Does US TV put BBC election coverage to shame?
February 13th, 2008
Why can’t they focus on results and analysis not the spectacle?
Like many site visitors, no doubt, I have been spending at least one night a week during 2008 following the absorbing story of the race for the White House on the internet and on the US news channels that are available here.
And I have been mighty impressed by the latter which put the fare that the BBC and others produce in the UK to shame.
What the Americans have realised is that what matters with results programmes are the results and all the effort is put into gathering, presenting and analysing a mass of data in a form that is easy and gripping to follow.
It is as though the Corporation is not confident that it can explain the core story so it builds in a mass of odd items to try to “sex-up” the coverage. This simply does not work and means that the producers are often so tied up trying to figure out whether links to different locations are working that they are not following the narrative that is unfolding.
You try on election night to find the specific results you are interested in. In the old days they told us to check CEEFAX - now we get referred to the web-sites.
Please Mr BBC, ITN and Sky - can we have a US-style approach next time?
I should add that I spent more than a decade working as an editor with BBC national news and was involved in a number of election programmes. Those of us with a passion for politics were making the same points then.
MessageSpace Advertising
[from previous thread; but justified, because I think it is an important point]
204. I noticed the size of Hillary’s tush the other day, on TV. Jiminny Cricket! - as they say in Ho Chi Minh City. It makes Nigella Lawson’s butt look petite.
And trust me, I’ve SEEN Nigella’s butt (clothed, natch). If it was circling the solar system, it would give rise to rumours of a tenth planet, and create panic amongst astrologers.
Yet Hillary’s is bigger than THAT. Can Americans really vote for a president whose butt is so huge it might cause distant objects in space to gravitate towards the Oval Office?
I think we know the answer.
If the BBC rationalised their coverage as you suggest, then suddenly they would find themselves with 50% of their staff with no jobs.
That would never do.
It’s called work creation.
It’s easier for the US networks with elections since at the moment because, with the exception of Super Tuesday, there are only really a couple of races a night to concentrate on, leaving plenty of time for analysis. Their midterm elections coverage is much closer to being like the BBC’s because there are so many seats to watch at once.
Part of the reason, no doubt, is that they are under orders to be ‘inclusive’; another part must be that the Dimblebies, in particular, have been in situ for far too long and they didn’t get where they are today on merit; young Jonathan is almost as old as I am [63] and should be put out to grass as I have been; indeed the last time I spoke to him [in 1962] he wanted to be a farmer when he grew up . .
Generally I couldn’t agree more. Obviously there are weaknesses with the US model; in particular their competitive desire to call races earlier and earlier - and we all know where that has led in the recent past.
‘The US coverage also avoids those irrelevant “How are they seeing it in the White Lion?” sequences which seem to be a speciality of the BBC.’
Oh yes, usually with Oona King and/or Stephen Twigg on hand to proffer wise words.
Mike - did you know the fragrant Sophie Raworth or were you at the Beeb before her time?
I concur with the sentiments of this thread. In particular, I’d like to point out the supreme waste of effort in concocting cringe-worthy nonsense, such as Ming the Rapper from the last council elections or pointless computer graphics when simply using words would be much more effective.
(The latter point is generally applicable to the BBC. They show montages of fat people when discussing obesity and pictures of a house when discussing mortgages. We all know what fat people and houses look like, for god’s sake).
I don’t find the BBC coverage that bad, actually. I think they do a good job at making election night ‘exciting’ to the layman. I know that us politics-fanatics might find them a bit irrelevant (Peter Snow’s last few graphics have been hilariously ridiculous) but I think they do quite a good job.
The only issue I have is the constant pandering to the spinmeisters, but this does in some way contribute to the fun of election night. For instance, interviewing red-faced Tories on Election 97 was pretty humerous, as it will be interviewing Harman, Balls et al when NuLab lose an election. Plus it’s always entertaining when Paxman gets involved.
There *is* less of an emphasis on statistics, though. We don’t seem as keen to label voters into different demographic groups, really. I guess that’s partly due to respect of the individual’s vote as opposed to saying things like “Black people are going overwhelmingly for Labour” or somesuch. That’s usually the job of the quality dailys in the time following the results to pick over. I quite like that really.
In short I find the British coverage of elections quaint and a little flawed: but they’re like a rough diamond - still brilliantly good at the same time.
But American politics doesn’t have the swingometer. Although, to spice it up a bit, perhaps we could introduce a Pit & The Pendulum element of fear into it….
(”Clean up on aisle four. And can we have another Dimbleby please….”)
Afternoon all
I understand where Mike is coming from but he is comparing apples with oranges. First, the US is a much bigger country and the close of polling takes place over a 4-hour period from East to West. In other words, there is a constant flow of results across the country from east to west. In the UK, we know nothing happens for a minimum of an hour between the close of poll and the first declaration. This is because we don’t use machines to record votes - in the UK system, ballot boxes have to be moved to a central location, emptied, counted, verified and the sorted. That takes time - it leads to a flood of results between say 1.30 and 3am.
Second, the US networks “call” results far earlier than we do. We have an exit poll which is released as soon as the polls close but how that figure translates across individual constituencies is completely unclear until thew first results start appearing (and sometimes not even then). The US system is more akin to the German system in which the party vote shares are known fairly quickly but the seat distribution takes longer.
Now, you could argue we could “call” 400+ seats fairly quickly as they won’t change but that’s not how we do it. Part of the excitement of a UK election night is watching the constituency results come in and the party totals go up or down. In the US, the networks call each state within moments of polls closing. In a sense, the network becomes the Returning Officer. Only when it is “too close to call” do the networks wait for precinct results.
