US Election Night: Domestic Coverage

The reason the BBC didn't have a very visible partnership (their partners are ABC and the Beeb were roughly in line with their projection calls AIUI - though not tied to them) is because they were airing on BBC America, they couldn't take any ABC in-vision talent as per the BBC/ABC News agreement with regard to BBC America (and BBC World on PBS as well AIUI)

Rather than tie in with a US network, the Beeb ran their own operation pretty much. It had lots of very rough edges, but was in a totally arena to ITV.

Bits of me really wanted Huw to be anchoring it (as I wish he would the next UK Election programme - he does the Welsh really, really well) - or Frei (though I'm not sure Frei is ready in presentation terms)

As for "Lambie Nairn" doing the graphics - I sometimes wonder how people here think graphics are commissioned. Lambie Nairn provide a very basic kit of parts, and some strong brand guidelines, but they don't do the day-in, day-out design, nor would they be doing special event design - the BBC simply doesn't have the money, and has an in-house team for that. The US 'O8 branding and graphics will have been developed in-house, but to the Lambie Nairn guidelines. The results graphics may have been outsourced in delivery terms - and the design may have been a collaboration between the BBC in-house team and the resource provider.

I watched the top of ITV's coverage - after seeing Sky and the BBC and being relatively underwhelmed - but the ITV top really gave me even less incentive to watch. I was amazed that they did nothing on the election in their lead item - and instead showed Brian Williams giving Julie Etchingham a tour of NBC's set-up... I kept flipping to ITV during the duller bits of the BBC or during CNNs ad breaks and it was just really dull for me - anchoring this stuff from the UK just doesn't work for me. You really need US politicians and commentators in the studio to give real reactions - and for that you really need to be presenting in Washington DC or New York. Doing it down the line just doesn't really cut it for me.

What guidelines recommend substituting numbers with letters?

The use of the letter 'O' rather than a zero '0' looked ridiculously out of place in the 'US 'O8' logo.

Yep - I wasn't a fan either. However the BBC wasn't alone in doing the US 'O8 thing - I see quite a few other broadcasters used that as their brand (with a capital O replacing the numeral 0)

I think that as it was a branding device rather than a content graphic - you could do pretty much anything you like within the branding guidelines, as long as it is Red, White, Grey or Black, and uses Gill Sans, and doesn't do anything that hasn't got a hard edge. (Soft edges and half-mixes / blends are banned these days - hence the hard edged multi-circle wipe used...)

If you were doing a graphic with years in it then 2OO8 and 2OO7 would be incorrect - but this was more of a branding decision rather than a straight info graphic.

I personally didn't particularly like it - it felt a bit too self-conscious - but I don't think it broke the rules significantly.

I think ITV did a lot more than all of us expected - but of course relied heavily on NBC's coverage and expertise and I agree about there being a lack of "atmosphere". When I caught the coverage early on they had a pollster and Jon Culshaw - hardly a panel to be proud of.

The BBC coverage was very rough at times but I think the important thing is that they didn't miss or mess up anything vital and anything that makes John Bolton look like more of an idiot than he already is was good.

I got the impression that Dimbleby at times was getting a little flustered with the lack of planning of some parts and the bit where he was trying to get Jeremy Vine to get specific figures from the touch screen was cringeworthy.

Having said that, Matt Frei only continues to go up in my estimation. He has always shone as a correspondent and now I think he'll start coming into his own as a presenter.

Oh and seeing Katty Kay give as good as she got was a magical moment for me.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Well with a population of 300 Million then yeah it is pretty low. Though admittedly I expect most people were out on the streets finding out the results for themselves.

Don't forget that the vast majority of Americans have either cable or satellite and that many people watched the election on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, etc.

According to preliminary numbers, more than 70 million Americans watched the election on one of the 14 channels that covered it.

Remember there are only 220 million adults of voting age in America. And only 150 million of those bothered to vote anyway.

I thought ITV's election coverage was very well done, far better than the 2004 coverage.

The studio looked superb, the green CSO backdrop gave the studio a good feel to it.

Joining NBC News was a good move, with NBC's massive election output, made ITV News coverage look excellent.

BBC was so dull and boring as was Sky News.

I loved Fox News Channel's coverage, just seeing them look devastated that their beloved Republicans had been trounced, did it for me.

They had excellent coverage though and I give them credit for very quick results in calling each state. Shame the other channels lagged behind.

I praise ITV's coverage in presentation and giving out information in a more concise way than the BBC's.
Can't comment on news channels. I don't see the point of them. Terrestrial news is far better!
Jeremy Vine's hip-hop dancing and the abrasive Jeremy Paxman puts me off the BBC.
It is a shame ITV only getting 300,000 viewers for a superior service, rather than the BBC's lame effort [I saw 25 minutes of it and was put off].

Why mention Paxman? The BBC's coverage was fronted by Dimbleby, with Matt Frei and Jeremy Vine. Didn't see much of Paxman at all - and I watched until 4am and didn't see any Hip Hop. (That probably relates to a previous UK election show?)

And CNN came second to ABC, ahead of NBC and CBS AIUI.