WW
I would argue that the inauguration of an American President is a hugely consequential event as it marks the transfer of executive power in the world's largest superpower -- an event with wide-reaching effects on a global scale. Yes, there is some pageantry involved, but it's also the beginning of a new political era. That really matters, as does, say, the inauguration of a new French President or the swearing in of a British Prime Minister. That is big news -- the kind of news that dominates broadcasters around the world.
The Jubilee is also news and should be covered, but considering that the position of the British Monarch is entirely ceremonial, and that the event is merely an anniversary, I just don't see it as a headline-dominating world news story justifying wall-to-wall coverage. It's more like a showbiz-type story with plenty of glamor and pretty visuals than anything else. From what I've read, it seems that AJE may have struck the right balance here.
Absolutely agree, Brekkie. WW Update, I think you're way off the mark on this one. This is a momentous occasion that has only happened once before (I think) in the history of the British monarchy. And it's not just Britain - although you say many people around the world don't care, just as many do, especially in countries and territories where the Queen is head of state. Why should they not be able to see it live? You get non-royal news all year long - and you begrudge just a few days of attention focused on Britain? If this means nothing to most people around the world, then why do we get full live coverage of the inauguration of American presidents? That means nothing to us either.
I would argue that the inauguration of an American President is a hugely consequential event as it marks the transfer of executive power in the world's largest superpower -- an event with wide-reaching effects on a global scale. Yes, there is some pageantry involved, but it's also the beginning of a new political era. That really matters, as does, say, the inauguration of a new French President or the swearing in of a British Prime Minister. That is big news -- the kind of news that dominates broadcasters around the world.
The Jubilee is also news and should be covered, but considering that the position of the British Monarch is entirely ceremonial, and that the event is merely an anniversary, I just don't see it as a headline-dominating world news story justifying wall-to-wall coverage. It's more like a showbiz-type story with plenty of glamor and pretty visuals than anything else. From what I've read, it seems that AJE may have struck the right balance here.
Last edited by WW Update on 5 June 2012 4:20pm - 2 times in total
BR
The inauguration of a President is ceremonial too though - it's the election which is the news (and arguably not the months of run-offs beforehand - not internationally anyway).
The Royals are unelected so the only true test of their popularity is events like this - and the reaction to events this weekend has certainly been newsworthy. I think you're missing the point to if you think it's all about the Queen - this event is as much if not more so about the country than it is the Queen herself.
The Royals are unelected so the only true test of their popularity is events like this - and the reaction to events this weekend has certainly been newsworthy. I think you're missing the point to if you think it's all about the Queen - this event is as much if not more so about the country than it is the Queen herself.
SW
I would argue that the inauguration of an American President is a hugely consequential event as it marks the transfer of executive power in the world's largest superpower -- an event with wide-reaching effects on a global scale. Yes, there is some pageantry involved, but it's also the beginning of a new political era. That really matters, as does, say, the inauguration of a new French President or the swearing in of a British Prime Minister. That is big news -- the kind of news that dominates broadcasters around the world.
The Jubilee is also news and should be covered, but considering that the position of the British Monarch is entirely ceremonial, and that the event is merely an anniversary, I just don't see it as a headline-dominating world news story justifying wall-to-wall coverage. It's more like a showbiz-type story with plenty of glamor and pretty visuals than anything else. From what I've read, it seems that AJE may have struck the right balance here.
I completely disagree. The Diamond Jubilee might 'merely' be an anniversary, but she is only the second monarch to ever reach the milestone and we will never see another in our lifetime. We might not even get another jubilee in the next 40 or so years, and the next big royal state event could well be the Queen's funeral. This weekend has been history, fact, and I think its much more in at least the British public's interest to hear about that than a plane crash in Nigeria. You only need to look at the immense turnout in London today and the massive viewing figures for events over the weekend to see the interest in this historical event.
Absolutely agree, Brekkie. WW Update, I think you're way off the mark on this one. This is a momentous occasion that has only happened once before (I think) in the history of the British monarchy. And it's not just Britain - although you say many people around the world don't care, just as many do, especially in countries and territories where the Queen is head of state. Why should they not be able to see it live? You get non-royal news all year long - and you begrudge just a few days of attention focused on Britain? If this means nothing to most people around the world, then why do we get full live coverage of the inauguration of American presidents? That means nothing to us either.
