TVFan post_id=5609 time=1618094627 user_id=868 Wrote:No Sophy Ridge on Sunday tomorrow, The Andrew Marr Show is still scheduled but no guests have been listed, so I would be very surprised if that went ahead.
Of course Andrew Marr doesn’t have to have a political focus, they can easily go through the papers and talk about Prince Philip with various guests within the format of that show.
Looking ahead to next weekend, the BBC One schedule in particular may become a little easier to change with Final Score probably moving or being dropped due to kick-off times of the football in England and Scotland changing to avoid a clash with the funeral as a mark of respect.
https://twitter.com/EFL_Comms/status/138...6307428355
https://twitter.com/ScottishFA/status/13...2162214913
Additionaly, the FA Cup Semi-Final to be shown on BBC One next Staurday was trailed on Match of the Day without a time being mentioned (captioned just 'next Saturday, BBC One') unlike the other programmes that was trailed (eg Masters Highlights - Sunday at midnight on BBC Two).
Andrew post_id=5611 time=1618095222 user_id=791 Wrote:Brekkie post_id=5604 time=1618093803 user_id=976 Wrote:Thanks. Interesting how the networks quite seemlessly enabled the rest of the network to join the breakfast shows on the east coast at a flick of a button. I think that is the one slight criticism of the BBC yesterday that they couldn't get on air on BBC1 as BBC News broke the news.
Yes the only thing I think they could have done better was if they hadn’t pre-announced it on the BBC News Channel and hence also on BBC Two.
They could either have got Martine to introduce the second scheduled report about Covid, or even just run it without introducing it, or maybe even just gone into breakfiller until everything was in order to opt into BBC One
Although that would have been quite messy on BBC News. Even though they had to announce it twice it actually worked quite well on the news channel itself, and to be fair it was handled much better than some previous efforts at joining the BBC News channel for breaking news, notably the death of Mandela.
Brekkie post_id=5604 time=1618093803 user_id=976 Wrote:Thanks. Interesting how the networks quite seemlessly enabled the rest of the network to join the breakfast shows on the east coast at a flick of a button. I think that is the one slight criticism of the BBC yesterday that they couldn't get on air on BBC1 as BBC News broke the news.
Likely the rest of the network (central, mountain, pacific time zones) have or were getting ready to or already doing local morning news (but 1 AM in Hawaii - I don’t know if they record a satellite feed from the mainland or get their own feed). So stations would be staffed to easily switch. NBC and CBS probably sent a alert through an open speaker that’s in the newsroom and master control that tells them about events and breaking news. They probably gave the rest of the country a 1 minute warning to cut over to Today. It’s something that has to be done local or at the local stations hub.
Critique post_id=5610 time=1618094885 user_id=867 Wrote:Fascinating to see how the US networks covered it - I think it was said on TVF before that whilst the UK media often goes into rolling news mode for breaking stories in the US, the reverse doesn't happen all that often. Interesting therefore to see how the various networks approached the story, with NBC even taking the Number 10 statement live. Very strange to see the presenters dressed in such bright colours though!
Separately, impressive how quickly NBC co-ordinates the joining of all stations together for the special report to break the story. Whenever various bits of the BBC opt in and out of each other (such as the regional news handover or when World opts into/out of the NC), there's always a very pregnant pause, whereas NBC do it almost instantly.
There was no expecting this in the US and wardrobe doesn’t matter. I think people understand that news happens and you can’t change your wardrobe immediately. Maybe later.
I don’t record GMA on my TiVo so I couldn’t get it on the video.
But Today continued with Prince Philip news until 8:10AM (taking commercial and affiliate news breaks). Then discussed it at the 3rd hour. I imagine they went back and recorded a new 7AM half hour for the west coast or maybe even mountain time.
Edit: Fox is the only network that can at the press of a button take over the affiliate output using their splicer. The splicer was designed to get the best quality out of the HD stream so stations wouldn’t decode, and then re-encode their signal for things such as just inserting a logo or TOTH ID. The splicer was designed so they just decode the pixels needed. Coincidentally they built in the capability of them to take over the output, when they take over it’s known as a Level 1. Optional reports are Level 2.
James Martin post_id=5495 time=1618080830 user_id=872 Wrote:I resent being forced to pay for something that I'm not really properly served by. The attitude of "you watch/listen to this or watch nothing" just doesn't work in this day and age.
The BBC is often accused of being out of touch and while I understand it must mark the death of a royal due to it being the national broadcaster, I agree that going overboard just makes it look even more outdated.
By all means interrupt programmes to break the news and reschedule some things where necessary, but I think yesterday may have been out of step with the mood of the nation. There is a way to be respectful and afford something the proper coverage without leaving viewers without anything else to watch. They will just switch to competitors.
