For what it's worth, I think there will be a major revamp of the C4 racing team if they get the whole shooting match and none of the current C4 team would be safe. For starters, the two female lead presenters, Alice Plunkett (jumps) and Emma Spencer (flat), would probably be reduced to reporting roles at best and they could bring in a couple of ex-jockeys like Mick Fitzgerald for the jumps and Jason Weaver for the flat.
less of that please, You made a statement, one that was ;patently wide of the mark when other BBC channels are considered. I corrected you. End of story. Either accept it or ignore it. No skin off my nose as they say.
Touched a nerve, did I ?
You're wrong, as indicated by your need to qualify your statement. I wish the BBC wasn't going the way it is and I don't think it serves anyone that long-term supporters should blind themselves to the direction being taken.
I see that Mark Thompson is now preparing the way for the sale of Worldwide before the end of his tenure and has now questioned the size and breadth of the BBC's news coverage, both online and otherwise; I wonder which commercial operator Thompson is planning to join ?
You're wrong, as indicated by your need to qualify your statement.
So what was wrong then? Please detail exactly what was posted that was wrong when I said:
You are aware that the BBC has such programming (in bold) on their other channels, notably BBC Four and BBC Two?
(the bit in bold being "oh, and science, the arts, situation comedy, light entertainment, music").
And if I was clearly wrong, I will happily apologise.
I see that Mark Thompson is now preparing the way for the sale of Worldwide before the end of his tenure and has now questioned the size and breadth of the BBC's news coverage, both online and otherwise; I wonder which commercial operator Thompson is planning to join ?
See my reply in this thread which discusses that report:
I see that Mark Thompson is now preparing the way for the sale of Worldwide before the end of his tenure
Going off-topic, but (for clarity):
Director general of the BBC Mark Thompson has been named as the new non-executive chairman of BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the broadcaster.
According to a release from BBC Worldwide, Thompson, who has been director general of the BBC since 2004, has taken up the additional role with immediate effect.
He has filled the role vacated by Robert Webb QC who joined the board in 2007 and became chairman in 2009. Six other members sat on the board at the time of BBC Worldwide's last annual report, including chief executive officer John Smith.
In the release Thompson said: "Robert has played an invaluable role, providing guidance and counsel to BBC Worldwide through the past few years.
"His tenure as chairman has coincided with BBC Worldwide’s strongest financial results, returning more money to the BBC than ever before. This in turn helps keep the licence fee as low as possible."
According to a report on the move by BBC magazine Ariel, while Webb was paid £77,000 for carrying out the role in 2011, Thompson will not receive payment.
Mark Thompson is to take on the responsibilities of non-executive Chairman of BBC Worldwide in his capacity as Director-General, it was announced today.
This appointment, which takes immediate effect, follows the departure of Robert Webb QC, who stepped down from the BBC Worldwide Board at the end of February to become General Counsel at Rolls Royce plc.
I agree with earlier posts about BBC racing coverage. Channel 4 is far superior.
The BBC seems to have the idea that anyone watching knows little or nothing about racing, That they have a duty to over-hype the whole experience by gushing interviews with owners and trainers, excitable presentation, and asking silly questions to winning jockeys just after they've passed the post.
God forbid that Channel 4 feel an obligation to offer Claire Balding a job as presenter. She is patronising to viewers, gushing to interviewees, and at times bullying towards her fellow presenters, often cutting them off mid sentence. She wouldn't fit in.
Channel 4 has a consistently good and knowledgeable team, especially in the commentary and preview box. They invariably have something interesting and informative to pass on without resorting to the sort of hype the BBC seems to think is necessary. The only BBC person who might be an asset to C4 is Jim McGrath. In my opinion.
So what was wrong then? Pleas detail exactly what was posted that was wrong when I said:
You are aware that the BBC has such programming (in bold) on their other channels, notably BBC Four and BBC Two?
