The Royal Wedding

Biggest royal wedding in 30 years? That might just qualify for the remaining 1%.

They'll probably go for the "Celebrate with EastEnders" angle though rather than William and Kate.

There's no way I can top that ... you win .

I was down in Westminster on Friday and got a few snaps of the temporary structures for the coverage.

The biggest is on the patch of grass outside the QEII Conference Centre. There seem to be three levels, and presumably if you pay more, you get a top level one with a canopy.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5226/5624288175_a7b4fabf70.jpg

If you look carefully, to the left of the dome of Methodist Central Hall (just above the tree), there's a rather precarious looking bit of scaffolding - I didn't get a close-up of it, but I did get this one, further back on the the same building.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5190/5624297509_6b0cc8e716.jpg

This shot is from the front of the Methodist Central Hall, with the rigging on the left, showing the rather nice views they've got of the Abbey, on the right.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5070/5624894708_a08cd37979.jpg

Here's what they've been building opposite Buckingham Palace...



There's a second row of windows behind the scaffolding, underneath the row you can see.

Now up, and looking just the same at http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/programmes/schedules/london/2011/04/29
(The late night repeat of the One Show appears to be a regular thing now)

The programme page for the main show has the running order too.

BBC Two is looking relatively untroubled by the wedding, spending most of its day showing the snooker.

the News Channel appear to be more or less giving up for the day and simulcasting BBC One.

This really annoys me. Why is the News Channel just simulcasting BBC1? By default, everyone who can receive the BBC News Channel can also receive BBC1 so why do they feel the need to show the same output on both? Yes, the Royal Wedding will be big news that day, but the world goes on regardless and there's bound to be other important domestic and international news generated that day and the BBC should be covering it. It's just laziness on the BBC's part yet again.

Though as Sky will no doubt be a rolling-wedding station throughout the day as well - as unless WWIII breaks out that day there is unlikely to be a bigger story - presumably the BBC don't want the News Channel to get low ratings...

I thought the BBC was above chasing ratings? I know many, many more people who couldn't care less about the wedding than will be watching the coverage. Shouldn't the BBC provide a normal news service for those who want it? Why do they have to copy Sky all the time? There's something to be said for giving people choice...

I would have thought it would be more about justifying the cost. Would it really be worth paying for a separate service on a domestic rolling news service on a day when even fewer people will be watching than normal? Even if the cost would be minute it still appears wasteful when the wedding would be the only story anyway.

I can't agree with that. If that was the case, then if the wedding wasn't happening that day there'd be dead air on the News Channel. There's always news to report if you look hard enough. Yes, I'm not disputing that the wedding will be the most important story of the day, but there will be other news items from the UK and around the world. The editors may choose to make the wedding the only story, but life doesn't just stop because there's a Royal Wedding.

The point about the cost is moot, too. There will have to be news presenters and available crew on hand all the time anyway in case a major news story develops. For the many reporters dotted all over the globe, it will just be another normal day and they'll be generating reports for the news bulletins that are being produced that day. The studio(s) and galleries will all be up and running too, as they tend to leave them ready to go during periods of downtime, anyway. The cost of providing a normal news service would be minimal and would probably please a lot of people. Like I say, from the various people I know, only a small percentage actually care about the wedding.

There is no logical reason why the same wedding coverage has to be on both BBC1 and BBC News. Like I said earlier, anyone who can watch the BBC News Channel can also receive BBC1 by default. The real reason, as noggin suggested earlier, is because they want as many people watching the coverage as possible. My argument is that the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, shouldn't be chasing ratings and instead should be aiming to provide a wide range of quality programming every day. I appreciate the Royal Wedding is a one-off event but they assume that everyone will be captivated by it. It's already being covered ad nauseum on BBC1 and BBCs Radio 1, 2, 4 and 5 Live, so carrying it on the BBC News Channel as well is just overkill. If both BBC News and Sky News are going to be wall-to-wall wedding coverage, there will be no proper news service available for a considerable portion of that day. What about the people who really don't care about the wedding?

People say about ratings, but who is going to watch the BBC's coverage on the news channel rather than BBC1? Although of course the wedding dominates the day, there will be an audience for other news that day - but no bulletins to serve them - and they could at least opt out at 2pm once the main part of the coverage is over - or offer the coverage with signing to actually be of true PSB.

Or just take ABC2's feed from Australia and have The Chaser's take on things - "Stuart Menzies Controller ABC2 said The Chaser and the Royal Family are a natural fit: “They’re both tired, out-of-touch institutions that are a drain on the public purse and well past their use-by-date, – it’s a match made in heaven.”"

http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2011/04/the-chaser-to-commentate-royal-wedding.html