CA
Everybody seems to have forgotten last time's BBC coverage then? There was a special cafe type area with Fiona Bruce talking to various different celebrities such as Richard Wilson on the night. No doubt then it was a great innovation.
Also, those of you who are slagging off ITV's coverage now before the programme has even started will obviously be slagging it off all night so your negatively biased views can be disregarded
There is a huge difference between a tiny area of the studio with Fiona Bruce talking to a few celebs - in fairness, I hardly remember seeing her on the night - and hosting a celebrity party on the River Thames, and dispatching two of your top newsreaders to cover it.
If they had any sense of perspective, Mark thingy and Katie Derham would have been dispatched to marginal constituencies to provide coverage from there, not some celeb knees up under a fairground ride.
Well you don't know how much of the show will be the party yet. I'm sure it'll only be used when they are flagging a bit between results, plus half the guests have some sort of satirical link to the proceedings like Ian Hislop and Alistair McGowan, you're making out it's going to be Jordan and Jade Goody!
In reply to Andrew's comments in the other thread - clearly the concept of this thread-merger has baffled him...
I don't care who it is. The fact is that ITV News have spent money on a bloody party for their election night coverage, when they could've spent it on something that would actually add a useful dimension to the coverage. As for Jordan... I wouldn't put it past them.
Andrew posted:
cat posted:
Andrew posted:
Dunedin posted:
cat posted:
That's not ITV's remit, though, is it?
If they want to do cheap celebrity parties and silly gimmicks then that's fine, but don't try to pass it off as serious political coverage.
A general election, however, you want to mask it, is a serious and important event. That's not to say it can't be fun, for sure, but it's a great shame that ITV can't go for one evening without reducing themselves to celebrity and showbiz pap.
If they want to do cheap celebrity parties and silly gimmicks then that's fine, but don't try to pass it off as serious political coverage.
A general election, however, you want to mask it, is a serious and important event. That's not to say it can't be fun, for sure, but it's a great shame that ITV can't go for one evening without reducing themselves to celebrity and showbiz pap.
Everybody seems to have forgotten last time's BBC coverage then? There was a special cafe type area with Fiona Bruce talking to various different celebrities such as Richard Wilson on the night. No doubt then it was a great innovation.
Also, those of you who are slagging off ITV's coverage now before the programme has even started will obviously be slagging it off all night so your negatively biased views can be disregarded
There is a huge difference between a tiny area of the studio with Fiona Bruce talking to a few celebs - in fairness, I hardly remember seeing her on the night - and hosting a celebrity party on the River Thames, and dispatching two of your top newsreaders to cover it.
If they had any sense of perspective, Mark thingy and Katie Derham would have been dispatched to marginal constituencies to provide coverage from there, not some celeb knees up under a fairground ride.
Well you don't know how much of the show will be the party yet. I'm sure it'll only be used when they are flagging a bit between results, plus half the guests have some sort of satirical link to the proceedings like Ian Hislop and Alistair McGowan, you're making out it's going to be Jordan and Jade Goody!
In reply to Andrew's comments in the other thread - clearly the concept of this thread-merger has baffled him...
I don't care who it is. The fact is that ITV News have spent money on a bloody party for their election night coverage, when they could've spent it on something that would actually add a useful dimension to the coverage. As for Jordan... I wouldn't put it past them.
WI
Of course, they do have Nick Robinson, who (imho) is excellent I'm not sure that's enough to persuade me to switch over for any length of time though.
william
Founding member
cat posted:
I don't care who it is. The fact is that ITV News have spent money on a bloody party for their election night coverage, when they could've spent it on something that would actually add a useful dimension to the coverage. As for Jordan... I wouldn't put it past them.
Of course, they do have Nick Robinson, who (imho) is excellent I'm not sure that's enough to persuade me to switch over for any length of time though.
IT
Everybody seems to have forgotten last time's BBC coverage then? There was a special cafe type area with Fiona Bruce talking to various different celebrities such as Richard Wilson on the night. No doubt then it was a great innovation.
Also, those of you who are slagging off ITV's coverage now before the programme has even started will obviously be slagging it off all night so your negatively biased views can be disregarded
There is a huge difference between a tiny area of the studio with Fiona Bruce talking to a few celebs - in fairness, I hardly remember seeing her on the night - and hosting a celebrity party on the River Thames, and dispatching two of your top newsreaders to cover it.
