Royal Birth

Not sure why you're comparing coverage on the day with coverage from two days later. In 1982 the coverage on the day was enormous, interrupting programmes and the like. It's not on YouTube anymore it seems but there was a clip of BBC1 closing down that night (the birth was at 9pm and was announced at 10pm) where they say they'll be opening up specially at 9am in the morning for more coverage.

There's obnviously more coverage now because there are rolling news channels, but in 1982 they were all over it, for hours and hours and hours. They even did a Royal Baby Souvenir Issue of the Radio Times for Harry. Compare that News After Noon clip to how they cover it tomorrow, not yesterday.

Yes, I just had a quick look at what sort of coverage there was and the 9 o clock news that night spends a good 10 minutes on the birth which they didn't even know had happened yet. Newsnight spends about 15 minutes on it. The next day it's top item on everything and dominating the news

In fact the first report on the 9 starts by saying that she was 16 hours into labour and no news yet - yes endless speculating isn't a new thing.

Well, the anti-monarchist / anti-establishment audience.

This is 'real news'. While there are some people who do not support the monarchy, there are also many people that do and want to have the latest on the royal birth.

There are news reports every day that get given lots of coverage, yet I have very little interest in, so I suppose it's important to accept that the news will sometimes report on things that you may not care about, but many do.

Thanks to the internet, we have a lot of freedom about where we can get news from, so you aren't forced to watch stuff you don't want to.

Hundreds of babies are born every day. It's not news. Simple as.

I feel the same when we have a bunch of overpaid men kicking a ball about forced down our throats like it's a matter of life and death (like we're going to have in a few weeks). That's also massively overblown out of proportion.

The royal family are still incredibly popular with the public, and it's so, so easy to avoid the news if you want to. I never get the moaning every time this happens.

Don't worry, we've got the fawning over the wedding only a few weeks away too...

It's as much the tone of the coverage that I can't stand, like we should worship these people and it's the best thing ever and we should all be really excited and happy. Let's crack open a bottle of champagne for someone I've never met and will never know I exist. It's not just factual reporting, it's sycophancy.

There are thing I don't care about, but I realise a lot of people do. To them those things are very important, I don't feel the need to put them down because I'm not interested in them. Nobody is 'forcing it down your throat' - I find it perfectly easy to avoid things I'm not interested it. Its especially easy these days, you're not exactly short of options.


Sport has a positive role for people and communities far beyond 'kicking a ball about' (or whatever variation it may be). Its up to you whether you're interested or not, but its worth realising other people are and perhaps trying to understand why, even if you feel differently.

On your original point, there are indeed many babies born every day. The constitutional setup in the UK means this one was newsworthy, even if it was much less so than his elder brother and sister. You can argue it has too much coverage but to claim it 'isn't news' is being rather ignorant of the nature of the country and implying that everyone should think the same as you.

I do think it's good on Channel 4 News for providing a bulletin in which it's relegated to an 'in brief' item - that shows they know their audience.

When Channel 4 News launched, I think it had a policy of no royal stories.

C4 News is the television equivalent of The Guardian, which also doesn't take much notice of Royal puff.

Incidentally BBC London News ignored the Royal birth completely and the late ITV London bulletin.