Remembrance Sunday

Is anyone else finding the constant nattering of Dimbleby and the cutaways to stories of wounded/devastated families slightly annoying or inappropriate?

While I very much want to remember those who have died (as I have lost family in war) I don't really want to hear Dimbleby talking over wonderful pieces of music and the parade.

I believe there should be a simple text summary underneath the action, and save the stories for a special programme broadcast afterwards, where they can be given the time they fully deserve, rather than as an addition to the action.

I have had R4 on accompanying the TV just to get away from Dimbleby.

Agreed. He kept talking right up to 11.00 and couldn't wait to start talking again after the second canon was fired. I don't need him to tell me the Queen is walking up to the cenotaph, I can see it with my own eyes - this is tele vision , after all.

The volume of the music, canons and Big Ben chimes was kept constantly low in order for Dimbleby to speak whenever he felt like it, ruining the ambience and atmosphere of the whole event.

He's just as bad on Question Time. It's very annoying how he keeps interrupting the pannellists when they're saying something interesting.

It's a problem across the board now - commentators on events won't just let the pictures speak for themselves. Huw Edwards and co. completely ruined the Olympic Opening Ceremony.

Some irony there though that you switched to the radio because you were fed up of everything being described!

How many channels observe the 2 minutes now at 11am?

Sky1,2,3, Sky Sports 1 & Sky Sports News all joined Sky News for the 2 minutes.

Sky Sports 2,3,Xtra all had live sport so couldn't show the simulcast.

Pretty sure the other Sky channels would have done the same.

Bring back Tom Flemming! I know he's getting on a bit, but he has the gravitas and knows when to keep quiet and let the pictures speak, IMO.

I don't want to veer this off topic, but in the US election coverage I was surprised to see CNN host Wolf Blitzer stop talking and let us view about 2-3 mins of Obama fans celebrating in Chicago.

I know for a fact that a British presenter there would've been patronising - describing "waving flags" and "happy faces" etc. It was so much more atmospheric without any commentary, and somewhat rare.

I think that in some cases there's no need for commentary and allow the pictures and sound from the event to depict the action for itself.

I think all memorial services should have sparse commentary anyway, only providing information where it could be confusing to the viewer such as, for example, explaining who is currently laying a wreath on the cenotaph. However near on continuous commentary ruins the atmosphere. At the parade in Manchester there was near on silence for the duration of the parade and ceremony and it was certainly more atmospheric than if there had been a commentary over the majority of it.

Opening/Closing ceremonies and the New Year's Day fireworks are another example of where commentary isn't really needed and just annoys me as it is acting as another distraction to provide useless information.

Oh dear:
http://www.order-order.com/2008/11/bbc-reefer-madness.html

I'm sure Lord Reef is turning in his grave...


..see what i did there..

The title of this thread isn't too hot either

Whoops! I know reef and wreath sound similar but surely it's not that hard to notice the difference between the two. Obviously just a mistake but I think they will be using the spell checker the next time.

What I'm more amazed at are the comments that have been left underneath which are really laying into the BBC accusing it of being dumbed down, how RP was so much better and how this misspelling is an insult to those who lost their lives in the war. As I say it was a mistake, one that shouldn't have happened, but is it really necessary for almost 100 people to slag off the BBC because of it?