(the bit in bold being "oh, and science, the arts, situation comedy, light entertainment, music").
And if I was clearly wrong, I will happily apologise.
I've already dealt with this issue in my first two posts in the thread.
It's a wholly different thing to go banging on about reach a la Thompson. Meanwhile, share declines inexorably, despite the BBC's appreciation scores for high profile programmes- being given a glass of water when in a desert comes to mind- and its prime position on the EPG; under Thompson, it's been the continual management of failure through spreading low expectations- making sure that the corporation survives just isn't good enough.
I agree with earlier posts about BBC racing coverage. Channel 4 is far superior.
The BBC seems to have the idea that anyone watching knows little or nothing about racing, That they have a duty to over-hype the whole experience by gushing interviews with owners and trainers, excitable presentation, and asking silly questions to winning jockeys just after they've passed the post.
God forbid that Channel 4 feel an obligation to offer Claire Balding a job as presenter. She is patronising to viewers, gushing to interviewees, and at times bullying towards her fellow presenters, often cutting them off mid sentence. She wouldn't fit in.
Channel 4 has a consistently good and knowledgeable team, especially in the commentary and preview box. They invariably have something interesting and informative to pass on without resorting to the sort of hype the BBC seems to think is necessary. The only BBC person who might be an asset to C4 is Jim McGrath. In my opinion.
I agree with all of that. Unfortunately, linking in with my comments to mossy2103, it's been the policy of the BBC, under the present Director General as well as before (though it's been a lot worse under the present DG), to focus on 'events' and one result has been the side-lining and, when it is shown, dumbed down presentation of minority sport.
I've already dealt with this issue in my first two posts in the thread.
I might have totally missed it, but neither post seems to go any way in explaining what was supposedly wrong with:
You are aware that the BBC has such programming (in bold) on their other channels, notably BBC Four and BBC Two?
(the bit in bold being "oh, and science, the arts, situation comedy, light entertainment, music").
But never mind ...... onwards and upwards as they say........
It's a wholly different thing to go banging on about reach a la Thompson. Meanwhile, share declines inexorably, despite the BBC's appreciation scores for high profile programmes
That might have something to do with the proliferation of other channels in this increasingly multi-channel age, allied to the desire to consume programming in many more ways (ways which traditional statistical recording means simply do not catch).
being given a glass of water when in a desert comes to mind- and its prime position on the EPG; under Thompson, it's been the continual management of failure through spreading low expectations- making sure that the corporation survives just isn't good enough.
We can but hope that the new realism that has come with DQF will start to focus minds a little more on higher expectations and higher quality.
I might have totally missed it, but neither post seems to go any way in explaining what was supposedly wrong with:
You are aware that the BBC has such programming (in bold) on their other channels, notably BBC Four and BBC Two?
(the bit in bold being "oh, and science, the arts, situation comedy, light entertainment, music").
But never mind ...... onwards and upwards as they say........
That might have something to do with the proliferation of other channels in this increasingly multi-channel age, allied to the desire to consume programming in many more ways (ways which traditional statistical recording means simply do not catch).
We can but hope that the new realism that has come with DQF will start to focus minds a little more on higher expectations and higher quality.
On the first point, I would just be reiterating my concern about failing to get worthwhile subjects out to the not already converted.
On the second point, no- it's because the BBC has followed ITV's lead in pre-watershed primetime, in terms of the types of programme offered and then there's the infamous 'event' policy- here's a worthwhile programme surrounded by not so worthwhile schedule filling programmes; the message being look elsewhere once you've had the 'event'.
(To be honest, with the economic downturn and with total television viewing being higher than at any point since the recession of the early 90s, viewing share has solidified for the main broadcasters. In fact, many have seen their viewing share increase, but it is Sky, with a very sizeable 30% increase last year- its first significant increase in more than a decade, though admittedly from a low base- that has been the main beneficiary, which signals long-term problems for the BBC in oh so many ways.)
