Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Royal Baby Birth News Coverage Thread (Tuesday 23rd July 2013 - onwards)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24-07-2013, 22:17
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 16,729
I found most of the live coverage pretty amateurish, banal and trivial, with grown men and women so-called "professionals" making fools of themselves with what they were saying.
Doghouse Riley is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 24-07-2013, 22:19
woot_whoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,467
That was sycophancy at its absolute worst.
I genuinely don't know how these journos can say such rubbish with a straight face - or at least a hint of shame. I don't believe for a minute they believe half the fawning sycophancy they spew out. The money must be very good, I guess. Can you imagine someone like Paxman uttering such guff about an MP's new baby?
woot_whoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2013, 23:38
emjo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 438
I've been wide-eyed with disbelief at the level of media coverage of the royal baby's birth. Then I come on here out of curiosity and I'm wide-eyed with disbelief at the venom people take such pleasure in hurling at each other. Both are uniquely British qualities.

Personally - perhaps as I only have 44 followers on twitter and therefore I don't know anybody - I'm really happy about the new baby. I've enjoyed seeing one or two pictures of it and the clear happiness on the face of his parents. It's reminded me of the births of my own children and those of countless other children around the world at this time. It's nice to be given a little injection of happiness once in a while. Babies, to a lot of people, no matter whose they are, bring happiness. The extent of the coverage has been ridiculous, but I think it's made quite a few people happy. If you're not one of those people, turn off.
Well said!
emjo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 00:50
solace2008
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 765
I am shocked that all programmes were not interrupted when the name was announced.
I guess it just wasn't newsworthy enough.
solace2008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 02:29
Stigid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,716
William & Kate now have a baby boy, and GAL !
Stigid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 02:31
Stigid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,716
Gosh that Nicholas Whitchell knows how to fill the gaps on BBC News.
Have you seen the photo's of the Press Pack, with titchy NW stood on his height raising platform !!!

Small, obnoxious & Ginger, he fulfills all the stereotypes.
Stigid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 09:28
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 16,729
I've been wide-eyed with disbelief at the level of media coverage of the royal baby's birth. Then I come on here out of curiosity and I'm wide-eyed with disbelief at the venom people take such pleasure in hurling at each other. Both are uniquely British qualities.

Personally - perhaps as I only have 44 followers on twitter and therefore I don't know anybody - I'm really happy about the new baby. I've enjoyed seeing one or two pictures of it and the clear happiness on the face of his parents. It's reminded me of the births of my own children and those of countless other children around the world at this time. It's nice to be given a little injection of happiness once in a while. Babies, to a lot of people, no matter whose they are, bring happiness. The extent of the coverage has been ridiculous, but I think it's made quite a few people happy. If you're not one of those people, turn off.
I think you're missing the point, most of the criticism is directed at the "over the top" behaviour of the media.

I'm never "wide-eyed" about anything on DS , just occasionally amused, as it's always like that,

Yes I'm sure most of us are happy for Kate and William but the constant comments by TV newspeople was so unnecessary.
Many viewers would have enjoyed it more if the TV cameras just "observed" their appearance from the hospital, the reactions of those of the public waiting for them and their own words.

It's this mania of TV people for keeping up a constant flow of words, whenever there's coverage of any event, which causes some irritation.

You of course are entitled to your own opinion, but don't tar everyone on here with the same brush.

I'm not sure what Twitter has to do with it or how many followers anyone has.
I've none, because I don't subscribe.
Doghouse Riley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 09:41
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,221
Surely the last laugh is at those who are STILL days later wittering on complaining about the amount of coverage the media gave the birth!
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 09:44
jsmith99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,480
I just wish it had been born a year ago - then I could have not watched anything to do with the Olympics, and not watched anything to do with the royal birth, at the same time.
jsmith99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 09:58
Westies1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 55
Must just say, I thought ITV's coverage of all of the Baby News was superb.

I much prefer ITV News anyway but I did think they did a great job of the coverage. Mary Nightingale has done most of the coverage from the studio. ITV have got a very talented team of presenters at the moment.

When I was watching the BBC's coverage however, it seemed very unorganized - they just seemed to talk a load of rubbish to fill time, I just wanted to see how BBC and ITV compared.
Westies1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 10:00
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,907
I am shocked that all programmes were not interrupted when the name was announced.
It happened during the news so they were able to just go back to the Royal correspondent - he had obviously been tipped off that it was imminent because he had said something earlier.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 10:09
Hound of Love
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 33,623
I genuinely don't know how these journos can say such rubbish with a straight face - or at least a hint of shame. I don't believe for a minute they believe half the fawning sycophancy they spew out. The money must be very good, I guess. Can you imagine someone like Paxman uttering such guff about an MP's new baby?
Agreed.