I would argue that the inauguration of an American President is a hugely consequential event as it marks the transfer of executive power in the world's largest superpower -- an event with wide-reaching effects on a global scale. Yes, there is some pageantry involved, but it's also the beginning of a new political era. That really matters, as does, say, the inauguration of a new French President or the swearing in of a British Prime Minister. That is big news -- the kind of news that dominates broadcasters around the world.
The Jubilee is also news and should be covered, but considering that the position of the British Monarch is entirely ceremonial, and that the event is merely an anniversary, I just don't see it as a headline-dominating world news story justifying wall-to-wall coverage. It's more like a showbiz-type story with plenty of glamor and pretty visuals than anything else. From what I've read, it seems that AJE may have struck the right balance here.
I completely disagree. The Diamond Jubilee might 'merely' be an anniversary, but she is only the second monarch to ever reach the milestone and we will never see another in our lifetime. We might not even get another jubilee in the next 40 or so years, and the next big royal state event could well be the Queen's funeral. This weekend has been history, fact, and I think its much more in at least the British public's interest to hear about that than a plane crash in Nigeria. You only need to look at the immense turnout in London today and the massive viewing figures for events over the weekend to see the interest in this historical event.
IT
I would argue that the inauguration of an American President is a hugely consequential event as it marks the transfer of executive power in the world's largest superpower -- an event with wide-reaching effects on a global scale. Yes, there is some pageantry involved, but it's also the beginning of a new political era. That really matters, as does, say, the inauguration of a new French President or the swearing in of a British Prime Minister. That is big news -- the kind of news that dominates broadcasters around the world.
The Jubilee is also news and should be covered, but considering that the position of the British Monarch is entirely ceremonial, and that the event is merely an anniversary, I just don't see it as a headline-dominating world news story justifying wall-to-wall coverage. It's more like a showbiz-type story with plenty of glamor and pretty visuals than anything else. From what I've read, it seems that AJE may have struck the right balance here.
You clearly misunderstand the position of the monarchy to most people in the UK. It's much more than merely ceremonial 'showbiz' fluff. What else could gather together an estimated 1.5m people just along the Mall, let alone all the others glued to their televisions?
I take your point about the American presidential inaugurations. However, as important as the American president is on the world stage, he has absolutely no direct authority over me whatsoever. However, the Queen's remarkable achievement DOES make a difference to her subjects scattered right across the globe. Again, why should they miss out just because people like you want your normal news? From what I've seen, it's not even as if you missed out totally - most of the news channels have covered other news as well as the Jubilee celebrations. I take it you will be equally opposed to coverage of the inevitable celebrations in the US to mark its 300th anniversary in 2076? Personally, I won't - I think I'd just enjoy it for what it is.
Anyway, hats off to ITV today. A brilliant production from a talented team - not just the on-screen talent but also all the production staff behind the scenes at ITN. You fulfilled the role that the BBC really ought to have seized. Entertaining, informative and throughly engaging from start to finish.
itsrobert
Founding member
Absolutely agree, Brekkie. WW Update, I think you're way off the mark on this one. This is a momentous occasion that has only happened once before (I think) in the history of the British monarchy. And it's not just Britain - although you say many people around the world don't care, just as many do, especially in countries and territories where the Queen is head of state. Why should they not be able to see it live? You get non-royal news all year long - and you begrudge just a few days of attention focused on Britain? If this means nothing to most people around the world, then why do we get full live coverage of the inauguration of American presidents? That means nothing to us either.
I would argue that the inauguration of an American President is a hugely consequential event as it marks the transfer of executive power in the world's largest superpower -- an event with wide-reaching effects on a global scale. Yes, there is some pageantry involved, but it's also the beginning of a new political era. That really matters, as does, say, the inauguration of a new French President or the swearing in of a British Prime Minister. That is big news -- the kind of news that dominates broadcasters around the world.