I don’t think the studio style is much different - there are presenters, analysts and pundits in both the US and UK. From what I’ve seen so far, I think the CNN coverage is superior to that of Fox but I have no feel for how CBS, ABC or NBC covers things.
I think the problem is the bbc ‘public service’ remit. Understandably, they see election night as very important and are trying to connect with the average man in the street (The White Lion etc). The other broadcasters - like sheep - take their line from the bbc.
In America, the programmes are made for the keenly political - they don’t see it as their job to attract apathetic viewers.
5 Aaron
I have sent you an email about my appeal to IBAS, which is not entirely irrelevant to the point you are making here.
the awful ‘cafe’ setup in the studio needs to go and the political point scoring - “this is a disaster for the tories”, “Labour are the losers tonight” stuff is just annoying - that’s why the internet is so good, because you can get the results and info you actually want.
My particular gripe is the BBC’s coverage of the Local elections. We never get any idea of seats being won or lost during the evening until ALL the seats for a particular Authority have been counted - and then we are told that Party X has won Barchester, and Loamshire has gone from Party Y to NOC, but without any of the detail. It is as if each Authority is a mini General Election, and we are incapable of assessing anything other than significant changes of control.
Isn’t the fundamental problem with the BBC, in particular, that on every general election night they wheel out the same old faces - Dimbleby, Snow, Professor King, etc., etc. I’m sure that were good old Bob McKenzie still with us, he’d there alright, complete with Zimmer frame.
Let’s have some new blood - sack Dimbleby, bring on Sophie, that’s what I say.
8: ‘Ming the Rapper’
I’d forgotten about that. Didn’t the BBC also have some graphic whereby if the Tories’ vote share was suggestive of their forming the next government then the sails of the windmill on David Cameron’s roof would start revolving, or did I just dream it?
12. But who other than the politically interested (and perhaps a few insomniacs) stays up until the early hours to watch election results???
All this discussion is showing is that clearly there is a need for an indepth, results and analytics based reporting service - step forward pb.com.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gSZbvnVfqfE
“Ming’s bling”. For all those who have successfully suppressed the horror.
16. You are joking, aren’t you? Sophie Rayworth is an acceptable auto-cue reader, not an election night presenter. Dimbleby is good, as is Robinson - but their ‘inclusive’ editors are idiots.
18 On UK election night? Millions surely - if most people can be bothered to go out to vote, surely they can be bothered to watch the results.
I couldn’t agree with you more, Mike.
The problem seems to be the BBC’s culture which wants to turn events into what it perceives to be entertainment.
Many of the points you make about its coverage of political events also apply to other events. It is painful to watch horseracing, for example, on the BBC because of the prominence it gives to the racing equivalent of the ’sexing up’ and ‘Red Lion’ interviews.
21 Frank, I believe that in the wonderful world of Televisionland, they are referred to as “Autocuties”.
The Clinton campaign are making a big mistake, from what I can make out, in abandoning Wisconsin. It is mildly favourable terrain for Obama, and will probably go for him but the polls have shown it to be competitive (neither candidate has had a 10%+ lead). She needs to change the narrative, and a win or even a close 2nd place would help her more in OH and TX than any campaigning she is doing there now. Also, looking at the exits Clinton won white voters again in VA and MD (by 10 point in MD) while Obama won the black vote by 80-90 points. That says to me that Obama still has work to do to seal the deal.
Oh, there is also an awful lot of irrelevance on the BBC as well - such as: “Let’s go to Jenny Smith from West Midlands Tonight who is in Birmingham for us. So Jenny, how’s the count going there?”
Jenny: “Well David, the ballot boxes are beginning to be brought in and there’s a genuine mood of excitement here. We expect the first results in about four hours time.”
Studio: “Thanks, Jenny, keep us updated…”
At least half the local exchanges are of this character and it does leave you thinking “what was the point?”
22. I wonder. Don’t the vast majority of people just wait for the next morning to see the results, or switch over once the exit polls are out?
“those irrelevant “How are they seeing it in the White Lion?” sequences which seem to be a speciality of the BBC.”
Those are a personal bug bear - I loathe the BBC’s insistence on popping outside to inview people who know bugger all about the subject, or reading out the emails of certifiable crackpots. I don’t want to watch the news to find out the point of view of random members of the public with no particular knowledge of the subject, if I wanted to know what they thought, I could go outside my house and stop my own random ignorant people in the street. I want nice BBC journalists telling me the facts, well briefed BBC correspondents giving me analysis and proper experts being interviewed… not Bob from Slough and Denise from Cleethorpes.
Quite why it was thought unusual last year when they randomly interviewed that poor guy who came for an interviewer as a cleaner who they had mistaken as an IT expert is beyond me. They spend half their time interviewing random members of the public with no insight or knowledge of the subject being discussed.
There, rant over.
(Only slightly off-topic, good Mitchell & Webb clip here, with the BBC news version of the world being invaded by aliens - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YkAuDaLKpI - “Maybe you live on earth or know someone who does. How do you feel about it, email us your thoughts on your imminent molecular evaporation”)
re 20. Thanks for that. Case proven.
OK, it’s got nothing to do with the Results service, I know, but the BBC bits done by Vincent Hanna setting the scene before a By Election were works of genius. I think it Was Warrington where the SDP leadership were filmed on an open-topped bus that went under a very low tree branch.
