Jubilee flotilla coverage - why did the BBC get it so wrong

Elessar said:
I agree about the commentary info, but as for the shots much of the london marathon course you wouldn't seen if it wasn't for the bikes linked by helicopters.

It is true though that every boat has to go through a fixed point and you can talk about them then.

So I do agree with you........
Click to expand...

Things have come to a pretty pass when a purveyor of anti foul products posts on here posing as an expert on all aspects of OBs.:)
 
Romeo said:
Ha Ha, well thats us told:

"The main problem with the BBC's coverage, and Sky's and CNN's, too, was that to relish the flotilla from the comfort of one's home rested on one being someone who really LOVES boats. I'm certain every single man-jack of that demographic was on the Thames already with the rest of their Rotary Club, chasing the Queen in 999 smaller, crappier, even-less-televisually-interesting boats, through choppy, effluent-laden, grey waters, chomping back picnic-basket pork fancies. Boats are quite a niche interest. One isn't unpatriotic for finding them bloody tedious."

Mind if everyone else is going to find it tedious anyway, it must be best just to tailor the coverage to those who don't?
Click to expand...



I used to like the Independant. Is she related to someone who works at the beeb?
 
a bunch of little boats bob along a river on a drizzly day in June, can you think of anything more boring to film excepting of course for the few boatbores who want technical detail of a Thames ferry boat.

To be fair, I can't think of a worse spectacle for the majority of people to endure in the uk. I am a boat owner and I find boats presented like this rather boring, so what hope for the rest of us normals?

I realise this is a condensed group of fanatics, but just look at it from the eyes of a normal person, how much do you think they care, about the same as you when the golf open is on the television for 4½+ loooong hours.

Boats on film are boring much like paintings of ships etc. This was about a jubilee event, the boats for the majority of us were just as bemoaned, a side show.
 
Hang on! If this is such a boring event, how come it turned into one of the biggest live spectator events ever seen? Or is that not really the case? All those folks lining the banks must have seen something in it? Or were they all boat bores too?

The BBC has long since had a vendetta against sailing, that is why their coverage of the sporting aspects are so poor, but I hadn't quite realised it was against the wider boating world.

If they thought it was such a poor idea, why did they cover it in the first place?
 
dylanwinter said:
I watched it with landlubbers who enjoyed the event as covered by the BBC

and cooed at the babies and were very pleased to see Anneker again

but it was at my neighbours house on his massive TV

so I thought it was just me who thought they had missed the point

and I am always very keen to give my occasional employers the benefit of the doubt in that they understand the public better than I

however, it seems that I was not alone wanting to see more boats and fewer rebull fired up celebrity gobs

maybe just the pics of the boats, a well prepared dimblelby and a decent historian chosen for reasons other than their tumbling locks and great legs

Dylan
Click to expand...
i was disappointed with tom cunliffe, he should have taken the opportunity to explain the technicalities of the differnet boats, unfortunately he was as bad as the rest of the tossers, he hadnt done his homework OR they wuldnt let him talk!!
stu
 
skipper_stu said:
i was disappointed with tom cunliffe, he should have taken the opportunity to explain the technicalities of the differnet boats, unfortunately he was as bad as the rest of the tossers, he hadnt done his homework OR they wuldnt let him talk!!
stu
Click to expand...

Agree - what a let down. He (Cunliffe) could/ought to have been so interesting about the many and varied boats and their background. He was even making silly remarks of no consequence about the manoeuvring of the Royal Barge. He could at least have talked about ferry gliding etc. Did he not know the identity of the various Commonwealth flags. Shame on Cunliffe.

It may have been 3 years in preparation and planning but BBC research and preparation cannot have been more than 3 minutes. What plonkers!
 
I learned my boat handling parking Chevertons at HMS President and they never closed the Thames Barrier to slow the tide for me!

That may well be why I'm great at ferry gliding but useless in slack water.
 
DogWatch said:
a bunch of little boats bob along a river on a drizzly day in June, can you think of anything more boring to film excepting of course for the few boatbores who want technical detail of a Thames ferry boat.

