MU
At the start when Julie was stood between Johnson and Corbyn there was a good five seconds of music playing where it felt like it should have cut to a title sequence, but didn't and then instead eventually cut to a shot of the audience or something, and then very quickly after one of the set, where the trio were suddenly all stood behind their individual podiums, having presumably sprinted across in the second or so they were off-screen?! There was no titlecard, which makes me think it was a mistake as that would have covered the transition much better?
That was the clean feed, which was made available to other broadcasters - I suspect it either went out on YouTube in error, or there were other reasons why the main TX feed wasn't suitable.
I was watching on TV and I still thought the opening was odd. Yes, there was a short title sequence after Julie's cold open, but the title sequence was followed by sweeping shots of the studio, and shots of Johnson and Corby, with a music bed. It felt like something had failed, or we should have at least had applause and/or a voiceover at this point.
At the start when Julie was stood between Johnson and Corbyn there was a good five seconds of music playing where it felt like it should have cut to a title sequence, but didn't and then instead eventually cut to a shot of the audience or something, and then very quickly after one of the set, where the trio were suddenly all stood behind their individual podiums, having presumably sprinted across in the second or so they were off-screen?! There was no titlecard, which makes me think it was a mistake as that would have covered the transition much better?
I was watching on TV and I still thought the opening was odd. Yes, there was a short title sequence after Julie's cold open, but the title sequence was followed by sweeping shots of the studio, and shots of Johnson and Corby, with a music bed. It felt like something had failed, or we should have at least had applause and/or a voiceover at this point.
IT
Although according to the ONS, there are over 45 million registered electors in the UK - so only about 15% watched the debate. And that's considered a success? What it shows to me is that very few people are actually bothered about leaders' debates outside of the media/Westminster bubble. What I'd love to know is what percentage of those 6.7m viewers actually work in politics or the media? That would be even more revealing.
itsrobert
Founding member
The first debate did 6.7m which is very impressive, can’t imagine any of the rest doing nearly as well though
Although according to the ONS, there are over 45 million registered electors in the UK - so only about 15% watched the debate. And that's considered a success? What it shows to me is that very few people are actually bothered about leaders' debates outside of the media/Westminster bubble. What I'd love to know is what percentage of those 6.7m viewers actually work in politics or the media? That would be even more revealing.
BB
Although according to the ONS, there are over 45 million registered electors in the UK - so only about 15% watched the debate. And that's considered a success? What it shows to me is that very few people are actually bothered about leaders' debates outside of the media/Westminster bubble. What I'd love to know is what percentage of those 6.7m viewers actually work in politics or the media? That would be even more revealing.
The important thing though is, whilst only 15% of the electorate watched the debate, how many will have seen or heard segments elsewhere? Whilst the viewership for the whole debate might not have covered a massive chunk of the electorate, the numbers who will have seen or heard segments of it, or any fallout, will be significantly higher.
The first debate did 6.7m which is very impressive, can’t imagine any of the rest doing nearly as well though
Although according to the ONS, there are over 45 million registered electors in the UK - so only about 15% watched the debate. And that's considered a success? What it shows to me is that very few people are actually bothered about leaders' debates outside of the media/Westminster bubble. What I'd love to know is what percentage of those 6.7m viewers actually work in politics or the media? That would be even more revealing.
The important thing though is, whilst only 15% of the electorate watched the debate, how many will have seen or heard segments elsewhere? Whilst the viewership for the whole debate might not have covered a massive chunk of the electorate, the numbers who will have seen or heard segments of it, or any fallout, will be significantly higher.
GE
Her Maj has prior engagements on Christmas Day so would probably not be keen to entertain an audience with any prospective Prime Ministers, even if they did make the trip out to Sandringham.
thegeek
Founding member
Hypothetical question. If there's a hung parliament and negotiations go on until christmas. If there's any development on Christmas Day how will it be covered eg if the new PM enters 10 Downing St
Her Maj has prior engagements on Christmas Day so would probably not be keen to entertain an audience with any prospective Prime Ministers, even if they did make the trip out to Sandringham.
UK
Yes, I also watch The Brief at 10 on CNN from London with Bianca. It is very consice and a proper 30 minute bulletin.
I find its fresh, fast paced (but still thorough) style is more watchable than BBC News and ITV News.
The frustrating thing with The Brief is that it's easily dropped for more impeachment yarn.
Shock as American based international news channel covers major American news story with widespread international interest.
I've found too if I want a substantive news review at 10 O'Clock these days I tune over to CNN for the Brief (which feels the sort of show News At 10 really should be - it's very much about the news and covers a lot in only half an hour) or Al Jazeera and don't give ITV a second's thought.