The Jubilee is also news and should be covered, but considering that the position of the British Monarch is entirely ceremonial, and that the event is merely an anniversary, I just don't see it as a headline-dominating world news story justifying wall-to-wall coverage. It's more like a showbiz-type story with plenty of glamor and pretty visuals than anything else. From what I've read, it seems that AJE may have struck the right balance here.
You clearly misunderstand the position of the monarchy to most people in the UK. It's much more than merely ceremonial 'showbiz' fluff. What else could gather together an estimated 1.5m people just along the Mall, let alone all the others glued to their televisions?
I take your point about the American presidential inaugurations. However, as important as the American president is on the world stage, he has absolutely no direct authority over me whatsoever. However, the Queen's remarkable achievement DOES make a difference to her subjects scattered right across the globe. Again, why should they miss out just because people like you want your normal news? From what I've seen, it's not even as if you missed out totally - most of the news channels have covered other news as well as the Jubilee celebrations. I take it you will be equally opposed to coverage of the inevitable celebrations in the US to mark its 300th anniversary in 2076? Personally, I won't - I think I'd just enjoy it for what it is.
Anyway, hats off to ITV today. A brilliant production from a talented team - not just the on-screen talent but also all the production staff behind the scenes at ITN. You fulfilled the role that the BBC really ought to have seized. Entertaining, informative and throughly engaging from start to finish.
IS
Yes, commonwealth countries should see it live and they probably are... on their own channels.
It really isn't something that the whole world will sit and watch live. People in places like China or Russia don't care, nor would most of Europe... the international news channels don't cover similar events held for the Dutch or Scandinavian Royal Families.
For the likes of CNN, Russia Today and AJ a 2 minute package of highlights, maybe a live reporter is all that's needed
A few days in any other year!
That is a big historic event that affects people's lives - a change of power.
This weekend, nice as some of it's been, is just a celebration of the anniversary of a historical event. It's not going to actually change anything
Absolutely agree, Brekkie. WW Update, I think you're way off the mark on this one. This is a momentous occasion that has only happened once before (I think) in the history of the British monarchy. And it's not just Britain - although you say many people around the world don't care, just as many do, especially in countries and territories where the Queen is head of state. Why should they not be able to see it live?
Yes, commonwealth countries should see it live and they probably are... on their own channels.
It really isn't something that the whole world will sit and watch live. People in places like China or Russia don't care, nor would most of Europe... the international news channels don't cover similar events held for the Dutch or Scandinavian Royal Families.
For the likes of CNN, Russia Today and AJ a 2 minute package of highlights, maybe a live reporter is all that's needed
Quote:
You get non-royal news all year long - and you begrudge just a few days of attention focused on Britain?
A few days in any other year!
Quote:
If this means nothing to most people around the world, then why do we get full live coverage of the inauguration of American presidents? That means nothing to us either.
That is a big historic event that affects people's lives - a change of power.
This weekend, nice as some of it's been, is just a celebration of the anniversary of a historical event. It's not going to actually change anything
JW
Alas, Rob, I wasn't able to see any of today's coverage. But I hope to see some highlights tonight, probably on Sky News.
By all accounts, Sky won Sunday, Sky/BBC Monday and ITN Tuesday.
And Kay Burley, no less, as the News Queen for the Queen.
Whatever, we've just witnessed something that none of us will ever see again. Incredible. A Diamond Jubilee.
By all accounts, Sky won Sunday, Sky/BBC Monday and ITN Tuesday.
And Kay Burley, no less, as the News Queen for the Queen.
Whatever, we've just witnessed something that none of us will ever see again. Incredible. A Diamond Jubilee.
DO
Only 9 years, 363-ish days till the platinum jubilee!
Whatever, we've just witnessed something that none of us will ever see again. Incredible. A Diamond Jubilee.
Only 9 years, 363-ish days till the platinum jubilee!
LL
London Lite
Founding member
I watched Sky for most of today, although I was impressed with James Mates's commentary on ITV1 during the service.
I briefly flicked over to BBC1 to see Jake Humphry and Fearne Cotton with some inane rubbish, although their coverage compared to Sunday was more subdued.
For me, Sky was the best on Sunday, BBC1 on Monday, and a draw between Sky and ITV today.
