BBC put Sky/ITV to shame Yet again
Robbedin73
Posts: 7,859
Forum Member
✭
Only channel to show live uninterrupted
Coverage of 70th anniversary d day celebrations
Wwonder what BBC Haters, dacre/Murdoch will have to say about that
Coverage of 70th anniversary d day celebrations
Wwonder what BBC Haters, dacre/Murdoch will have to say about that
0
Comments
A friend was watching BBC World in Australia, they cut to adverts just as Prince Philip was being introduced to Australian veterans by Tony Abbott!
Why the need to have the same thing on BBC1 AND BBC News though?
BBC News channel is actually showing different coverage at times. I'm just waiting for someone to tell us the Sky coverage is better despite the fact all the pictures coming out of Bayeux and Arromanches are from the BBC.
BBC News has been showing other events (they were showing Hollande/Obama, while BBC One was having interviews) and other news stories from London. In the past hour it's returned more to a normal news channel rolling format than covering the events in full.
In other words
Nobody does it better than BBC
Probably afraid that Abbott would say "s*** happens" again...
The BBC, because of status as a public broadcaster, has a different mandate to that of Sky and ITV, hence why they covered this event in more detail.
I'm not sure why its puts those other broadcasters to shame though?
BBC is obviously going to win as the national broadcaster. Huw Edwards said at the start of this morning's coverage that was other coverage on the Red Button so I expect that's probably some of what BBC News is showing.
Not sure why they have it on both.
Why? it's what BBC does best, and tbh honest what they should be doing as a public broadcaster. And what is great is that those that don't want to watch have alternative channels to pick from.
The old new report (some re-read) with the original, pencil edited changes on Radio $ are fascinating.
Compare the World Cup coverage between BBC/ITV, that's valid.
Or compare the entertainment between BBC / commercial TV. Compare drama. etc etc.
I think the BBCs World Cup coverage is likely to be very much better than ITVs this time 'round.
mostly It's not the same thing
Maybe its the way Huw Edwards is more at ease and handling interviews , he is much better than Simon McCoy
Not saying Sky was better, infact I didn't like it and watched the BBC mostly. But there is more to coverage than the pictures, the commentary also helps, so Sky could have been better to some viewers.
BBC were belting as usual with this kind of event.
Shame that BBC Worldwide felt the need to stick ads in on BBC World. Very poor IMHO
France television providing the feed for both of Britain's main tv channels at the same time.
Must be a first of some kind....
Agreed, but there's too much chat from the commentators, unfortunately. I wish in this digital age they'd let us turn it off, to hear uninterrupted the live sound of the event.
I can't stand channels that have scrolling banners either, for any live event. Even BBC News. BBC One for me.
1) It's a news event, so of course it should have News channel coverage
2) If another big story were to break, then the News channel would cut away in order to cover it
3) The News channel would broadcast the feed with added screen furniture (DoG, news ticker, clock). BBC one would be the pure feed plus captions
4) The News channel can and does cut to other news items and slots