I know how you all hate the twitter references but one BB launch there was a discussion about BB11 being tweeted 700 times per minute which would have been worthy of trending (surely), and at that point it was assumed #bb11 couldn't trend.

That theory seems to be disproved based on #bb11 trending tonight. So does that suggest the 700 tweets per minute was incorrect or the ban was lifted?

All sorts of ratings predictions for the England match on the front pages tomorrow ranging from 15 million (The Independent) to 20 million (Express) to 23 million (Daily Mail).

14-15m sounds about right.

I wouldn't think it would be much higher.

Be interesting to see what it gets on ABC in the US - they have been advertising it with pretty long commercials - they just showed one on the BBC's highlights show - they really appear to be hyping it up.

Does Big Brother's ratings really matter? It's being axed anyway.

Well, one things for sure - it'll get less viewers than it will here. Is it being shown live across America, or delayed on the West Coast (or indeed delayed nationwide till primetime?)

I'd say somewhere in the 10-12m range myself, peaking towards 15m.

Are we talking peaks or averages for the game tomorrow? I would think about 10-12m average considering build up etc but peak of 15-17m.

Coronation Street performed much better in the 8.30pm with a healthier lead in at 8pm. Father and Son bounced back slightly, while Big Brother did ok and Junior Apprentice did reasonably though didn't pull in many more viewers for the final. EastEnders and Emmerdale hurt each other in the hour long.

re. the World Cup graphics - I watched the end of South Africa v Mexico and Uruguay v France in the pub and have to say that the ITV graphics were easier to look at quickly on a big screen than the BBC graphics.

Rather astonishingly some suggestions that CNN U.S think the answer to their prime time woes is.......Piers Morgan. Some reports in the U.S that he would be part of a new 8PM panel show but the Daily Mail claim he will quit BGT and replace Larry King at 9PM. Big gig for him if true.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...=feeds-newsxml

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/desp...s1d5kNxrK8brVL

Sort of difficult to make predictions for the England match tomorrow - I guess it'll peak at 20m+ and the match average could be around 16-17m, going off past tournaments. No idea about an average for the whole coverage though - there's no telling whether people will tune in for the marathon build up - and whether they hang around afterwards tends to have a lot to do with the result.

Tonight's WC ratings for BBC will surely be hit by what was a pretty dismal match - lack of ambition on both sides. The earlier game on ITV had a great atmosphere and a good story, even if it featured no footballing giants.

Given that you posted your criticism of the BBC's "lazy" graphics 4 hours before the BBC1 coverage even started, I think the answer to your first question is a Yes!




...plus third rate punditry, competitions, ITV website plugs, cross-promotions for other ITV shows (I wonder how many times James Corden's Baddiel & Skinner retread will get mentioned between 6.15pm and 9.45pm tomorrow - shall we run a sweepstake?).

I don't know what's more depressing about early England games in a World Cup campaign - the underwhelming nature of many of them or the fact they're generally on ITV1...

CNN's current primetime line-up is below, with their average ratings for the first 5 months of 2010 and how that compares to 2009.

8pm - Campbell Brown - 564,000 (-38%)
9pm - Larry King Live - 726,000 (-41%)
10pm - Anderson Cooper 360 - 707,000 (-38%)

Campbell Brown is leaving shortly due to her low ratings. In her 8pm hour, Bill O'Reilly averages around 3.5m and MSNBC's Keith Obermann more than doubles her ratings. CNN now regularly finishes 4th in primetime behind FOX News, MSNBC and its sister channel, HLN (previously CNN2).

Jon Klein, President of the channel for several years, is on his ninth life. Somewhat unusually, it was Campbell Brown who pulled the plug on her own show by asking to be released from her contract. She said, "the simple fact is that not enough people want to watch my program... I feel it was not only the right thing for me, but the right thing for CNN."

Ryan Seacrest had been rumoured to get Larry King's 9pm gig. He is currently the stand-in when King is off and is seen to have done well despite his lack of journalistic background. However, his schedule (and perhaps his salary demands) might make any deal unlikely.

Change the record, Robbie. Noone's ever going to listen to you because your mind's made up based on which channel something's on.

You've never shown any genuine praise for ITV, despite it being warranted on many occasions.

I think ITV has done a pretty fine job this year with the World Cup, especially with the titles. But there are flaws. I think Jim Beglin is a brilliant co-commentator, and Clive Tyldsley is perhaps the best commentator in the business at the moment.

