You'd think they would have put a delay on the clock, although im sure most viewers by now must have realised that there is a 10 minute delay.
I don't think it is a secret. It tells you on the page with the stream that it is delayed and it has been mentioned on the stream several times. Not to mention the fact that the average viewer of a 'live' webstream is probably more tech savvy than the average viewer of a 'live' television programme.
Yes, really bad - I have no idea who either of these two are. You'd have thought they'd have found someone competent at presenting to do these links, even if the budget for the webstream is next to nothing. Wouldn't they be doing it for nothing anyway? Am I being hopelessly naïeve?
In a way, these links remind me of the shambles that were the links Radio 1 produced on Live Aid day! Some of them were excruciatingly bad ISTR but because of the cause it was all forgiven...
It comes to that question, how much of a delay can a live programme be called live.
None. A programme with any kind of artificial delay can never accurately be described as live.
Quite. Any additional delay added for production reasons, to allow the broadcast to be in anyway alterd, must mean that the show can't be described as live.
Inevitable delays that can't be avoided for technical reasons (distribution encoding for instance), and that don't allow for any content modification, are a different matter.
Wait, why are they now showing an old Stephen Fry sketch?
I think it was to make us feel sad for the state of television. They blurred the word '****' at 00:50 on the internet when showing a clip from a programme that went out much earlier on television in the 80s. That is the state we are in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEkjiF_UilE
They are now talking about showing James Cordon. I assume for the same reasons.