Another bad day for Jacqui Smith (or is it Jack Straw??) - Court of Appeal overturns convictions for “thought crimes”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7242724.stm
21/24 Autocuties do more than just read their autocues you know. For example, at the end of each news programme they can usually be seen tapping their laptop keyboards meaningfully - Hugh Edwards is particularly skilled at doing this.
19. Hear Hear. In the USA information is news. In the UK, information is something only an elite priesthood are allowed access to. The plebs have to be given the interpretation by the priesthood, as they are quite plainly far too stupid to understand raw data themselves.
What I detest is having the party hacks playing the expectations game: “in mid-term, we really should be seeing the Tories taking control of Manchester”; “with these results, Labour are staring into the abyss and are currently heading for a general election result that will show that they are less popular than leprosy” etc etc.
I very rarely learn anything of interest from those sections, the politicians must hate having to do them (especially when their side is taking a pasting). It would be better to have true eminences grises giving more honest commentary, or better still just scrapping those sections and spending more time looking at the detail of the results in an unspun way.
There is a further point. So far as local election results are concerned, too often they are looked at as a proxy for the national scene. This has led to the very poor health of our local democracy. If the results are examined in detail and local factors are properly considered with less emphasis placed on national matters, the pendulum might eventually start to swing back a bit.
28 “not ….. Denise from Cleethorpes”
I’ll have you know there’s nothing wrong with our Denise from Cleethorpes.
Be careful what you wish for.. They could put up Fiona Bruce, which would be simultaneously irritating and distracting….
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/08_03/009Bruce_468×606.jpg
28 Exactly, Anthony.
They do exactly the same at the races.
“Here are some excited racegoers…who do you think will win…Denman? Denman? Kauto Star? One here for Exotic Dancer…. Any body else?”
What the f*ck does that tell us about anything? These people know less than me, which is saying something. Grrrrrrrrr……….
36 …. well irritating at least.
Crossed from previous thread:
Here’s food for thought about why the Dems are going to seal the deal in November, particularly if Obama is the candidate:
In 2004 in the Democratic primary 350,000 people voted.
Yesterday 990,000 voted.
In the general election in 2004 3,200,000 voted statewide.
36, says file not found, you tease.
If it’s going to be other than informative, the broadcast might as well be hosted by some sexy bird or other.
20. I think I must’ve! That’s shocking.
The two that always got me as well were the 2005 graphic which saw Michael Howard, Tony Blair and Charles Kennedy’s faces superimposed onto strange computer-generated dwarves who started to walk down Downing Street as the results came in - first across the winning post would form the next government! Now I can understand computer generated swingometers and Houses of Commons but that wouldn’t have helped *anyone* understand what was going on.
The second one, on a similar note, was having a computer-generated William Hague attempt to climb the steps of Number 10 on Election Night 2001. The more seats he won the closer he got. The idea was ridiculous enough as it was but even more so when you consider the BBC spent money on generating lots of steps for Number 10 when every man and his dog could have told you the Tories were going to lose big in 2001.
37 So what do you suggest PtP - Stick Statto’s mug in front of the camera for 20 minutes before each race?
36. The Mail doesn’t like direct linking to it’s images, methinks…
Here’s another…
http://stupidcelebrities.net/wp-content/5330.jpg
39. I’m personally not convinced that there is any correlation between primary and general election turn out.
Good analysis here:
http://race42008.com/2008/02/12/let-me-try-this-again/
During one of the quiet hours of 1987 GE, BBC returned to the studio just as Dimbleby was trying to swallow whole a Mars Bar. Not a sight for the sqeamish.
42 Channel 4 is exemplary, PfP, except for the odd ‘Red Lion’ interview, usually conducted by Derek Thompson.
34 “I very rarely learn anything of interest from those sections, the politicians must hate having to do them (especially when their side is taking a pasting).”
But they do sometimes generate wonderful moments. I remember in 1977 when the Grimsby and Ashfield by-election results were coming in. Grimsby was safely held by Labour (Austin Mitchell) and Roy Hattersly was pleased as punch. When the result for the much safer Labour seat of Ashfield was held up for a recount, Hattersly cockily said “that will be the Tory for his deposit!” “Actually, Roy, it’s been called by Labour…”. The understanding in his face in that moment that Thatcher was crashing through the barricades was priceless.
45 “BBC returned to the studio just as Dimbleby was trying to swallow whole a Mars Bar.”
And thus the mischievous Mr Smithson’s career as producer on Election Night was ended…!!!
25 - Just checked and on the updated exits Obama did win among whites in Virginia. His margin there is seriously impressive.
The BBC’s “lets talk to the crowds” / man at the Red Lion has always been a bug bear with me. If you go up to watch a Royal Wedding, see the State Opening, watch the London Fireworks its the spectacle you are interested in not the other spectators. I want to see who the guests are, who is in that coach etc.
Same with the budget - couldn’t give a damn what impact it has on Mr and Mrs Smith in Warrington - want to know what it does to/for me.
Jabob Bronowski proved in 1973 with the Ascent of Man that an expert, properly arranged subject material and a camera could deliver compelling television - drop the frivolous special effects (keep the swingometer, simple and now part of the culture), extraneous & meaningless vox pops, give us the facts, the impacts, the details.
45 dr spyn - please don’t attempt to lower the tone by introducing the subject of Mars Bars.
44. It is an interesting piece, but is about comparative primary turnout as an indicator of general election victory, which is not the point I am making.
Almost a million people voted in the Democratic primary; only 1.5 million voted for Kerry in VA in ‘04; 1.25 million voted for Gore.