Obviously, to add: Chiles > Lineker

Do you actually believe that? If I wasn't watching on satellite I would be listening to 5 Lives commentary rather than ITV's, as I think he's awful. I tried that before but it's too annoying to hear what's happening before I can see it.

Drury is worse.

Today when South Africa scored:-

"SHA LA LA LALALALALA! WHAT A GOALK DSNSFHREISGBH SHA LA LA LA!"

Never praised ITV? Never ever?

Get real. There have been plenty of good things, drama anyway, on ITV in recent months and years which I've given credit for.

As I've said many times before, if I can't balance out the massive pro-ITV bias on this thread, and on DS generally, where many people are so far up ITV's ass, then it's a sorry state of affairs.

Somewhat ironic that i get accused of being partial and too keen to criticise ITV from the very people who themselves pursue a relentlessly pro-ITV agenda and generally loathe the BBC, all it stands for, and wish it wasn't there at all.


Done a pretty fine job? The tournament only kicked off 12 hours ago and ITV has shown one match!

Your comments that the widely derided Beglin is a "brilliant co-commentator", that the wittering gobshite Tyldesley is "the best in the business" and that Chiles is better than Lineker are .

Anyone who knows anything about football would find what you've just said laughable.

I couldn't see most of the ITV coverage of the first game, as I was at work, but I really liked Adrian on MOTD2, as he was one of us. He was a fan.

I don't like ITV's football coverage, as it's usually awful, but I think he could be an asset.

Would you include me in that list? I watch the BBC more than ITV, and it is the better broadcaster. But everyone seems to agree on this thread that a strong ITV means a strong BBC. David Jason was right about "empire building".

Quality over quantity is best. This is why the BBC's cuts are sensible.

As for your football comments, I know an awful lot about football (probably more than you to be honest), and I've always enjoyed Tyldsley's delivery coupled with the intelligence of Beglin. You are obviously deluded.

It's quite obvious that Adrian Chiles is the better broadcaster than Lineker. He asks the right questions, he hosts from a fan's perspective. He is really, really good. Lineker doesn't even know where the autocue is half the time....

On this thread, ITV receives more discussion but it is given lots of criticism and praise where it's due. It all depends on viewing figures and scheduling, and the bigger picture.

I think the BBC is in a healthier position, and is less volatile than ITV due to its long-standing programming. Because it gets consistent audience figures every week, it's not worth mentioning Holby City, Casualty, The One Show, EastEnders, etc very often.

As much as I enjoy BBC Four, I think the BBC should narrow itself to BBC1 and 2. They need to move forward with their schedule. Saturday, especially, needs a big re-think.

BBC2 could really improve by taking a leaf out of BBC Four's book. I think moving Newsnight to 11.30pm (and shortening it to 30 minutes) might open the channel up to a more prosporous future.

You can -1 viewer for the Eng game tonight as I won't be watching :P

I may take the opportunity to do some College work; can find out the results and no doubt every Monday newspaper will give in-depth analysis. (I wouldn't have thought Sundays would go to press later enough?) Also 90% of my facebook contacts will be updating their status' every 5 minutes probably.

My predictions, err, 9-12 million. I'd sincerely hope it is over 10m considering the hype, but then look at BGT and Corrie the first couple days last week (before the Cumbria tragedy). But as this is every 4 years; not annually, it should do very well.

A peak of 15m plus would be good too.

they should buy in a couple of top american sitcoms, seems pretty straightforward to me

Of course it'll make Sunday's press (even if it was a couple of hours later they'd hold the front pages!) - though it would be great to have a day with the papers England free.

The BBC were very annoying with the tennis last night, dipping out of it about 5pm to go and chat to some South African tennis player nobody has ever heard of about their first game, certainly pissing off tennis fans - but also pissing off any football fans who didn't want to know the score.

Prediction for tonight: 14/15m average; near to 20m peak.

BBC1 have won every Saturday this year bar two, they drew with ITV1 the six nations weekend, and ITV1 won the week of the BGT final, BBC1s Saturday night does really well, why would they change it? They have drama, gameshows, entertainment and comedy, much more than whtat ITV offer, which is generally just talent shows and gameshows

Ohh no, we dont have to wait until Monday for ratings, do we?

Someone will probably post them before the day is it out.

Saturday's ratings will almost certainly be out at about 9:45am tomorrow.

Ahh cool.. Thanks