On the last point, creative ambition and vision is what has long been required, but I'd have to look back to the mid eighties or earlier to find a corporation that wasn't accountant and news and current affairs focused, with everything else being treated as secondary. Mind you, as I've put elsewhere, Thompson has even been questioning the size and breadth of the BBC's news coverage, given the economic pressures on commercial organisations; as someone else put on The Guardian site, it's an argument to make overall news coverage worse and that's been Thompson/the BBC's general approach to 'popular' programme provision in recent times- with ITV playing safe, due to a huge drop in income, with soaps, 'event' light entertainment, short run 'event' drama and cheap fillers, the BBC has simply responded by matching them.
Prefer C4, always have done, I used to prefer the ITV 7 to the BBC's coverage. Julian Wilson seemed so snooty at times whereas John Rickman was like your old Grandad!
As regards callers, I think J A McGrath is good, but Holt is the best in the business, John Hunt is good too
Prefer C4, always have done, I used to prefer the ITV 7 to the BBC's coverage. Julian Wilson seemed so snooty at times whereas John Rickman was like your old Grandad!
As regards callers, I think J A McGrath is good, but Holt is the best in the business, John Hunt is good too
The BBC was good for the Grand National and Royal Ascot, but at other times their coverage was crammed between Football Focus and gymnastics and seemed rushed and half hearted. You are right about Julian Wilson, arrogant, humourless and never mixed with the lower orders around the paddock, preferring to be in a commentary box. John Rickman and Lord Oaksey seemed more comfortable on air and seemed happy to be in the paddock.
As regards callers, I think J A McGrath is good, but Holt is the best in the business, John Hunt is good too
McGrath has seemed a pale shadow of his former self in recent BBC transmissions - it's been hard to believe that he effectively reinvented racecalling in the UK. Maybe he's been out of practice, at least when it comes to the big events.
I know he loves jumping more, but I rather miss Alastair Down presenting at least the big events on the Flat - somehow, he'd have made Frankel's Guineas seem more like proper history, beyond the scope of normal sports coverage.
McGrath has seemed a pale shadow of his former self in recent BBC transmissions - it's been hard to believe that he effectively reinvented racecalling in the UK. Maybe he's been out of practice, at least when it comes to the big events.
I know he loves jumping more, but I rather miss Alastair Down presenting at least the big events on the Flat - somehow, he'd have made Frankel's Guineas seem more like proper history, beyond the scope of normal sports coverage.
I agree with you, personally I think Alastair Down is one of the best sports presenters there is at the moment and is very underrated. He always seems to find the right tone regardless of the magnitude of the situation and whether it is good or bad.
In comparison Balding has started to over emphasise the magnificence of everything and the BBC coverage has become more about the celebrity/famous/royal connections than the racing itself
In comparison Balding has started to over emphasise the magnificence of everything and the BBC coverage has become more about the celebrity/famous/royal connections than the racing itself
That can be applied to the BBC's coverage of a lot of sports now.
The irony is people moan about big event being on commercial channels. but the time which would be taken up by ads elsewhere is wasted by the BBC on frippery rather than actual analysis, which considering some of the useless pundits across many sports, isn't a surprise.
Prefer C4, always have done, I used to prefer the ITV 7 to the BBC's coverage. Julian Wilson seemed so snooty at times whereas John Rickman was like your old Grandad!
As regards callers, I think J A McGrath is good, but Holt is the best in the business, John Hunt is good too
Agreed about Simon Holt, by far the best racing commentator around at the minute. Some of his calls at the festival this week have been spine tingling. The Martin Tyler of the racing world.
Agreed about Simon Holt, by far the best racing commentator around at the minute. Some of his calls at the festival this week have been spine tingling. The Martin Tyler of the racing world.
Simon Holt is the best sports commentator on terrestrial television period.