That is quite astonishing.
Monty Python did a wonderful paradoy of early 1970 GE coverage.
“Arthur Negus has held Bristols, that’s note a result, just a piece of gossip.”
Try catching 5 live night time coverage on US 2008- top notch. And the beeb, but many of the contributors are US journalsists and commentators so stands to reason.
Agree Mike and with Harry’s posts.
Only the really sad people like us who are really really interested are watching at 3 in the morning and more analysis and less tripe should be on. I agree re the lack of breakdown of local results. Except when they go to count or a group leader loses a seat you never seem to get any breakdown in a particular authority.
When Winchester was decided on the basis of 35 disputed votes there was no news whatsoever that night or for most of the next day. I had to make a call to find out what was going on. Why wasn’t that being reported. More facts and analysis and less politicians arguing about who did best and some idiot’s opinion from a pub would go down well with me.
Mike - Did you know Mark Lelliott when you were at the BBC?
51 PfP - You give your age away when your hint that to you Mars Bars mean more than just another bit of confectionary.
47: ‘The understanding in his face in that moment that Thatcher was crashing through the barricades was priceless.’
Would have liked to have seen that. The Tories overturning almost a 23,000 Labour majority - most amusing!
re 55. No - I was at the BBC from 1971 to 1984 and my final few years was as head of corporate publicity.
56 Moi? What about Marquee Mark in #48?
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4281404&page=4
Discussion of possible Edwards endorsement, indicatng he may choose Clinton. He would certainly help her if he stumped Ohio for her. I reckon he will stay out of it but something to keep an eye on.
59 Also guilty as charged.
Will you be at the LRC tonite?
61 PtP - If I can clear the decks in the next couple of hours I’ll try to get along.
The start time is 7.30pm - correct?
Oh god please let the BBC read this. The three-way party political point scoring GARBAGE is just too much to bear. Plus they always ask the “yoof” leaders from the parties to talk rubbish in pubs and they are even worse than the MPs with their cheap points.
Having said that, PBers are also much worse when covering UK elections than the excellent debates we’ve been having about the U.S. polls. Maybe we should try aim for impartial coverage (or at least, not too partial).
Absolutely agree. Election night TV is a pet hate of mine (local radio is sometimes more interesting). If they must interview politicians then interview the politicians who are actually at the interesting counts, rather than a bunch of talking heads saying the Tories “have no councillors at all in the Northern cities” or “Labour have made no headway in Broxbourne” while agreeing with each other that the BNP are awful.
Since 2005, I’ve barely glanced at it, and spend my time on this site and Vote 2005/6/7, which are much more informative.
62 A leisurely 7.30pm, PfP.
I think a lot depends on the US channel. CNN seems obsessed with the most ridiculous graphics and computer effects. MSNBC, on the other hand, is excellent.
More alarming than the way the BBC reports British elections is the way it reports US elections. Someone mentioned on here the other day that a BBC reporter asked if Virginia was near Oklahoma! To the BBC it would seem America is a weird and strange place that we’ll never quite understand, so lets just smile to ourselves at their odd ways.
66 - The BBC website was an absolute joke on Super Tuesday. I was watching CNN and Fox so don’t know about the TV. Sky was also utterly crap, I watched a bit of that before biting the bullet and putting my second screen onto Fox.
Actually, I quite like the BBC’s coverage. The only quibble I have with it is that at the last election they got the results just before the returning officer declared them, which destroyed the drama. Apart from that I think their coverage was very good. Am I really the only one who liked the computer graphics? Of course you could save time If you projected all the safe seats but that would be a very short programme.
There are also several annoying traits in the US election night coverage:
- The tendency to call states before a ballot was counted on exit polls alone.
- The annoying habit of spewing irrelevant demographic data (i.e 37% of African-Americans in Colorado said Iraq was their number one issue) and refusing to disclose the actual exit poll projections.
68 - To be fair they only really call them now if the gap is >10 points which I reckon is fair. Last night they made out Virginia was too close to call when the initial figures actually were pretty conclusive that McCain was going to win. The early excitement over Huckster was that the first precincts to count were all in bumpkinville.
68. Disclosing the exit poll projections before the polls shut would unfairly distort a race against whoever was leading the projection. That’s not good for democracy.
68 WRT election results that’s inevitable, as the result will be known for some time before the Returning Officer actually announces it.
66 I disagree about MSNBC. Keith Olbermann’s frequent editorialising gets on my nerves. It was fine for SportsCenter but not election night. Would much prefer Dimbleby. I actually find that the US channels almist go overboard in their repition of exit poll data testing broad hypotheses (How did Obama do amongst women) for example, to the exclusion of recognising different subsectors of the electorate, and local issues. This is probably why I enjoy the analyses of Michael Barone, Robert Waller and for that matter Sean Fear. That said, the preferences of people that post here might not be reflective of the broader audience that BBC1 and the US networks have to serve.
It is not inevitable that all the “add-ons” that have accumulated over the years are here to stay. If enough people make a fuss they could go. Remember the ludicrous “pre-match build-up” that used to precede the cup final that got bigger and bigger until it started at about 8am ? And the panel of about 8 experts for the world cup ? Where are they now ?
Then again, at least the BBC presenters tend to be sober. I looked on the self-proclaimed ‘politics channel for adults’, 18 Doughty Street, during the last local-election results only to see the unedifying spectacle [.....MODERATED...]
72. Keith Olbermann is indeed an extremely annoying polemicist. By giving people like him and Lou Dobbs spots, they lose the moral high ground over FOX.