To be fair, I can't think of a worse spectacle for the majority of people to endure in the uk. I am a boat owner and I find boats presented like this rather boring, so what hope for the rest of us normals?

I realise this is a condensed group of fanatics, but just look at it from the eyes of a normal person, how much do you think they care, about the same as you when the golf open is on the television for 4½+ loooong hours.

Boats on film are boring much like paintings of ships etc. This was about a jubilee event, the boats for the majority of us were just as bemoaned, a side show.
Click to expand...

You seemed to have missed the point of this thread.
It COULD have been made interesting, if the BBC had spent a few minutes doing some home work on the freely available information.

I don't watch the One Show as it is too annoying in its dumbing down and patronizing attitude (same for most of popular TV) But I was hoping they could have got this at least half right.
When TomC said 'I have no idea' about the semaphore, I was waiting for him to follow up with ' it is something traditionally learned by sea-scouts and the RN, but not used by modern leasure sailers' which would have been informative. But no. Got the feeling he was out of sorts, possibly by his briefing?
 
Seeing a lot of the criticism, and having a few thoughts of my own, here's my penn'orth;

Every vessel on the 'National Register of Historic Vessels' was invited, but that then gives the owner the chance to judge whether its worth the effort. Those bigger ships below tower bridge got not one mention all afternoon. Most of the smaller boats coming down river didn't get a mention. So my main criticism is this:

Tom Cunliffe has come in for a lot of flack. I don't think this is all deserved. Please bear in mind that he is not a seasoned radio presenter, but an "expert" brought in to add colour at certain points in the broadcast. He spend a lot of time with the NRHV, but cannot pull all the detail out of his head. He is also at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to getting his voice on air, and I felt that he was just turned to by the other main presenter at odd moments when he was not prepared, then had to improvise madly. That being said, it was the producer's fault for not "using" him properly. He should have been provided with a laptop with fast access to the NRHV search database to flesh out his knowledge, and a crib sheet of the significant vessels in front of him so he could add some history and depth to the camerawork.

I addition, the production team should have given him enough warning to say "in 1 minute, we want to know a bit about Spider T" or "what is significant about Barnabas?" etc. I got the sense that the other guy forgot why Tom was there and in the end, stopped asking him anything. Most of this is the producers' fault and not his.

Having said that, he prattled on nervously about how "clever the Royal Barge captain was" so much that I shouted at the TV from the Kitchen. In apportioning blame, I put 90% of it on the producers.
 
Seagreen said:
Seeing a lot of the criticism, and having a few thoughts of my own, here's my penn'orth;

Every vessel on the 'National Register of Historic Vessels' was invited, but that then gives the owner the chance to judge whether its worth the effort. Those bigger ships below tower bridge got not one mention all afternoon. Most of the smaller boats coming down river didn't get a mention. So my main criticism is this:

Tom Cunliffe has come in for a lot of flack. I don't think this is all deserved. Please bear in mind that he is not a seasoned radio presenter, but an "expert" brought in to add colour at certain points in the broadcast. He spend a lot of time with the NRHV, but cannot pull all the detail out of his head. He is also at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to getting his voice on air, and I felt that he was just turned to by the other main presenter at odd moments when he was not prepared, then had to improvise madly. That being said, it was the producer's fault for not "using" him properly. He should have been provided with a laptop with fast access to the NRHV search database to flesh out his knowledge, and a crib sheet of the significant vessels in front of him so he could add some history and depth to the camerawork.

I addition, the production team should have given him enough warning to say "in 1 minute, we want to know a bit about Spider T" or "what is significant about Barnabas?" etc. I got the sense that the other guy forgot why Tom was there and in the end, stopped asking him anything. Most of this is the producers' fault and not his.

Having said that, he prattled on nervously about how "clever the Royal Barge captain was" so much that I shouted at the TV from the Kitchen. In apportioning blame, I put 90% of it on the producers.
Click to expand...
TV presenters are used to sports commentators who can tell one person on a rugby or football pitch from another, even in heat of play, and expect everyone else to perform to that standard. A 'boating expert' should in their minds, be able to give history and identification instantly from knowledge, as computer systems won't be fast enough. We know differently.....until there are enough boating events to have fast computer access to the correct info, which isn't easy.
 