Agreed about Simon Holt, by far the best racing commentator around at the minute. Some of his calls at the festival this week have been spine tingling. The Martin Tyler of the racing world.
I don't watch much horse racing outside of the Cheltenham Festival and some of the other big races, so had always read the many comments on Digital Spy about how good Simon Holt is with interest but without being in the position to really make a qualified judgement of my own.
Having been fortunate enough to be able to watch quite a lot of Channel 4's coverage of this year's Festival, I have to concur with the view of the majority. Simon Holt is one of the best sports commentators I've heard, he is so effective in describing one of the most difficult sports to call and does so with enthusiasm and intelligence. He has been fantastic this week.
I know there are many other top horse racing commentators around but it would be hard to argue that there's anyone better than Holt right now.
So no announcement during Cheltenham of a new exclusive TV deal with C4 for all racing.
I wonder if HMQ is having a word with the Chairman of the BBC and the trustees of Ascot - both of whom she (formally) appoints???
I can't see why HMQ would object to another terrestrial broadcaster covering Royal Ascot, as long as it remains free-to-air. The Palace have agreed to ITN and Sky News producing the Christmas broadcast in rotation with BBC.
Channel 4 are probably not too bothered if Ascot is left out of the deal - the big prizes are the Grand National and the Epsom Derby meeting.
I can't see why HMQ would object to another terrestrial broadcaster covering Royal Ascot, as long as it remains free-to-air. The Palace have agreed to ITN and Sky News producing the Christmas broadcast in rotation with BBC.
The point is that it's much lower profile on C4 - it won't get anything like the same ratings as on BBC.
I know people may say that's illogical as it's not exactly hard to press a button on a remote but it is the reality - a combination of habit, history and much stronger and wider BBC promotion / cross-promotion.
In a normal year (ie not a Jubilee) Royal Ascot is one of the highest profile royal events - substantial prominent coverage on BBC TV for 5 days in a row.
In contrast, who produces the Christmas broadcast doesn't affect how many people watch it.
I don't think Cheltenham has been hurt by the last 17 years on Channel 4. If anything, it's done very well and most people I speak to prefer their coverage,
The BBC was always good for the National and Royal Ascot, but everything else seemed crammed between other sports or had to switch channels due to CBBC or a political conference. While I will admit Peter O Sullevan was a legend, the rest of the BBC team like sour, stuck up Julian Wilson and dull Jimmy Lindley could never match the banter between Lord Oaksey and Brough Scott, who were like a double act.
Cheltenham in particular, and to a lesser extent jump racing generally beyond the Grand National, have a profile now beyond anything they ever had when the BBC had Cheltenham and a definite advantage in the winter game (some of the jump meetings that filled out the ITV7 were shockingly poor - Fakenham, for heaven's sake! - but that didn't seem to matter so much in the 70s when the Flat was still widely seen as the only "proper" racing). Cheltenham's profile having risen while it's been on C4 is actually proof positive that you don't have to be on the BBC to gain a "national event" status beyond anything you had historically (in the 70s, let alone earlier, the Flat starting a week later probably inspired more excitement throughout the media).
Ascot does have historical associations that go beyond that, though. Whether or not you believe in shadowy rumours of royal interference, it may be one of the few things that modern-day Conservatives would ever allow to buck the market. But those very associations may be the main things putting a younger audience off - Cheltenham, which seemed so shire and tweedy in its BBC days, now seems massively egalitarian by comparison, and I think we can thank Channel 4 for that.
Cheltenham in particular, and to a lesser extent jump racing generally beyond the Grand National, have a profile now beyond anything they ever had when the BBC had Cheltenham and a definite advantage in the winter game (some of the jump meetings that filled out the ITV7 were shockingly poor - Fakenham, for heaven's sake! - but that didn't seem to matter so much in the 70s when the Flat was still widely seen as the only "proper" racing). Cheltenham's profile having risen while it's been on C4 is actually proof positive that you don't have to be on the BBC to gain a "national event" status beyond anything you had historically (in the 70s, let alone earlier, the Flat starting a week later probably inspired more excitement throughout the media).