While we’re on a rant, the other thing that bugs me is the way that “moderates” and “independents” are held up as these sober , reflective types who make a considered judgement on the merits and are so crucial and talked of in revered tones, as opposed to everyone else who are presented as blinkered and lobotomised partisans. Moderate and independent are not value neutral terms.
Story on ABC that Edwards may be about to back Clinton:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4281404&page=1
77. Edwards would look very silly with a public endorsement of Clinton. The whole news coverage would be about his flip from being the agent of change to supporting the woman he called the status quo.
OT: I’ve been looking at some demographic data and I think Obama should win Ohio. 11% black and a white average income of $43,000 a year. He should come very close in the white vote and the black vote would put him over the top. Texas will still be solidly Clinton with the popular vote unless Obama really does display a masterpiece in organisation.
74 I may of course be wrong, but I was under [.....MODERATED....]
72 Many thanks. However, most viewers of BBC election night TV will be serious students of politics, so they don’t require “dumbing down” (I expect it annoys them as much as it does us) and would probably welcome more serious analysis rather than talking heads.
77/78 Yes, Socrates is right and anyway it’s just too late - the die is cast.
Key superdelegate endorses Obama…
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvzT8keHzVS3YjP8BJDDrf64A_AwD8UPHJ300
Pretty much off-thread - but under the new boundarys, any ideas which are likely to be among the first seats to declare?
83. Probably one of the redrawn Sunderland seats.
Sunderland Central or
Houghton and Sunderland South
Chris Mullin (ex Sunderland South, the recent first-to-declare) is going for the former…
Re. 16 and 21, I think Edward Stourton should be DD’s successor (though I suspect Huw Edwards will be). And ITV1 should have given Jon Snow another chance after 92. Alistair Burnet was always going to be a hard act to follow, and at least Snow didn’t make a hash of the candidate’s name as DD did in 01 re. Torbay (Jon Sergeant could hardly conceal his impatience). If not Snow, then James Mates (who did such an excellent job hosting the 04 US presidential election coverage), Krishnan Guru-Murthy or Sarah Smith.
Interesting that I was reading the same thing on RCP about Edwards contemplating Hillary - now that would put a cat among the pigeons - but like they say it needs to be done quickly - am I the only Clintonista left on pb.com
Bizarre story
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=elaonline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED13%20Feb%202008%2016%3A58%3A39%3A807
85 BTW …whatever happened to Ed Stourton?
74 & 79. Maybe he was just tired and emotional?
86 Well I like and admire her, Rej, but I just prefer the other choice.
Democrats were a bit spoiled for choice this time around.
86. If Edwards now endorsed Hillary that would confirm his reputation for spectacular ineptitude.
Read the blogs - nearly all of Edwards activist base have switched, en masse, to Obama - as the next best thing: agent of change, someone to shake up the establishment, etc etc.
Then suddenly Edwards endorses Hillary just so he can get a cushty job?
Oh dear. It won’t even work either. I think Hillary’s decline is so precipitous she needs more than endorsements. She needs a great big WIN, somewhere unexpected. But where?
86 - No!
15. I agree. It doesn’t tell anything like the whole story. You can have multiple seats changing hands in an authority (including some big scalps) but if the results as the result of churn are more or less the same that is all that gets reported. They also don’t seem to give any regard to regional variations such as pointing out where some councils have bucked the trend of most of the councils in that area of England etc.
I don’t mind most of the general election coverage (though the vox pops are very annoying) but I agree that there needs to be less reliance on the politicains in the studio. However, that would have stopped me seeing Cecil Parkinson squirming his way through 1997 having confidently predicted that the Tories would at least be the largest party in a hung parliament. He just didn’t have the words…
Mike, I agree. Although I do like to listen to a few speeches after counts are over. Its nice to watch slimy bastards having to be gracious in defeat. Please Lord, let Gorgeous George lose. Just this once….
It appears as though most endorsements have a negative effect as much as anything. I can’t find the poll but it showed Kennedy losing votes by endorsing, similarly for Edwards and Gore. The only one who had a positive effect was Colin Powell, now he *would* be a catch for either Clinton or Obama.
For what it’s worth I don’t think Edwards will endorse anyone, unless Gore comes out for either and I think Edwards will balance it with the opposite.
86 - not that my opinion counts for much, since my knowledge of US politics is limited (though much expanded thanks to this site), but I prefer Hillary to Obama. I do so for three reasons:
1) she seems to have more thought-through policies;
2) she is less vulnerable to a skeleton creeping out of the closet;
3) she has experience, which Obama will look woefully light on in comparison to McCain; and
4) I am profoundly distrustful of politicians that trade on their charisma.
That said, I fully expect Obama to win the nomination, largely because my view on the relative importance of 4 and 1 is the precise opposite of that of most members of the public.
86 I’ll not get into my personal opinions of her, but I do think that 5/2 for the nomination is too long.
95 was a bit Spanish Inquisitionish. My four reasons…
It’s not just the beeb’s election night coverage which has deteriorated. I would argue that a lot of the bbc’s news output - including Today, the 6, 10, and Newsnight - is getting very tabloidy and more about generating fireworks than exploring issues in detail.
I already get most of my news from the net - these days broadcast news rarely tells me anything i didnt know already. And rolling news is even worse - only good when something big happens e.g. Bhutto assassination - and even then only to get the basic facts before they start repeating themselves.
Of course, forever we’ve been told how we have the “best television in the world”. Trouble is, people starting watching a bit of US TV and find that it is …. actually …. far better.
