"The Daily Politics was scheduled to finish at 12.35 today, at which point BBC2 would go to Wimbledon and a special news programme would start on BBC1," the BBC said in a statement.
"This should have given more than enough time to come out of prime minister's questions at its usual finishing time of 12.30 and allow a short studio summing up by Andrew Neil before the end of the Daily Politics," the corporation added.
"Unexpectedly Tony Blair's last PMQs overran by five minutes and as a result the Daily Politics came off the air a minute before the end of PMQs.
Firstly, as far as I'm aware most Wednesdays the Daily Politics runs through to 1pm to cover PMQs, and it's rare for them to finish exactly on time.
Even if they did, it's a momentous day and it was inevitable they'd run over - and 5 minutes of airtime was not enough to cover the situation, never mind analyse them.
And even when they did run over, just as they can delay a programme due to extra time or keeping Henman on BBC1, they could have done it for this.
It's the scheduling in the first place though which was pathetic - running it all uninterupted on BBC1 and leaving Wimbledon uninterupted on BBC2 wouldn't have caused any problems at all.
It's the scheduling in the first place though which was pathetic - running it all uninterupted on BBC1 and leaving Wimbledon uninterupted on BBC2 wouldn't have caused any problems at all.
Agree Brekkie, it was a bad decision which I doubt was inspired by the need to get Wimbledon on BBC One on time.
They corrected the situation by showing the final part of our ex-PM's speech on the SIX, but there was never the same comment about emotion that accompanied Maggie's final speech or departure from Number Ten.
Two things really. First, whoever cocked this up should face some serious disciplinary action. It was a big mistake which will only happen again if people aren't punished for similar things.
Second, it shows how ridiculous the BBC's huge multifaceted organisation (or lack of it) can be. This story was being covered by tens of different outlets - News 24, BBC Two, BBC One, Five Live, WATO, Newsnight, etc, etc. The immense confusion of all this coverage - not to mention the cost - will of course mean that cock ups will occur, and ironically in this case too much coverage meant that it ended up with no-one covering the event at all on analogue TV!
Two things really. First, whoever cocked this up should face some serious disciplinary action. It was a big mistake which will only happen again if people aren't punished for similar things.
Second, it shows how ridiculous the BBC's huge multifaceted organisation (or lack of it) can be. This story was being covered by tens of different outlets - News 24, BBC Two, BBC One, Five Live, WATO, Newsnight, etc, etc. The immense confusion of all this coverage - not to mention the cost - will of course mean that cock ups will occur, and ironically in this case too much coverage meant that it ended up with no-one covering the event at all on analogue TV!
I agree with you there. I think the BBC's operation was far too large today and it did lead to confusion at some points. In addition to all those various outlets which had their own people on location, there was BBC World. Rather than share resources with News 24, they went their own separate way with Nik Gowing and associated correspondents at Westminster. Now, I know the usual lot will roll out the same answer of BBC World needing a more global perspective, but I don't think the domestic BBC News coverage would have been too much for most viewers of BBC World. It was all very well explained by Huw Edwards and his correspondents and I can't see any reason why anyone with half a brain cell in the wider world couldn't have understood it. After all, some foreigners know more about the British political system than many British citizens!
I didn't see the BBC Two debacle today, but I can quite understand how annoyed people are about it. Tony Blair's final speech in the Commons is immensely important, and for the BBC to cut it short for bloody Wimbledon is a disgrace. Would they ever cut Wimbledon short for something? Definitely not.
Another rather annoying scheduling error today has been the Ten O'Clock News and Newsnight. It annoys me all year round that Newsnight starts about a minute or two before the Ten has finished. However, the Ten O'Clock News was extended until 22.45 tonight. Did they delay Newsnight? Nope. Still went out at 22.30. Now, as far as I can see it, the people who watch the Ten are the most likely candidates for watching Newsnight, and vice-versa. Why do the BBC make it so difficult for viewers to watch both? Tonight, I was torn. I wanted to see the end of the Ten, but I also wanted to see the analysis provided by Newsnight. I ended up crashing into Newsnight late, and didn't have a clue as to what the programme was going to be covering. I wish the BBC would sort themselves out.