That said, I don’t agree with the idea that only people who are well-served by the BBC should pay for it. That isn’t how taxes work. There are lots of things we have to pay for that we don’t personally use, for the greater good of society. Start letting people pick and choose and you will never win the argument. And I bet even people who are super well served by the BBC would then say “sure I love EastEnders but why should MY licence fee pay for the Asian Network?!”
I've seen a number of posts in the thread discussing the suitability or not of the BBC simulcasting the content across their television services. May I be permitted to offer one option that doesn't appear to have been considered in all the arguments?
You are a normal viewer and you turn on your telly. Which automatically goes to the last channel you were watching. And it was BBC Two or BBC Scotland that you started watching. In this scenario, what should the BBC do? Broadcast normal programmes with a huge caption on the screen making people aware of the news and informing them to retune to another channel for further details? Would that generate complaints? Would it be considered insensitive? How often is the caption seen? How long for? What about blind people who enjoy listening to television programmes? If you just make announcements between programmes could that generate complaints that people didn't find out about the news early enough?
The BBC is regarded as the national broadcaster. With that remit I would personally argue that it is correct that all of their services join together and simulcast a single programme to make the announcement and any further details and coverage. And who is to know at what point it is suitable to stop doing such coverage? Some people may have (remarkably) not heard about the news at all until they arrived home and turned on the television late into the evening.
Whatever the BBC does in these situations there will be people who believe they've gone over the top, or not covered it enough, or not done it correctly.
I personally think under the circumstances of the husband of the reigning Monarch of the country passing away, the coverage and the duration of how it was all handled was suitable.
juston post_id=5076 time=1618027078 user_id=1540 Wrote:From listening to the full clip, it sounds like Martine was told that the news had officially broken between the headlines and first line item. Clearly sounds like she was trying to get through and turned away from the camera quite quickly. Spot the two journos running across the newsroom in the headline sequence!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQAFaGY6Tyc
Perhaps a coincidence but Annita McVeigh was already wearing all black at 10am. Martine also wearing black and had the cardigan nearby soon after the headlines. https://tvhome.co.uk/bbc-two/2021/04/09/1000
I almost feel quite ghoulish/haunting watching that title sequence and then seeing those two people in the newsroom sprinting around which knowing what we now know must have been about the Prince Philip story.
Also huge credit to Martine Croxall - the way she handled the announcement was brilliant. Surely too the most high pressure change of clothes she's ever had to do - it was only really putting a jacket on but there was very little time between going to the pictures of the Prince and the BBC1 announcement where she wasn't speaking. Surprised BBC didn't give her slightly more time actually just to get the jacket on and to prepare to announce it to the entire nation on the main BBC channels- the pressure must've been immense.
Andrew post_id=5611 time=1618095222 user_id=791 Wrote:Brekkie post_id=5604 time=1618093803 user_id=976 Wrote:Thanks. Interesting how the networks quite seemlessly enabled the rest of the network to join the breakfast shows on the east coast at a flick of a button. I think that is the one slight criticism of the BBC yesterday that they couldn't get on air on BBC1 as BBC News broke the news.
Yes the only thing I think they could have done better was if they hadn’t pre-announced it on the BBC News Channel and hence also on BBC Two.
They could either have got Martine to introduce the second scheduled report about Covid, or even just run it without introducing it, or maybe even just gone into breakfiller until everything was in order to opt into BBC One
I suppose this is the difficulty in it being announced by the Royal Family's social media accounts & (seemingly) the press not knowing a few minutes in advance to go with an announcement at exactly Midday.
They'd clearly decided getting the news out ASAP on the news channel was more important than stalling for an extra few minutes to get BBC One onboard? I suppose the age of push notifications and social media mean they want to be broadcasting it sooner rather than later.
Absolutely agree with this, they did a fine job, I see the usual suspects in Fleet Street, are gunning that the BBC shouldn't have done this. Can you imagine how the same paper would go on about it if they hadn't? They would want it to lose its charter instantly. Of course that is what they want regardless of anything else.
GraphicsMan post_id=5621 time=1618097472 user_id=1031 Wrote:I've seen a number of posts in the thread discussing the suitability or not of the BBC simulcasting the content across their television services. May I be permitted to offer one option that doesn't appear to have been considered in all the arguments?
You are a normal viewer and you turn on your telly. Which automatically goes to the last channel you were watching. And it was BBC Two or BBC Scotland that you started watching. In this scenario, what should the BBC do? Broadcast normal programmes with a huge caption on the screen making people aware of the news and informing them to retune to another channel for further details? Would that generate complaints? Would it be considered insensitive? How often is the caption seen? How long for? What about blind people who enjoy listening to television programmes? If you just make announcements between programmes could that generate complaints that people didn't find out about the news early enough?
The BBC is regarded as the national broadcaster. With that remit I would personally argue that it is correct that all of their services join together and simulcast a single programme to make the announcement and any further details and coverage. And who is to know at what point it is suitable to stop doing such coverage? Some people may have (remarkably) not heard about the news at all until they arrived home and turned on the television late into the evening.
