CA
You could see it coming a mile off. The sound has been a bit iffy from the start.
God knows what happened during the 40 seconds or so the signal was out, but they went from being best mates to having an all out fight by the time it came back.
I imagine it's being done from the QEII Conference Centre, and I'm not sure what sort of transmission facilities they have in there. Sky's Westminster offices used to be in there before they moved to Millbank, and it's where their 'Big Ben Cam' is positioned. If the broadcast facilities are run by the QEII Centre then Sky might not have any control over them.
I do wish they'd get rid of that 'Westminster' dog though. It's pointless.
God knows what happened during the 40 seconds or so the signal was out, but they went from being best mates to having an all out fight by the time it came back.
I imagine it's being done from the QEII Conference Centre, and I'm not sure what sort of transmission facilities they have in there. Sky's Westminster offices used to be in there before they moved to Millbank, and it's where their 'Big Ben Cam' is positioned. If the broadcast facilities are run by the QEII Centre then Sky might not have any control over them.
I do wish they'd get rid of that 'Westminster' dog though. It's pointless.
DU
A good debate, probably better in quality than the Question Time debate and full credit to Sky for going an hour advert free to deliver it.
Boulton can't present (but we knew that already) and apart from the technical difficulties, the abrupt end did look rather uprofessional.
Still a good effort overall.
Boulton can't present (but we knew that already) and apart from the technical difficulties, the abrupt end did look rather uprofessional.
Still a good effort overall.
CA
It's been interesting to see how the broadcasters have handled them.
I'm pleased to see that there haven't been any of the dreadful '90 seconds to answer' and strict time limits, camera shots, etc. It makes things far more ''exciting'' and reveals more about the candidates.
I noticed Sky went for a model that the US broadcasters used to operate - a chairperson, a panel of journalists, and the general public behind. At the last election, the US networks just went for one journalist with questions, rather than the panel, similar to the Beeb. Not sure what ITV did, I didn't catch it.
I'm pleased to see that there haven't been any of the dreadful '90 seconds to answer' and strict time limits, camera shots, etc. It makes things far more ''exciting'' and reveals more about the candidates.
I noticed Sky went for a model that the US broadcasters used to operate - a chairperson, a panel of journalists, and the general public behind. At the last election, the US networks just went for one journalist with questions, rather than the panel, similar to the Beeb. Not sure what ITV did, I didn't catch it.
GE
thegeek
Founding member
The technical problems in the debate coincided with the rather ominous dark clouds and heavy rain we were getting in West London today, so I assumed it was a problem with the satellite link. They were fairly well prepared to take over at Osterley for a few minutes, though.
I wasn't too sure about that steadycam shot in the room, though. And did anyone else spot Boulton knocking papers off the podium at the start?
I wasn't too sure about that steadycam shot in the room, though. And did anyone else spot Boulton knocking papers off the podium at the start?
DU
I wasn't too sure about that steadycam shot in the room, though. And did anyone else spot Boulton knocking papers off the podium at the start?
Yes Boulton really is terrible at presenting things like this.
He surprisingly still seems to get quite nervous (you can tell because he starts to SHOUT at the camera), fluffs his questions, can't read an autocue and randomly interupts people asking questions.
IMO, he's an adequate (but not special) Political Editor, who's totally out of his depth doing anything other than two-ways with presenters in the studio and formulaic interviews with politicians. He's just as bad on his Sunday show.
He looked really quite annoyed when Cameron suggested he was "worse than Paxman".
thegeek posted:
I wasn't too sure about that steadycam shot in the room, though. And did anyone else spot Boulton knocking papers off the podium at the start?
Yes Boulton really is terrible at presenting things like this.
He surprisingly still seems to get quite nervous (you can tell because he starts to SHOUT at the camera), fluffs his questions, can't read an autocue and randomly interupts people asking questions.
IMO, he's an adequate (but not special) Political Editor, who's totally out of his depth doing anything other than two-ways with presenters in the studio and formulaic interviews with politicians. He's just as bad on his Sunday show.
He looked really quite annoyed when Cameron suggested he was "worse than Paxman".
DU
He's as good as Nick Robinson- in other words he's adequate. I'm not suggesting that Sky are remotely unhappy with him as political editor, but it puts a pressure on them to appoint him to present political programming which he fails at again and again.
He's nowhere near the class of an Andy Marr though- along with being a far superior political editor, he's got presenting skills as seen on Sunday AM.
cat posted:
I'm sorry, but describing Adam Boulton as ''an adequate political editor'' shows a real lack of understanding somewhere.
He's as good as Nick Robinson- in other words he's adequate. I'm not suggesting that Sky are remotely unhappy with him as political editor, but it puts a pressure on them to appoint him to present political programming which he fails at again and again.
He's nowhere near the class of an Andy Marr though- along with being a far superior political editor, he's got presenting skills as seen on Sunday AM.