
For what it's worth though, I thought Laura Kuenssberg was a great performer. I was worried the social media aspect might involve picking up random comments from the Twitter-verse, but she zero-ed in on some great comments by politicians and insiders that were relevant and timely.
AA
The BBC's election graphics highlighted just how outdated the BBC News graphics are. The Election graphics were very modern and clean, so didn't fit with the 2005 style BBC News graphics at all.
The election studio was fantastic, really modern and fitting.
Dimbleby really needs to go, I'm glad it's his last election. An excellent broadcaster, but he is not able to keep up with new technology.
The election studio was fantastic, really modern and fitting.
Dimbleby really needs to go, I'm glad it's his last election. An excellent broadcaster, but he is not able to keep up with new technology.
NI
Jeremy Vine always IMHO comes across as patronising and I agree with another member on here, his sections were pointless and graphics over complicated for what they were.
Emily however was clear and concise. She could easily have taken over the swingometer via the plasma and ditching Vine would have made the broadcast a little less disjointed.
A case (with Vine), of style over substance.
Emily however was clear and concise. She could easily have taken over the swingometer via the plasma and ditching Vine would have made the broadcast a little less disjointed.
A case (with Vine), of style over substance.
MD
In 2020, who will become the second presenter? Perhaps Maitlis, Laura K, Vine?
Personally I thought Dimbleby did seem rattled and stressed at times, Huw - as said above - was a class act.
Andrew Neil was also great as usual. Just don't understand why the news didn't come from the studio, did seem overly disjointed.
Personally I thought Dimbleby did seem rattled and stressed at times, Huw - as said above - was a class act.
Andrew Neil was also great as usual. Just don't understand why the news didn't come from the studio, did seem overly disjointed.
CU
I think Emily Maitlis would be a good second presenter in 2020 (assuming she hasn't been poached by rival broadcasters). Huw, I agree with others, was excellent and Andrew Neil's interviews were, for me, the best thing about the BBC coverage.
In 2020, who will become the second presenter? Perhaps Maitlis, Laura K, Vine?
Personally I thought Dimbleby did seem rattled and stressed at times, Huw - as said above - was a class act.
Andrew Neil was also great as usual. Just don't understand why the news didn't come from the studio, did seem overly disjointed.
Personally I thought Dimbleby did seem rattled and stressed at times, Huw - as said above - was a class act.
Andrew Neil was also great as usual. Just don't understand why the news didn't come from the studio, did seem overly disjointed.
I think Emily Maitlis would be a good second presenter in 2020 (assuming she hasn't been poached by rival broadcasters). Huw, I agree with others, was excellent and Andrew Neil's interviews were, for me, the best thing about the BBC coverage.