When it comes to choice of broadcaster for election night coverage I’m a BBC man, not least because no one does it better than the Beeb. However, the coverage tonight is not up to par. There is zero atmosphere in the studio, the conversation with guests is tedious, the analysis (or lack thereof) is poor, the production values are poor in places.
The presentation duo of Laura Kuenssberg/Chris Mason (both of whom I like) is proving to be no successor to David Dimbleby (later Huw Edwards). The programme is seriously lacking gravitas as a result. Having an authoritative presenter at the helm chairing proceedings is imperative – especially on our national public service broadcaster.
Rita Chakrabarti, whom I also like and who is presenting the incoming results, seems unusually reliant on the autocue and is frequently stumbling over her words. I can not see her manning the swingometer á la Peter Snow/Jeremy Vine come the General Election. I pray there is a different presenting team in place for the GE, but it’s hard to see who is left in news/current affairs at the BBC who could step in.
The presenters (Laura Kuenssberg/Chris Mason) are doubling up as interviewers-in-chief. The programme needs a Jeremy Paxman/Andrew Neil figure, sat apart from the main desk, to grill the politicians – this role is seemingly non-existent tonight (granted, it’s arguably more important for GE coverage) and, again, who is left at the BBC who could fulfil this role come the 2024 GE?
BBC journalists and guests are appearing on camera from the main newsroom. We all know it’s in the same building – just have them in the studio. It may liven the dreary discussion…
Whilst the licence fee money splashed on the renovation of Studio B made it a high-quality set for the News at One/Six/Ten (though I’m still not convinced why this was necessary when Studio E was barely a decade old), is totally unsuitable for election night coverage, not least because it is too small. Compare Studio B to the various iterations of the “BBC Election Centre” of past elections – at least twice the size of Studio B. Given Television Centre is long closed the BBC would do well to use Studio D at Elstree as was the case in 2015.
And what’s with the weird animations on the screens at balcony level – CGI people walking around and typing on computers? The usual fake newsroom graphics are odd enough without whatever this is supposed to be. The audience knows those balconies and the staircase are just for show and that there is nothing up there (a great shame really because, were the space bigger, it would be perfect for Prof Sir John Curtice and the team of analysts).
As a result of the studio’s size, John Curtice and the analysts are off screen in the “Results Centre” elsewhere in New Broadcasting House (and, for reasons unknown, barely being incorporated into the coverage). On that note, the wider lack of psephology is bizarre. Statistical analysis of results is essential. Give us John Curtice.
The camera work is all over the place (especially during Rita Chakrabarti’s segments). The lighting is making the studio feel dark and dingy – especially compared with previous sets (the infamous “BBC Election Centre”). The purple LED lighting in particular looks akin to a nightclub. The layout/use of the studio space is poor. The sound has been patchy in places, too.
There is zero integration with BBC iPlayer – you have to go digging around to find the main BBC One coverage. It wouldn’t draw away from promoting drama to have the coverage highlighted on the front page of iPlayer for one night. Instead it’s tucked away in the News section. The same goes for the joint BBC Radio 4/Radio 5Live coverage which has been trailed as available on iPlayer but is hidden away. Bizarre.
Though not part of the main coverage, a brief mention for Newsnight which plugged the gap between the end of the BBC News at Ten and the start of BBC Elections 2024 (for those of us who opted to give Question Time a miss). The programme has been in free fall for some time, but tonight’s episode was dreadful. That aside, it was notable that Clive Myrie didn’t mention Newsnight when he did the handover to local news, despite it being something of an election night special.
Oh, and Lindsay Hoyle has just been referred to as “Speaker Hoyle” by the presenter. The Americanisation of our political language is so depressing.
If this is a test run for the General Election expected later this year, there is little hope. Perhaps the one redeeming factor is that they’ve kept (a reworked version of) Arthur. https://youtu.be/wTR0aFAIQSU?si=CLTlkiGc29OS_eyD
https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1cixfzo/bbc_elections_2024_why_is_the_coverage_so_poor/
by Nelson-Collingwood
12 comments
That’s a direct result of funding cuts – they simplify don’t have the money and the head of the BBC is a Tory donor.
I don’t know what answer you expected other than “not enough money”
Also these are mainly local elections,
With councils short on funds many are not doing expensive overnight counts, due to overtime cost.
As a result most results will come during the day today.
They would have little to really report on over nights
Btw the Channel 4 general election coverage will be electric, with the Podcast giants Alistair Campbell and Emily Maitls co hosting the event
It’s local elections people don’t really turn out to vote so why would the BBC waste a lot of money on it? If people actually came out to vote and made a big difference the BBC would make a bigger deal out of it
The biggest problem is that they’ve reduced the proportion of time given to independent psephology and analysis in favour of having the presenter directly with 3-party talking heads who get more time than ever to say nothing of any insight or interest.
Most of the show then just ends up being an especially awful episode of question time.
It was only the locals but I didn’t bother watching more than the first 30. They had a few people at random locations, they tried to make Blackpool feel like a close race, they had lots of talking heads from parties trying to not say anything too soon etc.
It was probably not needed, but we are talking middle of the night bbc, so maybe it’s what the time slot deserved
The BBC has plenty of money. Reporting on local elections is not traditionally a massive priority and reporting exercise, unlike a General Election.
Lack of funding so they’ve lost a lot of talent. I gave up with bbc content about three or four years ago. They sacked a lot of the local radio people I liked, the news website is horribly written and myopic, and the TV shows are wank
Aside from what people have already said, idk how it is for the rest of the country but the mayor of London vote count doesn’t even start until Saturday 9am. You can’t really do more coverage than “the polls are closed, see you Saturday afternoon”.
It’s just local elections of bored busy bodies. Barely anyone cares enough to vote in many wards, let alone watch rolling updates..
Funding cuts.
The result is so obvious no one cares.
There is no tension. Who will win this council or that council? Which direction will the swingometer go? What happens if it swings by only 5%?
Because most of the elections happening are completely pointless and everyone knows it.
PCC elections are a monumental waste of money because nobody cares about them. The turnout is woeful and even I spoil my ballot in protest at such a useless exercise.
Local elections are a step up but ultimately your council is going to be run by a bunch of cunts whatever happens because the only people who run to be a councillor are cunts. Even if you do somehow manage to elect a non-trivial number of non-cunts, local authorities are so bound by obligations and lack of funding from Westminster that there’s very little room for discretion anyway. All the money goes on social care and everything else can get fucked.
The by-elections would normally be the most interesting aspect, but everyone knows we are at most 6 months away from a new election so even these seem a bit pointless. They could leave the seats empty and it wouldn’t make any difference over this timescale.