If I am not mistaken. BBC World's Nik Gowing (outside Westminster) said at one point during the opening headlines of one of the World bulletins that "Tony Blair was formally announced as a Middle East Peace Convoy".
Otherwise, I only got to see World yesterday and the coverage was pretty ok. Didn't get to see the whole of PMT's though. Would have liked to have seen that.
Why did both BBC News 24 and BBC World feel the need to end their specials with montages set to stupid music, when a David Lowe piece would have been a lot more appropriate? (Not to mention more in line with branding guidelines! Where is Martin Lambie-Nairn when you need him...) That, along with the fact there was no sign of the BBC News logo on the titles, made the whole thing feel amature, more like an Australian news service than the BBC!
Two things really. First, whoever cocked this up should face some serious disciplinary action. It was a big mistake which will only happen again if people aren't punished for similar things.
Second, it shows how ridiculous the BBC's huge multifaceted organisation (or lack of it) can be. This story was being covered by tens of different outlets - News 24, BBC Two, BBC One, Five Live, WATO, Newsnight, etc, etc. The immense confusion of all this coverage - not to mention the cost - will of course mean that cock ups will occur, and ironically in this case too much coverage meant that it ended up with no-one covering the event at all on analogue TV!
I agree with you there. I think the BBC's operation was far too large today and it did lead to confusion at some points. In addition to all those various outlets which had their own people on location, there was BBC World. Rather than share resources with News 24, they went their own separate way with Nik Gowing and associated correspondents at Westminster. Now, I know the usual lot will roll out the same answer of BBC World needing a more global perspective, but I don't think the domestic BBC News coverage would have been too much for most viewers of BBC World. It was all very well explained by Huw Edwards and his correspondents and I can't see any reason why anyone with half a brain cell in the wider world couldn't have understood it. After all, some foreigners know more about the British political system than many British citizens!
I didn't see the BBC Two debacle today, but I can quite understand how annoyed people are about it. Tony Blair's final speech in the Commons is immensely important, and for the BBC to cut it short for bloody Wimbledon is a disgrace. Would they ever cut Wimbledon short for something? Definitely not.
Good points by both of you there. I just wonder what the point of leaving The Daily Politics early was. It was a historic day as it was not only the final PMQs by Blair but it was also the last time Blair would be Prime Minister and possibly MP. Yet instead they fade it out and go to Wimbledon where they talk rubbish about the tournament, again, and in the end nothing exciting, or historic happened anyway. Now if I was a scheduler, what would you put on - extend history making politics by ten minutes or go in on time to Wimbledon to discuss how Henman is going to win ( yeah right). To me that's an easy decision to make.
It really is a fault with the schedulers as it was obvious it was going to overrun and they should have allowed for it. I think that PMQs should have been covered from 11.30 on BBC One all the way through, or if it was essential that they had to be on BBC Two, then have The Daily Politics until 12.55 and go straight into the tennis. It's not as though that 25 minutes of tennis waffle were needed, I mean the schedules are dominated and changed by the damn tournament enough as it is.
It's all very well the BBC saying we should have switched channels but by the time I'd have faffed about getting the Sky and N24 on I'd have missed it anyway.
Why did both BBC News 24 and BBC World feel the need to end their specials with montages set to stupid music, when a David Lowe piece would have been a lot more appropriate? (Not to mention more in line with branding guidelines! Where is Martin Lambie-Nairn when you need him...) That, along with the fact there was no sign of the BBC News logo on the titles, made the whole thing feel amature, more like an Australian news service than the BBC!
I fully agree! The closing music was entirely unsuitable and extremely irrelevant.
surely the only appropriate piece of music would be "things can only get better"
I couldn't tell you for sure about the special's closing montage,but I know at least one of them was set to Justin Timberlake's
What Goes Around...Comes Around
I'd like to know what the music was as well - I can understand these closing packages with a mainstream tune for major sports tournaments, but not when it comes to news and politics.
So if a round-up montage is considered at all, choosing soundtracks should require greater care, and imagine only a select few popular pieces would work -
Things Can Only Get Better
being one of them because of the association with Labour that goes back 10 years.