Yes, I also watch The Brief at 10 on CNN from London with Bianca. It is very consice and a proper 30 minute bulletin.
I find its fresh, fast paced (but still thorough) style is more watchable than BBC News and ITV News.
The frustrating thing with The Brief is that it's easily dropped for more impeachment yarn.
Shock as American based international news channel covers major American news story with widespread international interest.
RK
Yes, I also watch The Brief at 10 on CNN from London with Bianca. It is very consice and a proper 30 minute bulletin.
I find its fresh, fast paced (but still thorough) style is more watchable than BBC News and ITV News.
The frustrating thing with The Brief is that it's easily dropped for more impeachment yarn.
Shock as American based international news channel covers major American news story with widespread international interest.
Worth mentioning BBC World News have been airing the hearings uninterrupted aside from dipping of the audio at the TOTH for anchors to tell new audiences what’s going on.
Yes, I also watch The Brief at 10 on CNN from London with Bianca. It is very consice and a proper 30 minute bulletin.
I find its fresh, fast paced (but still thorough) style is more watchable than BBC News and ITV News.
The frustrating thing with The Brief is that it's easily dropped for more impeachment yarn.
Shock as American based international news channel covers major American news story with widespread international interest.
Worth mentioning BBC World News have been airing the hearings uninterrupted aside from dipping of the audio at the TOTH for anchors to tell new audiences what’s going on.
BF
Yes, I also watch The Brief at 10 on CNN from London with Bianca. It is very consice and a proper 30 minute bulletin.
I find its fresh, fast paced (but still thorough) style is more watchable than BBC News and ITV News.
The frustrating thing with The Brief is that it's easily dropped for more impeachment yarn.
Shock as American based international news channel covers major American news story with widespread international interest.
The issue being its at the expense of any and all international news. Nobody's saying CNNI shouldn't cover it or even have it lead bulletins - of course it's important news. But the CNNI simulcasts of Domestic just get ridiculous - there's a debate to be had that international (and hell even domestic) viewers don't need to see completely live every second of the testimonies and that bulletins could easily cover the main points but the issue particularly is that when the hearings are over for the dayrather than airing the normal schedule we then get domestic talking heads for hours on end which is fine for Domestic but tedious and unnecessary for International.
The CNN Domestic coverage is very much aimed at the political geek end of the spectrum and assumes you are an expert on US politics and all those involved and the US political system that I doubt many international viewers are.
And bad when there's plenty of other news happening around the world - such as Hong Kong protests or the UK election which if you are lucky get a brief mention when Domestic goes to a break.
If I tune in I'd much prefer The Brief or Your World Today which would cover the main talking points from the impeachment in an interesting way but also other major stories - rather than tuning in to see some US official I don't really know talking to congressmen I don't really know for hours on end.
Important to add too that CNN (Domestic and International) lead with Trump/America so often that you think 'Oh not again' and zone out when yet another bulletin starts with Trump or simulcast happens to the extent that even a story like impeachment draws that reaction.
All this said though when I turned on CNNI this morning I was surprised to a) See an International bulletin and b) It wasn't leading on Trump but instead the news about Tottenham appointing Mourinho.
Yes, I also watch The Brief at 10 on CNN from London with Bianca. It is very consice and a proper 30 minute bulletin.
I find its fresh, fast paced (but still thorough) style is more watchable than BBC News and ITV News.
The frustrating thing with The Brief is that it's easily dropped for more impeachment yarn.
Shock as American based international news channel covers major American news story with widespread international interest.
The issue being its at the expense of any and all international news. Nobody's saying CNNI shouldn't cover it or even have it lead bulletins - of course it's important news. But the CNNI simulcasts of Domestic just get ridiculous - there's a debate to be had that international (and hell even domestic) viewers don't need to see completely live every second of the testimonies and that bulletins could easily cover the main points but the issue particularly is that when the hearings are over for the dayrather than airing the normal schedule we then get domestic talking heads for hours on end which is fine for Domestic but tedious and unnecessary for International.
The CNN Domestic coverage is very much aimed at the political geek end of the spectrum and assumes you are an expert on US politics and all those involved and the US political system that I doubt many international viewers are.
And bad when there's plenty of other news happening around the world - such as Hong Kong protests or the UK election which if you are lucky get a brief mention when Domestic goes to a break.
If I tune in I'd much prefer The Brief or Your World Today which would cover the main talking points from the impeachment in an interesting way but also other major stories - rather than tuning in to see some US official I don't really know talking to congressmen I don't really know for hours on end.
Important to add too that CNN (Domestic and International) lead with Trump/America so often that you think 'Oh not again' and zone out when yet another bulletin starts with Trump or simulcast happens to the extent that even a story like impeachment draws that reaction.