Try watching ABC/NBC/CBS network news - it’s miles more serious than ITV news and most BBC news bulletins.
Remember the 80s? The establishment constantly told us we didn’t need multi-channel TV - we had the “best television in the world” and there was no demand for anything else. Now of course Sky is so successful that there are demands for regulators to reign it in.
Funny isn’t it? In any industry whenever the establishment lose their position and things are opened up it the consumer always loves it.
93. I think Gorgeous is unable to comprehend what gracious is, when he loses this time (as surely he will) I imagine that Jim Fitzpatrick will be on the receiving end of one of the most vitriolic speeches of the evening.
99 - It isn’t just news though is it, compare and contrast for instance The West Wing with The Palace.
86. I’m still backing Hillary to the bitter end! I will come back to that.
However first congratulations to Mike for this excellent thread. The BBC local election coverage is particularly bad. As a local councillor it really pisses me off at the lack of explaination at what councils do, what the individual issues are and the way its always reflected through the prism of what it means for the three big parties nationally. The cringe worthy “pub” scenes where they have got student union hacks from all the parties are cringe worthy.
Although its not in my direct interest I think minor parties get a very raw deal. I forget the figures but the growth of others is never really analyised.
As for Hillary. This seems on a knife edge. I think a couple of weeks as under dog might do her good provided that is managed as narritive, if the narritive is “of god shes ****ed” then it becommes a self fulfilling prophecy.
Heard extracts froma stump speech last night. good fiesty stuff but she was horse and having already camped out in texas before wisconsin looked a little desperate.
What interests me is if the media will get board of obamania and start asking what sort of President he will be. Will we get a “we built him up, now we’ll tear him down” moment before he wins the nomination rather than after it?
I think the way I am thinking is that the day Hillary suspends her campaign will be the day I will back Obama - I supported Hillary all the way through and will do to the bitter end - no point jumping ship in mid-sail
103 - My sentiments exactly, if you think a person is good when they are winning it doesn’t change when they aren’t!
102. Clinton’s body language - as perhaps someone else has noted - is going from bad to worse.
She just looks like a loser now. Hangdog expression, weepy eyes, needy gestures. Not good. Of course a lot of this may be down to mean TV editors and producers, cutting the pix to fit their narrative. But that’s the same media she used, ruthlessly, to purvey the narrative of her “inevitability”.
She can’t complain.
BTW can someone tell me what’s with the whole gays & Hillary thing. I’ve been reading a lot of blogs, and much of her most vehement support seems to come from gay men. Why is that? Is it a mom or diva thing? Is it because she’s good on gay issues? Is it her own allegedly gay past?
What? Genuinely curious, from a novelistic point of view.
99 - CNN and Fox aren’t actually too bad either (when they’re not trying to be TV’s version of talk radio).
As for the BBC’s coverage, it’s decided to itself that it must entertain as well as inform, and ends up doing neither.
94 - http://tinyurl.com/yrf376
Also, Rasmussen will be releasing General Election polling for several states this evening and later this week. Will start to shed some light on the key GE battlegrounds.
One other aspect the TV stations (particularly the Beeb) could reign in a bit are the multicoloured animated graphics, always repeated every few minutes with portentous music. Just because TV can show moving images doesn’t mean that it has to do so all the time.
105 I don’t understand that at all, Sean T. She’s not particularly pro-gay. Lesb*ans find her sexually attractive, as do some straight men (I did when she was about 50 or so) but I can’t understand any appeal to gay men.
100 That is certainly one loser’s speech I’d look forward to - bitter, venomous, and ungracious, like David Mellor in 1997 (the one bright spot that evening, for me).
105 - There maybe a subconscious linking of black men with homophobia because of the rap/gangsta culture. The diva/wronged woman image is also powerful and resonates with many gay men (I’m a theatrical remember, albeit an unusual one though, in being straight!)
107 - That’s the poll I was referring to! Thanks for the link.
95. I would say past experience suggests Clinton has more potential skeletons in the closet. As for your last point, surely it’s better than trading on your husband’s charisma?
105. This might not be too politically correct, but there is a perception that much homophobia in the United States comes from prominent African-American leaders and communities. Obama has spoken out about this, but I imagine not many people would have heard that.
106. Fox is appalling in every way. Every story is shone through the prism of “liberals are trying to protect the bad guys that are undermining America”.
“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows—for the first time ever—Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Today’s results show Obama earning support from 46% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters while Clinton attracts 41%”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Going for three in a row!
114 - Damn, beaten to it by an ancient Greek (or possibly a Brazilian footballer).
105. very, very good point and probably a Master’s thesis in there somehwere. All the left/liberal political anoraks gays I know are huge Hillary fans. Its closest we’ll get to Dorothy in the White House in our life times. I christen the term “HagFags” for us. Not very funny but the best I could come up with after a bottle of Rioja one evening.
110. Yes, the “mistreated” woman could me a relevant meme here.
109. I’m sure you are right, but do lesb1ans find Hilary sexually attractive? Why?
BTW A little digging around finds quite a lot evidence for Hillary having a b1sexual past. Nothing wrong in that - don’t we all! - but she’s done very well to keep it under wraps in a fairly puritanical, if paradoxically hedonistic, country.
Of course she might NOT be remotely lesb1an but I think in the UK the strengths of the rumours alone might have done for her…
Not sure what that says about the two Anglo-Saxon cultures.
110. It’s not just the rap culture, it’s the big black churches, that tend to stick to a Biblical view of homosexuality.
Excellent point made Mike.