We were on the boat with very limited television reception - BBC was the only channel we could receive that had any coverage. I was not particularly impressed at the time - pleased to see that it is still available on Sky Anytime!
 
Well without blowing my own trumpet I was commended for my impromptu commentary to those that would listen along the banks at Battersea Park although they they did get a little bored when the narrow boats came past....

Joking aside there was a lot there and knowing Tom he would have know most of the stuff there but I got the impression he was not allowed to go into too much detail through fear of interrupting Fern etc...
 
Remember Bill MacLaren, the rugby commentator? There was a (Beeb) programme on him a while ago which, amongst other things, covered the huge detail he went into and the crib sheets he prepared before every match he commentated on. His, apparently laid back, asides on the players' backgrounds, family, clubs etc. were the result of painstaking research and he gave totally objective (even when his own son-in-law was playing) and highly informed commentaries on games so unlike the present bunch of "fans with mikes".
If even 5% of the effort that Bill used to put in had been expended by the "presenters" before the Thames pageant, it would have made it bearable but then Bill never tried to be a "personality".
 
awol said:
Remember Bill MacLaren, the rugby commentator? There was a (Beeb) programme on him a while ago which, amongst other things, covered the huge detail he went into and the crib sheets he prepared before every match he commentated on. His, apparently laid back, asides on the players' backgrounds, family, clubs etc. were the result of painstaking research and he gave totally objective (even when his own son-in-law was playing) and highly informed commentaries on games so unlike the present bunch of "fans with mikes".
If even 5% of the effort that Bill used to put in had been expended by the "presenters" before the Thames pageant, it would have made it bearable but then Bill never tried to be a "personality".
Click to expand...

I can remember when Bill started hi commentary work after the other home nations had complained very bitterly about the bias of the English fans with mikes then used by the BBC. The fundamental problem seems to be that the BBC gave the job of coverage to a bunch of celebrity centric numpties who simply were wholly unable to cope with the real world they have been for so long shielded. The only reason most people watched the BBC version was they were unaware of the coverage on Sky, so any reference to viewer numbers is irrelevant.

Lord Reith must be spinning like a Parsons Turbine in his grave
 
Norman lebrecht reported-

Thirteen composers were commissioned to write works for the Royal flotilla down the Thames. Ten barges carried musicians to play the works. All concerned were interviewed beforehand for radio and television. As was the Mayor’s Jubilee Band, comprising 60 London children.
And not a note was heard on the BBC, not a word, not a single mention of the music that was meant to brighten the Queen’s day. Richard Harwood tells us:*I was the unfortunate soaked cellist on (Gavin Greenaway’s) boat and, along with violinist Thomas Gould, the other two string players on board and a few others, can confirm that the BBC did interview us a month earlier and filmed us for much of the day during our recording sessions.’ All to no purpose.


From another forum I access


I have it on good authority (a cameraman working on the show)
that the production team were the 'One Show" team, and not the usual events
people, if the latter still exist.

Much arguing in the gallery over what to go to next, much rapid cutting so
as not to let the screen output appear "boring" and the presenters begging
to be permitted to comment on what was being seen - they HAD done their
homework - but not being given the time.

Much too much material planned without planning when to use it, witness the
elder gentlemen who'd been involved in the original coronation &c being kept
in the cold and rain for 40' waiting to be interviewed. So much so that some
of them had to leave and the few we eventually saw being soaked.

"The end of TV production as we know it"? Probably.

What a shame.

Kerenza
 
Kerenza, you echo what I am hearing from the sacred portals of the Beeb, armys of researchers had done months of research, had compiled briefing notes both on paper and electronically for the benefit of the programme makers, very little of which was used.

There are quite a lot of seriously pissed off staff at the moment, they know it was a disaster and feel badly let down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top