Whatever the BBC does in these situations there will be people who believe they've gone over the top, or not covered it enough, or not done it correctly.
I personally think under the circumstances of the husband of the reigning Monarch of the country passing away, the coverage and the duration of how it was all handled was suitable.
Ab
And I think we would probably all agree it is for the best they avoided the situation of 2002 where one channel had a holding screen whilst they waited for BBC1 to join them to broadcast the news.
(BTW, back in those days I assume News 24 were still not taking the network bulletins so did they break the news seperately?)
I’m immensely proud of the BBC and I’m reasonably fond of the royal family. However.....
The BBC got it wrong on Friday. The coverage itself was excellent, Martine is probably my favourite newsreader and she was the epitome of professionalism, the wobbles in her voice was probably nerves if anything. Completely understandable. But BBC1/2/news was overkill.
There is no doubt it was an huge story, it certainly deserved wall to wall coverage on BBC1, few would begrudge that that. BBC 2 however should have been the alternative. The one show could have done a different take on the news whilst some of the shows, if appropriate, from BBC1 could have been moved to the sister channel.
To those who disagree with the complaints, particularly those who bring up the war and foreign holidays to batter those who disagree actually shows how out of touch you are.
The nation is more than capable of holding itself appropriately in the face of bad news. As a broadcaster the BBC should not have forced people to switch away from its network of channels. I say out of touch because for many posters on here, from a pres perspective, Friday was an exciting day which I’m sure many of you thoroughly enjoyed.
The country on Friday was still, by and large on lockdown, on the back of an horrendous twelve months, stuck at home. That in itself is evidence of it being the wrong decision to do what it did.
Nobody is selfish for simply wanting an alternative to rolling coverage, by the same token, just because some didn’t want to watch the coverage, doesn’t automatically mean they didn’t care about the news.
The complaints aren’t about the open ended coverage they are about that coverage simulcast on multiple BBC Channels.
If I could Kudos [mention]Manclad[/mention] more than once, I would.
[mod]I (and the mods) have had to delete several posts in the last few hours. We will NOT tolerate personal attacks on members of this forum. Please keep the conversation to presentation discussion of this news event, and keep the petty squabbles off this site.[/mod]
Whataday post_id=5486 time=1618079900 user_id=1029 Wrote:...I agree that these conversations are being had regularly with regards to the future of the BBC. And frustratingly they keep making these chronic missteps.
Anyone who thinks this will blow over and the public will fall in love with the BBC again, is in denial. The BBC's days are (sadly) numbered. Certainly as we know it now.
The conversations you're referring to are largely driven by a very vocal group of a) People who dislike/hate the BBC & would love nothing more than for it not to exist (hence they relish any opportunity to criticize it) and b) Outlets/organizations/parties who have self-interest reasons for relentlessly going after the corporation.
I agree that there isn't universal love for the BBC like there might have been decades ago (though I doubt it existed then too). However, think it's hard to know whether there's been the fundamental shift in public perception which critics suggest has happened such that the BBC as we know it are really numbered or if it's simply a case of people think that because you hear much more from people who are eager to criticize it rather than those who like/don't have a strong opinion about it.
Whataday post_id=5486 time=1618079900 user_id=1029 Wrote:And frustratingly they keep making these chronic missteps.
Was the saturation all-day coverage across every TV and radio channel overkill? While I think it was and that channels/stations aside from BBC One, BBC News, Radio 4 and 5 Live should have been allowed to offer alternative programming, others disagree.
As such, suggesting that what happened on Friday was a "chronic misstep" that has caused significant damage to the BBC is an overreaction in my opinion.
Brekkie post_id=5583 time=1618090046 user_id=976 Wrote:I didn't actually see many complaints about EastEnders, Masterchef or the ITV soaps being taken off air - I think generally people understood that.
There were a fair amount of complaints on Twitter about shows like Gardener's World and the MasterChef finale not airing. I know because I received some of those complaints in response to something I posted
Brekkie post_id=5604 time=1618093803 user_id=976 Wrote:Thanks. Interesting how the networks quite seemlessly enabled the rest of the network to join the breakfast shows on the east coast at a flick of a button. I think that is the one slight criticism of the BBC yesterday that they couldn't get on air on BBC1 as BBC News broke the news.
Why is that a bad thing? So what if the viewers of BBC1 had to wait a whole 3 minutes longer to find out. It was a lot better on air by joining at a proper pre-arranged point. The alternative is either a messy crashing into the News Channel or the confusion and total mess like happened in 2002.
There's a big chain of command to make sure everything is done right, lots of people to tell and lots of stuff that needs doing in those few minutes prior to the news being broadcast. Apparently the operations managers at the BBC had 4 minutes notice between finding out and getting the formal announcement to air
With a few minor exceptions it all worked exactly as planned