I watched the dramatic 1997 election night on BBC World. It was terrible. But BBC World was then. And it still is.
I saw good LD gains coming through, but I only saw the quantity. I had no idea what seats we had won until I checked the internet the next morning. It was all waffle, anchored amiably enough by Brian Hanrahan.
I think we were barely informed of any seats that had changed hands all night. We got C list politicians as the A list ones were on “proper channels”. As for individual results with majorities etc - none!
It was like a parody of dire election coverage.
Completely disagree. It wouldn’t be an election night without all the spectacle. I like the way the BBC tries to make it out as some big national party.
Okay, maybe you could say they could incorporate some more intelligent and detailed analysis, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have the theatrics as well.
116 I remember reading about a gay pride parade in the nineties in which various lesb*an activists explained (in quite explicit terms) what they’d like to do with Hillary Clinton. I think what they found appealing were the rumours about her past, combined with the fact that’s she’s an attractive and very strong-willed woman.
It’s worth noting that successful women often attract rumours that they are (a) nymphomaniacs and/or (b) lesb*ans without their being any truth in such claims.
119. Yes, for a bit of balance, I’ve been reading some commenters on US blogs saying how good the British election is - “17 days and its all over”. Super efficient and ruthless, and, as you say, with a big national knees-up at the end.
I agree with you that the BBC is right to make the GE a national occasion with lots of spectacle. It’s aimed at the country, not at anoraks like us. I like lots of graphics.
The one thing I would change is to get machine-counted votes, like they have in America, so you can follow the scores online across the country. These need not detract from the drama of the final and actual announcements - the “Portillo” moments when you see the powerful humbled.
It’s important to keep those!
From postings here and elswewhere I think its Gays for Obama this side of the pond.
120. If you look at where these rumours about Clinton originated I think its safe to dismiss it as a right-wing slur story.
123 I agree that that is in all likelihood true. Hillary Clinton has always struck me as being far too self-disciplined to do anything that might jeapordise her, or her husband’s political career.
64. “rather than a bunch of talking heads saying the Tories “have no councillors at all in the Northern cities” or “Labour have made no headway in Broxbourne” while agreeing with each other that the BNP are awful.”
Hehe!
Funny ‘coz it’s true!!
Sean - “It’s aimed at the country, not at anoraks like us.”
At 22.00 on election night that may well be true and this stuff at this time when there is nothing else to report maybe ok and entertaining. But at 3.00 the next morning only the anoraks are watching and there is lots of stuff to report on and analyse, so if the BBC thinks it is still broadcasting to the country as a whole at that time, then they must live in an odd world.
Helpful hints to BBC producers, number 53: if it takes Peter Snow five whole minutes to explain his graphic, design a new one.
70 - I’m not asking them to disclose exit poll results while the election was being held (which led to the 2004 fiasco), but they should do what they normally do what the BBC does and dislcose them the second after they close. Disclosing minutae without the actual figures while the election is still going is the worst of both worlds.
Just following on from 126.
They don’t seem to know what is going on a lot of the time re results. The stuff coming in to this site is much faster.
As I mentioned above they didn’t have a clue about what was going on in Winchester in 97. No report whatsoever, not even the next day as to why there wasn’t a result. Nobody seemed to notice that there wasn’t a result! Why?
121. Machines to count votes? Why? It just isn’t necessary. We don’t need to mechanise everything.
I know our education system is bad, but most people can still count, can’t they. You seem to think machine voting would make things more exciting. Surely what we need is the correct result, not excitement?
Is there any other country that has resorted to machine voting, other than the bad ol’ USof A?
It’s all been said above but FWIW Mike I entirely disagree. UK election coverage is more about the spectacle - rightly - because that is it’s remit. I know many people here who are not that political but whom will stay up a good few hours into the night to watch election results. A highly anorak-led programme as you are really suggested would be the kiss of death for this audience. This whole thread betrays a rare moment of being a little too self-absorbed inside the village, if you ask me.
“Should electoral reform come in, how would election night coverage change?” Discuss.
This sort of thing should be in Media Studies GCSE.
The BBC has the swingometer - which is exciting.
Apart from that, it’s tedious.
Dimbeley is a duddery old buffer who takes 30 seconds to complete each sentence.
The so-called “panel” just bores me.
I think the big problem is that the BBC is a public-service broadcaster compelled to ensure “diversity” and to ensure “impartiality” in its election coverage.
It therefore feels obliged to (1) interview “joe-public” (of different creeds) to match the first and (2)have a multi-party panel waffling it out to cover the second.
I guess they feel to do it any other way (ie to discuss the results amongst BBC journalists, or experts) would leave them open to accusations of bias?
There is some truth in this (witness Vote 2003 with IDS) and the fact that BBC employees come from a shockingly similar political background. The BBC just seem to have a difficulty in being fair without abdicating responsibility for it by passing over the discussion to a cross-party panel.
They need to work on that.
I think Sky/ITV etc. are a bit better, but they are constrained by the same “neutrality” and “balance” clauses the BBC are, plus the fact that they try and emulate the BBC a bit too much in style. A bit of a radical rethink is different.
Am I the only one here who thinks that Channel 4 might do an “election night” refreshingly differently?
I wathed the Potomac primaries last night and the thing that I noticed was that the Networks declared Maryland as an Obama win on the basis of 4% - FOUR PERCENT!!! of the vote.
That is statistical stupidity………..
133. Hmm..
“A bit of a radical rethink is different”
That’s “a bit of a radical rethink is REQUIRED”
Long day…
133 - “The BBC has the swingometer - which is exciting.”