Ascot does have historical associations that go beyond that, though. Whether or not you believe in shadowy rumours of royal interference, it may be one of the few things that modern-day Conservatives would ever allow to buck the market. But those very associations may be the main things putting a younger audience off - Cheltenham, which seemed so shire and tweedy in its BBC days, now seems massively egalitarian by comparison, and I think we can thank Channel 4 for that.
Personally, I think that whole post is a load of tosh, save for the comment about Fakenham (etc), but everyone's entitled to their opinion.
As for the comments about coverage being better than in the early 90s- I should bloody hope so, given the massive advances in technology since then. Durr...
Cheltenham in particular, and to a lesser extent jump racing generally beyond the Grand National, have a profile now beyond anything they ever had when the BBC had Cheltenham and a definite advantage in the winter game (some of the jump meetings that filled out the ITV7 were shockingly poor - Fakenham, for heaven's sake! - but that didn't seem to matter so much in the 70s when the Flat was still widely seen as the only "proper" racing). Cheltenham's profile having risen while it's been on C4 is actually proof positive that you don't have to be on the BBC to gain a "national event" status beyond anything you had historically (in the 70s, let alone earlier, the Flat starting a week later probably inspired more excitement throughout the media).
Ascot does have historical associations that go beyond that, though. Whether or not you believe in shadowy rumours of royal interference, it may be one of the few things that modern-day Conservatives would ever allow to buck the market. But those very associations may be the main things putting a younger audience off - Cheltenham, which seemed so shire and tweedy in its BBC days, now seems massively egalitarian by comparison, and I think we can thank Channel 4 for that.
I find it hard to judge how the profile of Cheltenham has changed since the 70s but IF its profile has improved isn't that just a case of the fact that the profile of most sports has improved since the 70s - there's just far more media coverage now of almost all big events.
I think it would be hard to argue that the Grand National's profile has been harmed by remaining on the BBC - it remains the highest profile race by a million miles. I can't imagine it would have a higher profile if it was on C4.
I know it's not fair to compare viewing figures for Cheltenham (on weekdays) to anything at the weekend. But I think it's inconceivable that the Grand National would get a peak of 8m on C4 (its BBC peak from memory).
Of course TV viewing figures are only one measure of an event's profile / success - they are certainly far from the only consideration.
Comments
I do like Mick Fitz on ATR. Top man.
Touched a nerve, did I ?
You're wrong, as indicated by your need to qualify your statement. I wish the BBC wasn't going the way it is and I don't think it serves anyone that long-term supporters should blind themselves to the direction being taken.
I see that Mark Thompson is now preparing the way for the sale of Worldwide before the end of his tenure and has now questioned the size and breadth of the BBC's news coverage, both online and otherwise; I wonder which commercial operator Thompson is planning to join ?
So what was wrong then? Please detail exactly what was posted that was wrong when I said:
You are aware that the BBC has such programming (in bold) on their other channels, notably BBC Four and BBC Two?
(the bit in bold being "oh, and science, the arts, situation comedy, light entertainment, music").
And if I was clearly wrong, I will happily apologise.
See my reply in this thread which discusses that report:
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1640605
Ken
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/bbc-director-general-new-chairman-of-bbc-worldwide/s2/a548296/
and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2012/chair-worldwide.html
So it's a short-term appointment (whilst MT remains as DG), and it saves paying someone to do the job during that time.
The BBC seems to have the idea that anyone watching knows little or nothing about racing, That they have a duty to over-hype the whole experience by gushing interviews with owners and trainers, excitable presentation, and asking silly questions to winning jockeys just after they've passed the post.
God forbid that Channel 4 feel an obligation to offer Claire Balding a job as presenter. She is patronising to viewers, gushing to interviewees, and at times bullying towards her fellow presenters, often cutting them off mid sentence. She wouldn't fit in.
