Olympic Fails

In no way am I not loving the Olympics. From the opening ceremony onwards I've watched more sport this last week or so than I have in a lifetime - and the BBC are to be commended on the bredth and quality of coverage.

BUT...

What is this hideously annoying technique of reporters covering events where they stare into a lens doing a piece to camera while the action is happening over their shoulder (or all around them)? Clearly the reporter has to be ready to speak of "triumph" or "disappointment" depending on the outcome, but its so contrived and ridiculous - and uncomfortable for the viewer - who am I supposed to be watching? If they really want to add a comentary - why not drop it in as a V/O over footage?

I've seen it used in non sports stories too - but this goes a whole new level and its SO annoying. Quite honestly it must be more annoying to the people standing next to the reporter in these circumstances.

Anyway, today's example is from a broadcast last night - just look how pointless and pathetic the sound quality is from this ill-conceived piece to camera.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19145752

Other examples welcomed.

I agree, Gavin. I've watched more sport this past week or so than ever before, and on the whole the BBC has done a good job. But I also agree that there are annoyances and/or failures.

1) I cannot stand the post-match/event/victory interviews with the athletes. The questions are so ridiculous. "So, Jessica Ennis, you've just won the gold medal; how do you feel right now?" Isn't it bloody obvious? Moreover, the interviews go on for ages, and the interviewer constantly asks the same question phrased in a slightly different way. It's excruciating.

2) Why is there no onscreen indication that something is a recorded event? This applied to this year's Wimbledon too. They always used to have a yellow tennis ball with "R" in the corner of the screen, but they just don't bother any more. I've lost count of the number of times I've tuned in and not realised something I'm watching isn't live. At best it's laziness, at worst it's deception.

3) Sonali Shah. I just can't take modern ex-Newsround presenters seriously. It's not just her, it's Ellie Crisell as well. They seem to have spent so long pretending to sound exciting for kids that they can't talk normally any more. I take it Sonali's presence is to get the yoof watching? Having said that, I think Mishal Husain has been brilliant. Yes, she's very attractive, but she also comes across as intelligent, sweet and quite funny at times. I think she's as close to a perfect presenter the BBC has. Totally unflappable. She reminds me in so many ways of a modern Jill Dando.

4) Ill-timed VTs. As someone on another thread mentioned, the BBC seem to make these VTs in advance and insist on showing us come what may. It doesn't matter if we'd rather see the build-up in the stadium; because they've made it, we have to see it. This affected the Jubilee coverage as well, so it seems they've still not learned.

5) The BBC pretending no other news is going in the world during the Olympics. There are 24 dedicated Olympic channels, not to mention BBC One, BBC One HD, BBC Three and BBC HD. Must they also show us constant Olympics on news broadcasts as well? Every single time I've switched the BBC News channel on this week, it's been Olympics. I hear they are covering other stories, but I've yet to see it. It's as if most of the BBC News team has been sent on holiday for a break. God knows what the Government is up to at the moment. They've probably recalled Parliament and are forcing through all the unpopular legislation they've been keeping hidden. But we wouldn't know it from watching TV news.

That's it for now. There are probably a few others, but those are my main bugbears.

Many if not most European broadcasters do it the other way around -- if the event is live, there's a "LIVE" bug (or a local language equivalent) onscreen. If the DOG is absent, you know you're watching a recording. I think that makes sense given the promotional power of anything branded as "LIVE".

I noticed this today....

They were doing a few interviews in the studio and behind them I think it was the mens Discus. Why not show the Discus and still do the interviews over the top?

TelePicks
http://www.telepicks.blogspot.co.uk

I agree with all of yours Robert, the duplication on the news is ludicrous.

Every night, just before the end of the BBC 1 Olympics show, they recap on all the results of the day.