I briefly flicked over to BBC1 to see Jake Humphry and Fearne Cotton with some inane rubbish, although their coverage compared to Sunday was more subdued.
For me, Sky was the best on Sunday, BBC1 on Monday, and a draw between Sky and ITV today.
WW
The Royals are unelected so the only true test of their popularity is events like this - and the reaction to events this weekend has certainly been newsworthy.
But has the reaction really been newsworthy? From what I've seen, it looked like the reaction to any major royal event -- in the UK or elsewhere. If anything, it struck me as predictable. If you asked me a week ago what the Jubilee would look like, I would have imagined something similar.
But it's a historical event without any broader historical significance. In other words, the fact that it happened won't really affect the lives of anyone. That puts it in an entirely different category than, say, the swearing in of a British PM or the inauguration of an American (or French, for that matter) President. Those events really are historic because they shape the course of history and affect the way the world works.
Of course, I would expect ITV and the BBC to cover the story in detail for its domestic audience. I just think that AJE struck the right balance from the perspective of the international news viewer.
You clearly misunderstand the position of the monarchy to most people in the UK. It's much more than merely ceremonial 'showbiz' fluff. What else could gather together an estimated 1.5m people just along the Mall, let alone all the others glued to their televisions?
People enjoy ceremonies. In this case, the shared experience of the ceremony has certain elements of national unity, but I fail how this makes that hugely significant as a global news story. Politically, it has no importance at all.
No, but the way you lead your life will be affected by him in one way or another, just as you'll be affected by the German Chancellor or the French President, or the way I'll be affected by the British PM.
The remarkable achievement of living to ripe old age? If that does make a difference, it's purely on a symbolic level. And I just can't accept that something symbolic really is a major world news event. A newsworthy story, yes, but one of just many things happening on our planet these days.
The Royals are unelected so the only true test of their popularity is events like this - and the reaction to events this weekend has certainly been newsworthy.
But has the reaction really been newsworthy? From what I've seen, it looked like the reaction to any major royal event -- in the UK or elsewhere. If anything, it struck me as predictable. If you asked me a week ago what the Jubilee would look like, I would have imagined something similar.
I completely disagree. The Diamond Jubilee might 'merely' be an anniversary, but she is only the second monarch to ever reach the milestone and we will never see another in our lifetime. We might not even get another jubilee in the next 40 or so years, and the next big royal state event could well be the Queen's funeral. This weekend has been history, fact, and I think its much more in at least the British public's interest to hear about that than a plane crash in Nigeria. You only need to look at the immense turnout in London today and the massive viewing figures for events over the weekend to see the interest in this historical event.
But it's a historical event without any broader historical significance. In other words, the fact that it happened won't really affect the lives of anyone. That puts it in an entirely different category than, say, the swearing in of a British PM or the inauguration of an American (or French, for that matter) President. Those events really are historic because they shape the course of history and affect the way the world works.
Of course, I would expect ITV and the BBC to cover the story in detail for its domestic audience. I just think that AJE struck the right balance from the perspective of the international news viewer.
You clearly misunderstand the position of the monarchy to most people in the UK. It's much more than merely ceremonial 'showbiz' fluff. What else could gather together an estimated 1.5m people just along the Mall, let alone all the others glued to their televisions?
People enjoy ceremonies. In this case, the shared experience of the ceremony has certain elements of national unity, but I fail how this makes that hugely significant as a global news story. Politically, it has no importance at all.
I take your point about the American presidential inaugurations. However, as important as the American president is on the world stage, he has absolutely no direct authority over me whatsoever.
No, but the way you lead your life will be affected by him in one way or another, just as you'll be affected by the German Chancellor or the French President, or the way I'll be affected by the British PM.
However, the Queen's remarkable achievement DOES make a difference to her subjects scattered right across the globe.
The remarkable achievement of living to ripe old age? If that does make a difference, it's purely on a symbolic level. And I just can't accept that something symbolic really is a major world news event. A newsworthy story, yes, but one of just many things happening on our planet these days.
LU
he doesn't just do it with quotes, it's obviously a tic he's picked up. Find it maddening to watch
snip
he doesn't just do it with quotes, it's obviously a tic he's picked up. Find it maddening to watch