Channel 4 has a consistently good and knowledgeable team, especially in the commentary and preview box. They invariably have something interesting and informative to pass on without resorting to the sort of hype the BBC seems to think is necessary. The only BBC person who might be an asset to C4 is Jim McGrath. In my opinion.
I've already dealt with this issue in my first two posts in the thread.
It's a wholly different thing to go banging on about reach a la Thompson. Meanwhile, share declines inexorably, despite the BBC's appreciation scores for high profile programmes- being given a glass of water when in a desert comes to mind- and its prime position on the EPG; under Thompson, it's been the continual management of failure through spreading low expectations- making sure that the corporation survives just isn't good enough.
I agree with all of that. Unfortunately, linking in with my comments to mossy2103, it's been the policy of the BBC, under the present Director General as well as before (though it's been a lot worse under the present DG), to focus on 'events' and one result has been the side-lining and, when it is shown, dumbed down presentation of minority sport.
You are aware that the BBC has such programming (in bold) on their other channels, notably BBC Four and BBC Two?
(the bit in bold being "oh, and science, the arts, situation comedy, light entertainment, music").
But never mind ...... onwards and upwards as they say........
That might have something to do with the proliferation of other channels in this increasingly multi-channel age, allied to the desire to consume programming in many more ways (ways which traditional statistical recording means simply do not catch).
We can but hope that the new realism that has come with DQF will start to focus minds a little more on higher expectations and higher quality.
On the first point, I would just be reiterating my concern about failing to get worthwhile subjects out to the not already converted.
On the second point, no- it's because the BBC has followed ITV's lead in pre-watershed primetime, in terms of the types of programme offered and then there's the infamous 'event' policy- here's a worthwhile programme surrounded by not so worthwhile schedule filling programmes; the message being look elsewhere once you've had the 'event'.
(To be honest, with the economic downturn and with total television viewing being higher than at any point since the recession of the early 90s, viewing share has solidified for the main broadcasters. In fact, many have seen their viewing share increase, but it is Sky, with a very sizeable 30% increase last year- its first significant increase in more than a decade, though admittedly from a low base- that has been the main beneficiary, which signals long-term problems for the BBC in oh so many ways.)
On the last point, creative ambition and vision is what has long been required, but I'd have to look back to the mid eighties or earlier to find a corporation that wasn't accountant and news and current affairs focused, with everything else being treated as secondary. Mind you, as I've put elsewhere, Thompson has even been questioning the size and breadth of the BBC's news coverage, given the economic pressures on commercial organisations; as someone else put on The Guardian site, it's an argument to make overall news coverage worse and that's been Thompson/the BBC's general approach to 'popular' programme provision in recent times- with ITV playing safe, due to a huge drop in income, with soaps, 'event' light entertainment, short run 'event' drama and cheap fillers, the BBC has simply responded by matching them.
As regards callers, I think J A McGrath is good, but Holt is the best in the business, John Hunt is good too
The BBC was good for the Grand National and Royal Ascot, but at other times their coverage was crammed between Football Focus and gymnastics and seemed rushed and half hearted. You are right about Julian Wilson, arrogant, humourless and never mixed with the lower orders around the paddock, preferring to be in a commentary box. John Rickman and Lord Oaksey seemed more comfortable on air and seemed happy to be in the paddock.
McGrath has seemed a pale shadow of his former self in recent BBC transmissions - it's been hard to believe that he effectively reinvented racecalling in the UK. Maybe he's been out of practice, at least when it comes to the big events.
I know he loves jumping more, but I rather miss Alastair Down presenting at least the big events on the Flat - somehow, he'd have made Frankel's Guineas seem more like proper history, beyond the scope of normal sports coverage.
I agree with you, personally I think Alastair Down is one of the best sports presenters there is at the moment and is very underrated. He always seems to find the right tone regardless of the magnitude of the situation and whether it is good or bad.
