BBC coverage of Obama inauguration

specki4eyes Mon 21-Jan-13 21:39:46

What in heavens' name were the BBC News team thinking this afternoon? The reporters and their guests blethered on for the best part of an hour before the ceremony and then, when the ceremony started, they continued to do so! The opening speeches were inaudible behind the presenters verbal diarrhoea; a Tabernacle cihoir sang their highly rehearsed and moving piece - again inaudible to viewers. I switched to Sky News before the swearing in and speeches because I feared they were also going to be talked over. What is it the BBC doesn't get about these events? Why, when we sit down to watch history being made, do we have to listen to presenters spouting rubbish and evidently not watching their monitors to note that the event is happening? Is it me?

Add comment | Report

annodomini Mon 21-Jan-13 22:40:33

I quite agree, Specki. I think the point needs to be made to the BBC news team. They didn't chat over the swearing in and the speeches, but it was very bad manners to witter on over the singing.

Add comment | Report

Ana Mon 21-Jan-13 22:43:36

You'd think they'd have learned a lesson after the criticism of their coverage of the Jubilee celebrations - Sky got all the praise then.

Add comment | Report

POGS Tue 22-Jan-13 00:39:51

I think the BBC has lost the plot full stop.

I prefer to watch Sky on Freeview and Aljazeera for better world coverage. The BBC is no longer the worlds best new maker I'm afraid to say.

As for the inauguration I agree it was not the best in the west. confused

Why must they keep sending so many staff to cover overseas stuff anyway, surely it is not beyond the whit of man to get coverage from american stations and save money. The news coverage is poor, teletext is not up-dated quickly, they have to do everyting in 2's and they are rubbish with their interviewing skills, downright b----y rude at times. Sky presenters are much better.

Moan over. grin