Election 2005 -Pre-Election discussion here

Using that line of thought... what is fake about the BBC's set?

I'll be holding the remote controllers like a vice, so I think you can guess from that!

In truth, though, whoever is the most interesting.

I think both the BBC and Sky do very well on election night, and they all end up with the same guests. The guests Sky had at 9pm were on the BBC at 10pm, and the BBC guests at 10pm were on Sky at 10.30pm, etc. They all wander about between the studios during the night.

As someone who really understands politics, I would tend to drift towards Sky. I think BBC election night coverage has a tendency to over-explain everything in order to make it as accessible as possible. That's good for people who don't know what's going on, but I think Sky know that the only viewers they have are the really hardcore sort, and the analysis from Michael Thrasher is nicely technical and complicated.

Plus, if it's Boulton Vs. David Dimbleby, I'd go for Boulton any day.

Up until about midnight, it is a bit of a flat experience. They all go about with about 15 results saying 'well, we're waiting for the real rush to come through', and interviewing all the parties, then from 1am to 3am 250 or so results flood in and they just sit there saying 'that's a shock... what implications does that have...'

It's a very fun night, though. The most comical part will be when the exit polls come out and (assuming a Tory thrashing here) the Tories say 'oh it's only an exit poll, but you're right, it doesn't look good' and throughout the night you start to see the progression as slowly but surely Tories start admitting that actually they're buggered again.

Then they start talking about leadership, and by 10am the next morning I'll bet my life that Sky News will be running a 'who should be the next Tory leader' vote... interestingly, in their vote at the last election, Iain Duncan Smith got just 4% of the Sky public vote.

Viewing figures have been down for the past few elections, but it wouldn't surprise me to see this one pick up a little bit. I think there's a little less certainty this time.

I think you might have mentioned on the odd occasion that you worked for a Labour MP or something. Are you best friends with our very own Ben Shatliff ? I think you'd have a lot in common.

Ooohhhh yes cat - with your interests in Sky; you and Ben could create a Politics, ITV1 AND Sky Supersite.

I think it could be the next big thing.

I think I've mentioned it twice.

That said, I'm glad you extend an amount of scrutiny to my posts that I could never be bothered to extend to yours.

Didn't Sky's coverage of one of the recent Budgets feature a key presenter wearing overalls? And aren't the BBC cartoonising their election promos?

I think essentially they're all as bad as each other!

I'm choosing ITV as they've got a very quick service from what I remember from the last election, and not being all that clued up with the logistics of politics myself, they'll explain stuff to me in a way I understand, unlike some other patronising channels which think I know everything. Or perhaps I'm just thick...

Essentially, every element of the different channels' coverage has a slight niché market - and ITV's is the "average" viewer that is not a news junkie but wants the election details devliered in a format which doesn't bombard them with technical jargon. Thank God for Alastair Stewart!

I also can relate to presenters I know, and would feel pretty lost watching the BBC's coverage to be honest. The only reporters I know/have heard of for them, are Andrew Marr and Guto Harry (sp!).

Sky's Adam Boulton meanwhile, I have to agree, is superb.

You must be if that's your idea of the definition of patronising...

Well if it's supposed to read "which think I know everything" anyway!

Well unfortunately even with a Grammar School and University education I'm still none the wiser about how the hell the political system works, which is quite a shame considering I'm interested in it. Perhaps I need to take time out to learn about it, but then I can just choose to watch coverage which will explain as it broadcasts.

Thats why I like Alastair Stewart who recently picked up some award (God knows what it was), whenever news breaks, he manages to explain the stories behind the stories to the viewer in an engaging way.

I just feel that on BBC News 24, for example, there are often times they'll say "and now back to the something-or-other dossier story, and to our political correspondent.....", where they completely gloss over the foundation of the story.

Not being someone who is very "newsy", perhaps it's my own fault for not being in the know, however, i just find there are some channels that help to paint the picture better than others when it comes to the viewers it serves.

This is however not cursing the BBC's coverage, as it looks excellent, and there are many people I know that prefer it. It definitely beats ITV in terms of content, a comparison of the nightly bulletins will confirm that, however, I just want the news in a way I want it.

That's why I'm saying I'm sure each channel is targeting a different niché for this election, as that's what they do with their news. Each channel is using different ideas to accomplish this. Should be interesting which ones work and which don't.

Oh, don't worry, you're not missing much.

Basically, there are three major political parties that used to think differently on a lot of things. Now they think the same thing, but express it slightly differently from each other.

Nothing will be different from Friday morning onwards. Still the same old lies, sleaze and self-interest there has always been.

I'm going to be watching it, for the only reason that I like large OB events.

cat and Shat - the New Labour dream team in 20 years' time?

Must agree with this, something very appealing about it. I take it this thread will be the place to be for Screenshots etc?

Sorry to be a pedant, but as you've done it twice now, I feel the need to point out that niche does not have an accent.