If they had any sense of perspective, Mark thingy and Katie Derham would have been dispatched to marginal constituencies to provide coverage from there, not some celeb knees up under a fairground ride.
Well you don't know how much of the show will be the party yet. I'm sure it'll only be used when they are flagging a bit between results, plus half the guests have some sort of satirical link to the proceedings like Ian Hislop and Alistair McGowan, you're making out it's going to be Jordan and Jade Goody!
In reply to Andrew's comments in the other thread - clearly the concept of this thread-merger has baffled him...
I don't care who it is. The fact is that ITV News have spent money on a bloody party for their election night coverage, when they could've spent it on something that would actually add a useful dimension to the coverage. As for Jordan... I wouldn't put it past them.
Whats the point spending more money on something else? The public overall will always choose the BBC. ITV might as well make a more exciting programme. Whats the point of having 2 programmes, exactley the same?
cat posted:
Andrew posted:
cat posted:
Andrew posted:
Dunedin posted:
cat posted:
That's not ITV's remit, though, is it?
If they want to do cheap celebrity parties and silly gimmicks then that's fine, but don't try to pass it off as serious political coverage.
A general election, however, you want to mask it, is a serious and important event. That's not to say it can't be fun, for sure, but it's a great shame that ITV can't go for one evening without reducing themselves to celebrity and showbiz pap.
If they want to do cheap celebrity parties and silly gimmicks then that's fine, but don't try to pass it off as serious political coverage.
A general election, however, you want to mask it, is a serious and important event. That's not to say it can't be fun, for sure, but it's a great shame that ITV can't go for one evening without reducing themselves to celebrity and showbiz pap.
Everybody seems to have forgotten last time's BBC coverage then? There was a special cafe type area with Fiona Bruce talking to various different celebrities such as Richard Wilson on the night. No doubt then it was a great innovation.
Also, those of you who are slagging off ITV's coverage now before the programme has even started will obviously be slagging it off all night so your negatively biased views can be disregarded
There is a huge difference between a tiny area of the studio with Fiona Bruce talking to a few celebs - in fairness, I hardly remember seeing her on the night - and hosting a celebrity party on the River Thames, and dispatching two of your top newsreaders to cover it.
If they had any sense of perspective, Mark thingy and Katie Derham would have been dispatched to marginal constituencies to provide coverage from there, not some celeb knees up under a fairground ride.
Well you don't know how much of the show will be the party yet. I'm sure it'll only be used when they are flagging a bit between results, plus half the guests have some sort of satirical link to the proceedings like Ian Hislop and Alistair McGowan, you're making out it's going to be Jordan and Jade Goody!
In reply to Andrew's comments in the other thread - clearly the concept of this thread-merger has baffled him...
I don't care who it is. The fact is that ITV News have spent money on a bloody party for their election night coverage, when they could've spent it on something that would actually add a useful dimension to the coverage. As for Jordan... I wouldn't put it past them.
Whats the point spending more money on something else? The public overall will always choose the BBC. ITV might as well make a more exciting programme. Whats the point of having 2 programmes, exactley the same?
WI
william
Founding member
Clearly I'm missing something here - how exactly do you get these extra eight news active screens? It says press backup then select, which takes you back to exactly where you were before...
EDIT: Found it. Gallery feed's good. Liked the Houses of Parliament at the top of the programme too.
EDIT: Found it. Gallery feed's good. Liked the Houses of Parliament at the top of the programme too.
SP
Sput
fusionlad posted:
Full sound from the Sky News gallery, and a wide shot too!
Didn't they do this last time? Classics along the lines of "The BBC have Gordon Brown. I WANT GORDON BROWN!"
MA
mark
Founding member
Well, the Sky studio looks a bit bigger than it did on the preview - but it is blue after all. I guess they're going for a fairly simple studio seeing as the screen's already full of graphics.
The screen's a bit cluttered for my liking even at this early stage - goodness knows how it's going to get when everything starts to kick off later!
Oh, and so much for Julie Etchingham being the first female to present an election programme. This one's clearly presented by Adam Boulton! Julie's role is no more important than Kay Burley's in 1997.
The screen's a bit cluttered for my liking even at this early stage - goodness knows how it's going to get when everything starts to kick off later!
Oh, and so much for Julie Etchingham being the first female to present an election programme. This one's clearly presented by Adam Boulton! Julie's role is no more important than Kay Burley's in 1997.