Sky News’s coverage was very good considering the time of night. They really took over the public service broadcasting role in the absence of BBC News Channel coverage.
Not sure that's fair when BBC Parliament was covering it.
The coverage on Sky News was excellent, the extra cameras made all the difference. BBC Parliament also deserves top marks, especially for its commentary. However, it's a big mistake that the BBC News Channel didn't cover the event. Is this not what the News Channel is supposed to do? It's a real weak spot at the moment that hour between Midnight and 1.00am. There's nothing wrong with Newsday, but it's not suited for that hour.
I watched it on Sky and found the whole process extremely fascinating. They seemed to do a decent job describing what was going on and who people were. Perfect for an international viewer.
Only issue is once everything was over and the clock struck 2AM BST the Aston’s during the opening of Sky’s continuing coverage stayed up saying News At Ten.
It’s a shame BBC Parliament isn’t available free to international viewers, it’s run on a shoestring budget and likely has zero rights issues.
:-(
A former member
It does make you wonder why the BBC cares more about BBC world news then BBC News Channel, the BBC has a duty to its viewers first not the world. 6 hours of original content a day during the week? that is poor in anyone's books.
Its not the first time BBC news has failed to be able to deal with UK overnight breaking news probably.
It's not like this was breaking, it was inevitable. Did Newsday cover it though as surely the International interest warranted it?
That's what I couldn't work out, everyone knew that it was happening, and to be fair it's a big news story. But every time I quickly turned over it was some story from Asia.
It's not like this was breaking, it was inevitable. Did Newsday cover it though as surely the International interest warranted it?
They covered the vote live at 00:30ish, but when all the interesting prorogation stuff was going on between 01:30-02:00 they were on Asia Buisness Report, Sport Today and the weather.
It's not like this was breaking, it was inevitable. Did Newsday cover it though as surely the International interest warranted it?
They covered the vote live at 00:30ish, but when all the interesting prorogation stuff was going on between 01:30-02:00 they were on Asia Buisness Report, Sport Today and the weather.
Which to be fair is 8am in the Far East, and exactly what the viewers in that region would have expected and appreciated
I know we're all sick of it but really don't think someone being addicted to prescription drugs and Geoffrey Boycott getting a Knighthood deserved to be top of the running order on the BBC and ITV respectively over the pretty much unprecedented suspension of democracy and how that played out in this evening's bulletins, which for many would be the first sight of the news since events unfolded.
It's not like this was breaking, it was inevitable. Did Newsday cover it though as surely the International interest warranted it?
They covered the vote live at 00:30ish, but when all the interesting prorogation stuff was going on between 01:30-02:00 they were on Asia Buisness Report, Sport Today and the weather.
Which to be fair is 8am in the Far East, and exactly what the viewers in that region would have expected and appreciated
But which region should take precedence? Viewers in Asia or licence-fee paying viewers in the UK? It does seem to me that the BBC puts far more value on its international offerings than it does to its domestic commitments. They can't possible broadcast something UK-centric to the world, yet UK viewers have to put up with all sorts of pretty irrelevant foreign news thanks to the cutbacks.
All this serves to do is to make BBC News appear worthless to UK viewers and will result in further cutbacks. In times gone by I would automatically go to BBC News to follow developing stories; now it's Sky News all the way. Nine times out of ten it's something pretty irrelevant on BBC News whenever I tune in.