bib: Nicholas "Brown-Nose" Witchell, perhaps.
Hound of Love is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 11:43
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 16,729
Digressing,
I read once that Jennie Bond who was the BBC's "Royal Correspondent" for fourteen years and always gave viewers the impression that she was close to the Royal Family, late in her career, was once introduced to the Queen, who gave the impression she hadn't a clue who she was.
Doghouse Riley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 12:02
woot_whoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,467
Agreed.

bib: Nicholas "Brown-Nose" Witchell, perhaps.
For Witchell being continuing to do that job after Charles was caught on mike saying 'I can't bear that man. He's so awful, he really is' destroys any shred of credibility he might once have had as a reporter, and negates any respect one might have had for him. Would a normal man not be mortified, make some reply or at least thumb his nose at the royals and decide to report on something else? No, not Nick. He simply decided to become more subservient in the hopes that his royal masters would one day hate him less.
woot_whoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 14:19
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,907
Digressing,
I read once that Jennie Bond who was the BBC's "Royal Correspondent" for fourteen years and always gave viewers the impression that she was close to the Royal Family, late in her career, was once introduced to the Queen, who gave the impression she hadn't a clue who she was.
Perhaps that says more about the Queen than her.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 14:20
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,907
For Witchell being continuing to do that job after Charles was caught on mike saying 'I can't bear that man. He's so awful, he really is' destroys any shred of credibility he might once have had as a reporter, and negates any respect one might have had for him. Would a normal man not be mortified, make some reply or at least thumb his nose at the royals and decide to report on something else? No, not Nick. He simply decided to become more subservient in the hopes that his royal masters would one day hate him less.
I think Charlie has always been the original Grumpy Old Man so don't think what he said was significant, can't even remember what prompted it.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 14:34
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 16,729
Perhaps that says more about the Queen than her.
Yes, I think the Queen was probably well aware of who she was.
No harm in keeping pushy BBC people in their place though, is there?
Good for her!
Doghouse Riley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 15:03
Heston Veston
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,066
Digressing,
I read once that Jennie Bond who was the BBC's "Royal Correspondent" for fourteen years and always gave viewers the impression that she was close to the Royal Family, late in her career, was once introduced to the Queen, who gave the impression she hadn't a clue who she was.
I think Jennie Bond did seem aware that what she was doing was no job for a grown adult. Unlike her predecessor James Whittaker, a more pompous conceited ass you could never hope to meet.
Heston Veston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 16:15
woot_whoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,467
I think Charlie has always been the original Grumpy Old Man so don't think what he said was significant, can't even remember what prompted it.
Witchell asked him the politically heavyweight question, 'how are you feeling about your son's wedding?'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-SGCxRUtXM
woot_whoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 16:32
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 16,729
I think Jennie Bond did seem aware that what she was doing was no job for a grown adult. Unlike her predecessor James Whittaker, a more pompous conceited ass you could never hope to meet.
It always amused me that more often than not, she'd wear a long skirt when giving her "reports." As if such attire were "de riguer" for the job.
Doghouse Riley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 16:35
Gregg_LUFC
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 394
I wish Charlie Brookers weekly wipe was on at the moment. He would have had a field day tearing up all the coverage!

Was it necessary for the amount of news coverage it got? At one point they were in a hospital in Birmingham interviewing mothers who'd given birth on the same day. It shouldn't come as a surprise that women were giving birth at the same time!!!!!
Gregg_LUFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 16:57
FMKK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,918
For Witchell being continuing to do that job after Charles was caught on mike saying 'I can't bear that man. He's so awful, he really is' destroys any shred of credibility he might once have had as a reporter, and negates any respect one might have had for him. Would a normal man not be mortified, make some reply or at least thumb his nose at the royals and decide to report on something else? No, not Nick. He simply decided to become more subservient in the hopes that his royal masters would one day hate him less.
A royal correspondent can hardly be considered to have much journalistic credibility anyway. It basically consists of fawning and tittle tattle about who was wearing what etc.
FMKK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 18:42
Hound of Love
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 33,623
I wish Charlie Brookers weekly wipe was on at the moment. He would have had a field day tearing up all the coverage!

Was it necessary for the amount of news coverage it got? At one point they were in a hospital in Birmingham interviewing mothers who'd given birth on the same day. It shouldn't come as a surprise that women were giving birth at the same time!!!!!
Agreed, re Charlie!

There has been the usual hypocrisy from the Daily Mail. It featured an article slating the BBC for its excessive coverage, whilst they had a 21-page royal baby supplement.
Hound of Love is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 18:49
AZZURRI 06
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,649
I wish Charlie Brookers weekly wipe was on at the moment. He would have had a field day tearing up all the coverage!

Was it necessary for the amount of news coverage it got? At one point they were in a hospital in Birmingham interviewing mothers who'd given birth on the same day. It shouldn't come as a surprise that women were giving birth at the same time!!!!!
I am sure Charlie will reprise the whole event in his end of year newswipe! Should be fun.
AZZURRI 06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2013, 19:47
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,907
Witchell asked him the politically heavyweight question, 'how are you feeling about your son's wedding?'
I thought it was something trivial.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:08.