In comparison Balding has started to over emphasise the magnificence of everything and the BBC coverage has become more about the celebrity/famous/royal connections than the racing itself
That can be applied to the BBC's coverage of a lot of sports now.
The irony is people moan about big event being on commercial channels. but the time which would be taken up by ads elsewhere is wasted by the BBC on frippery rather than actual analysis, which considering some of the useless pundits across many sports, isn't a surprise.
Agreed about Simon Holt, by far the best racing commentator around at the minute. Some of his calls at the festival this week have been spine tingling. The Martin Tyler of the racing world.
Simon Holt is the best sports commentator on terrestrial television period.
I don't watch much horse racing outside of the Cheltenham Festival and some of the other big races, so had always read the many comments on Digital Spy about how good Simon Holt is with interest but without being in the position to really make a qualified judgement of my own.
Having been fortunate enough to be able to watch quite a lot of Channel 4's coverage of this year's Festival, I have to concur with the view of the majority. Simon Holt is one of the best sports commentators I've heard, he is so effective in describing one of the most difficult sports to call and does so with enthusiasm and intelligence. He has been fantastic this week.
I know there are many other top horse racing commentators around but it would be hard to argue that there's anyone better than Holt right now.
I wonder if HMQ is having a word with the Chairman of the BBC and the trustees of Ascot - both of whom she (formally) appoints???
I can't see why HMQ would object to another terrestrial broadcaster covering Royal Ascot, as long as it remains free-to-air. The Palace have agreed to ITN and Sky News producing the Christmas broadcast in rotation with BBC.
Channel 4 are probably not too bothered if Ascot is left out of the deal - the big prizes are the Grand National and the Epsom Derby meeting.
The point is that it's much lower profile on C4 - it won't get anything like the same ratings as on BBC.
I know people may say that's illogical as it's not exactly hard to press a button on a remote but it is the reality - a combination of habit, history and much stronger and wider BBC promotion / cross-promotion.
In a normal year (ie not a Jubilee) Royal Ascot is one of the highest profile royal events - substantial prominent coverage on BBC TV for 5 days in a row.
In contrast, who produces the Christmas broadcast doesn't affect how many people watch it.
Good point.
The BBC was always good for the National and Royal Ascot, but everything else seemed crammed between other sports or had to switch channels due to CBBC or a political conference. While I will admit Peter O Sullevan was a legend, the rest of the BBC team like sour, stuck up Julian Wilson and dull Jimmy Lindley could never match the banter between Lord Oaksey and Brough Scott, who were like a double act.
Ascot does have historical associations that go beyond that, though. Whether or not you believe in shadowy rumours of royal interference, it may be one of the few things that modern-day Conservatives would ever allow to buck the market. But those very associations may be the main things putting a younger audience off - Cheltenham, which seemed so shire and tweedy in its BBC days, now seems massively egalitarian by comparison, and I think we can thank Channel 4 for that.
Personally, I think that whole post is a load of tosh, save for the comment about Fakenham (etc), but everyone's entitled to their opinion.
As for the comments about coverage being better than in the early 90s- I should bloody hope so, given the massive advances in technology since then. Durr...
I find it hard to judge how the profile of Cheltenham has changed since the 70s but IF its profile has improved isn't that just a case of the fact that the profile of most sports has improved since the 70s - there's just far more media coverage now of almost all big events.
I think it would be hard to argue that the Grand National's profile has been harmed by remaining on the BBC - it remains the highest profile race by a million miles. I can't imagine it would have a higher profile if it was on C4.
I know it's not fair to compare viewing figures for Cheltenham (on weekdays) to anything at the weekend. But I think it's inconceivable that the Grand National would get a peak of 8m on C4 (its BBC peak from memory).
Of course TV viewing figures are only one measure of an event's profile / success - they are certainly far from the only consideration.