But it’s rubbish, too. Swings are so wild and all over the place. The swingometer may have been relevant in the 1960s, but not now.
131 But it isn’t either a spectacle or entertaining - most of the content is stultifyingly boring, inept and offers no insights. The vox pops are time fillers that impart no knowledge, the reporters popping up at counts don’t offer any insight into the areas or issues particular to that seat, the graphics are on the whole poor and need Peter Snow to spend more time explaining them than they are used in illustrating the point (graphics are meant to save words not require them).
Yes lets make it entertaining and a national event but that doesn’t preclude intelligence and meaning.
134. No it would also be based on exit polls.
137 - don’t you just loathe it when on election night there are cartoonists on the TV pretending to do something spontaneous, when it is all preplanned?
137 Mind you, one thing that is amusing is seeing metropolitan sophisticate journalists forced out of their comfort zones in White City and Westminster to go and do an Election Night gig from, say, somewhere unspeakable in the West Midlands. Martha Kearney in Lincolnshire(?) was a study in out-of-placeness in 2001.
Good to see RCP putting in a popular vote total so that the claims that Clinton was leading it (one which I responded to yesterday) can be refuted.
Totals so far -
Obama - 9,347,707
Clinton - 8,648,897
With Florida (no campaign in the state)
Obama - 9,923,921
Clinton - 9,519,883
With Florida *and* Michigan (no campaign in the state and where Obama wasn’t even an option)
Obama - 9,923,921
Clinton - 9,848,192
Iowa, Nevada and Maine have no figures but, seeing as Obama won more delegates in all of them, they would merely increase his lead.
Put it this way, even with one state voting on prior knowledge of the candidates alone and with another where she was the only candidate Clinton is still getting fewer votes.
MARYLAND PRIMARY
Seems to have skipped the attention of most pundits and PBers, but voters in the state of Maryland yesterday retired not one but TWO sitting US Representatives by denying them re-election:
Congressional District 1 (Eastern Shore)
GOP primary:
Andy Harris = 30,853 (43%)
Wayne Gilchrest (incumbent) = 23,342 (33%)
E.J. Pipkin = 14,580 (21%)
Joe Arminio = 1,181 (2%)
Robert Banks = 1,092 (2%)
Congressional District 4 (DC suburbs)
Democratic Primary:
Donna Edwards = 59,462 (60%)
Al Wynn (incumbent) = 35,590 (36%)
George Mitchell = 1,301 (1%)
Michael Babula = 1,129 (1%)
Jason Jennings = 1,098 (1%)
George McDermott = 829 (1%)
In CD 1, GOP anti-war moderate Gilchrist (first elected 1990) was defeated by conservative state senator Harris. The district is predominately GOP, so Harris should be favored to hold the seat for the Republicans in the general election.
In CD 2, progressive insurgent Edwards defeated longtime incumbent (first elected 1992) Wynn, long a prominent figure in local politics, who voted for the Iraq War and toook other positions displeasing to many progressives. Note: both Edwards and Wynn are African Americans. As the new nomineee, Edwards should have little difficulty holding this seat for the Democrats in November.
I very much like the way in which the BBC handle GE night coverage. The show is always entertaining has plenty of atmosphere.
I just don’t feel that I particularly need to know the exact figures for all 650 seats on the actual night. Don’t get me wrong, I love checking through that kind of stuff later on when the results are all printed in the Saturday newspapers - I’m just happy enough with a picture painted in fairly broad strokes on GE night itself.
134. That is statistical stupidity………..
No it isn’t. It is statistical sophistication.
If the count was conducted randomly, the odds of Clinton overhauling Obama in DC after 4% counted would be literally trillions to 1.
The count isn’t quite random of course, so other more cautious estimates would have to be made. For example the lead in the remaining votes the trailing candidate needs to catch up. With a (say) 30 point Obama lead after 4% counted, Clinton would have needed a 1.25% lead in the remaining votes. Once they were reasonably sure they had a representative selection of polling districts in, and the trend was steady, they would be very confident of calling it in those circumstances…
One particular bugbear with the BBC’s coverage is that they decide in advance which seats they deem interesting (and send cameras there) and then find it very hard to give good analysis of shock results (e.g. from 2005 - Withington, Solihull) or even results that are instructive holds (e.g. Orpington, Selby).
134 - As noted, Obama was projected the winner in Maryland (also Virginia & DC) on the basis of exit polling.
This is done
1) after all the polls have closed in a state; and
2) when the margin in the exit polling is so big that the actual result is clearly indicated.
In cases where the exit polling margin is too close for comfort, the networks wait until enough actual returns are in from enough places to either validate or (much less often) repudiate the exits.
On Super Tuesday the network prognosticators clearly had a problem with Missouri in the Democratic race.
Because most called it for Clinton, then had to retract that call when it turned out that Obama actualy carried the state by a hair.
Interestingly, many PBers questioned the networks’ judgement IN REAL TIME for calling Missouri for Hillary. Because a quick check of actual county returns showed that the counties with the most votes still left to count, were for the most part going big for Obama. Thus the remaining votes were highly likely to give him a slim lead at the end. Which is exactly what happened.
144 - Note that the networks all rely heavily on AP which has a reporter stationed at every local election office to report returns directly to AP. Which often gets these reports before state election authorities do.
144 — surely most American counts are not at all random, since they are done by machine. I’d imagine (but do not actually know) that the 4% counted is not a random selection across the state but rather 100% counted from one small town.