All this said though when I turned on CNNI this morning I was surprised to a) See an International bulletin and b) It wasn't leading on Trump but instead the news about Tottenham appointing Mourinho.
WW
Because Tottenham appointing Mourinho is such a significant international story.
Of course, CNN shouldn't ignore major international stories -- such as events in Hong Kong --, but the impeachment proceedings are truly historic. Their outcome will have repercussions on a global scale, and because other international news channels are not providing live coverage, I believe that CNN International made the right decision to carry the hearings in full.
As for an over-reliance on CNN Domestic simulcasts, I think you have a point.
All this said though when I turned on CNNI this morning I was surprised to a) See an International bulletin and b) It wasn't leading on Trump but instead the news about Tottenham appointing Mourinho.
Because Tottenham appointing Mourinho is such a significant international story.
Of course, CNN shouldn't ignore major international stories -- such as events in Hong Kong --, but the impeachment proceedings are truly historic. Their outcome will have repercussions on a global scale, and because other international news channels are not providing live coverage, I believe that CNN International made the right decision to carry the hearings in full.
As for an over-reliance on CNN Domestic simulcasts, I think you have a point.
MA
The frustrating thing with The Brief is that it's easily dropped for more impeachment yarn.
Shock as American based international news channel covers major American news story with widespread international interest.
The issue being its at the expense of any and all international news. Nobody's saying CNNI shouldn't cover it or even have it lead bulletins - of course it's important news. But the CNNI simulcasts of Domestic just get ridiculous - there's a debate to be had that international (and hell even domestic) viewers don't need to see completely live every second of the testimonies and that bulletins could easily cover the main points but the issue particularly is that when the hearings are over for the dayrather than airing the normal schedule we then get domestic talking heads for hours on end which is fine for Domestic but tedious and unnecessary for International.
The CNN Domestic coverage is very much aimed at the political geek end of the spectrum and assumes you are an expert on US politics and all those involved and the US political system that I doubt many international viewers are.
And bad when there's plenty of other news happening around the world - such as Hong Kong protests or the UK election which if you are lucky get a brief mention when Domestic goes to a break.
If I tune in I'd much prefer The Brief or Your World Today which would cover the main talking points from the impeachment in an interesting way but also other major stories - rather than tuning in to see some US official I don't really know talking to congressmen I don't really know for hours on end.
Important to add too that CNN (Domestic and International) lead with Trump/America so often that you think 'Oh not again' and zone out when yet another bulletin starts with Trump or simulcast happens to the extent that even a story like impeachment draws that reaction.
All this said though when I turned on CNNI this morning I was surprised to a) See an International bulletin and b) It wasn't leading on Trump but instead the news about Tottenham appointing Mourinho.
Totally agree with you. I cant stand any simulcast of the US version of the channel. Luckily The Brief, Your World Today, etc, are scheduled to return on Friday.
Hopefully Richard will be back on Quest Means Business soon too.
The frustrating thing with The Brief is that it's easily dropped for more impeachment yarn.
Shock as American based international news channel covers major American news story with widespread international interest.
The issue being its at the expense of any and all international news. Nobody's saying CNNI shouldn't cover it or even have it lead bulletins - of course it's important news. But the CNNI simulcasts of Domestic just get ridiculous - there's a debate to be had that international (and hell even domestic) viewers don't need to see completely live every second of the testimonies and that bulletins could easily cover the main points but the issue particularly is that when the hearings are over for the dayrather than airing the normal schedule we then get domestic talking heads for hours on end which is fine for Domestic but tedious and unnecessary for International.
The CNN Domestic coverage is very much aimed at the political geek end of the spectrum and assumes you are an expert on US politics and all those involved and the US political system that I doubt many international viewers are.
And bad when there's plenty of other news happening around the world - such as Hong Kong protests or the UK election which if you are lucky get a brief mention when Domestic goes to a break.
If I tune in I'd much prefer The Brief or Your World Today which would cover the main talking points from the impeachment in an interesting way but also other major stories - rather than tuning in to see some US official I don't really know talking to congressmen I don't really know for hours on end.
Important to add too that CNN (Domestic and International) lead with Trump/America so often that you think 'Oh not again' and zone out when yet another bulletin starts with Trump or simulcast happens to the extent that even a story like impeachment draws that reaction.
All this said though when I turned on CNNI this morning I was surprised to a) See an International bulletin and b) It wasn't leading on Trump but instead the news about Tottenham appointing Mourinho.
Totally agree with you. I cant stand any simulcast of the US version of the channel. Luckily The Brief, Your World Today, etc, are scheduled to return on Friday.
Hopefully Richard will be back on Quest Means Business soon too.