Then the programme ends, and on comes the 10pm news, where everything we've just been through, is repeated.
That goes on for 10 to 15 mins, then they chuck in some unrelated, but very important story (last night, serious flooding in many parts of the UK). Then, it's back to the Olympics again, and David Bloody Bond stating the bleeding obvious. Followed by the regional news, which here in BBC South land is 95% composed of Olympics coverage, because conveniently it seems every gold medal winner has some connection with the south. Naturally the region has been expanded to take in Box Hill, and Eton Dorney, and of course they're having an orgasm over the events in Weymouth. Then the weather, followed by The Gabby Logan Show, or whatever it's called, first item, you've guessed it, a run down of the day's GB medal winners. Arggghhhhh.

I have no problem with BBC1 providing 18 hours a day of coverage, but it would have been better to have had the news as an integral part of the coverage, but only reporting on non Olympics related stories. All that should be permissible is the non sports stuff, security, ticket sales etc etc.

I must say I pretty much agree with all of Itsrobert's comments.

However, I'm trying to decide whether the BBC has made a deliberate decision - and if I like it - to make the two channels ouput distinctly 'BBC One' and 'BBC Three' by virtue of sets and presenters.

As for Sonali Shah, I don't find her too bad - in the conext of BBC Three - but I can't undertand the use of Ellie Crisell. She's still 'tainted' by Newsround, and I find her reading the 8pm headlines just as dislikeable.

I just hope we don't get Lizo Mzimba anywhere near the coverage.

Usually the delayed stuff has gone out on BBC 3 just before and they show only a few key moments and the presenter always tells you "lets show you what happened a little earlier". It's certainly not NBC levels of deception.

BBC Three certainly has a younger feel to it, with less senior presenters at the time. I like the fact the BBC Three sets offers a different feel, whilst the BBC One one is classy and looks very nice. I think they've got the balance just right.

I did like the call from Brekkie on another forum that Manish would have been good on breakfast, he should be their instead of Chris Hollins in my opinion.

This I totally agree with - and the News Channel is just as bad.

For the sake of half an hour, three times a day, why is it so much trouble for the BBC to broadcast a news programme with just news and no Olympics?

As for yesterday with the breaking news in Wisconsin, I just can't get my head round why the BBCNC was simulcasting BBC One for a great part of the evening leading to the 100m.

A brilliant post, Mark, which perfectly sums it up. I'm afraid North West Tonight is also jumping on the Olympic bandwagon every night. I saw the start of the programme a few days ago and the top story - yes, the top story, on a weeknight - was that an athlete from the Isle of Mann had won a medal!! That was the significance of the story, that he was from the Isle of Mann. It's unbelievable. Meanwhile there's probably all sorts of shootings, arson attacks, drug crime going on in Liverpool and Manchester, yet it's deemed unimportant this week.

And yes the national news is the worst of it. I cannot stand the repetition straight away. I take the point that some people will only be following the Olympics from news bulletins, but even so, most people would tune in a couple of minutes early if they want to catch the news, in which case they'll have just got the gist of it from the tail end of the preceding Olympics programme. The news should be the news. Not sports news. Proper news. It should lead with all the stories it would be leading with during any other week of the year. Fair enough, have an Olympics round-up during the programme, and even bump it up the running order a bit if GB has won a gold medal, but it really shouldn't be taking up most of the bulletin. I actually find it a turn-off to have so much Olympics news. I frequently think 'oh there's no reason to watch BBC News as I've just seen it all happen for myself'. And then I'll go and hunt out the proper news online, rather that sit through it all again waiting for a 5 minute summary.

Maybe things are different in Europe, but British people by and large don't like unnecessary DOGs. If you take the view that most of the coverage will be live during the Olympics, then it makes more sense to highlight anything that is recorded, rather than annoy people with extra screen junk while they're watching a live event. But I take your point that in this day and age where broadcasters are competing for viewers, the presence of the word 'live' does make things seem more exciting.

I can forgive the regional news, after all they want to plug their local success stories. Just be glad you don't have to watch London regional news at the moment

I do think there has been a major misfire with the end of the evening as has been said as you get umpteen recaps on what you've just seen. Is there any point to Olympic Sportsday at all, apart from a slightly pacier version of what finished ten minutes earlier?