What did you think of the BBC TV local elections results program on Thursday night?

Well – the BBC TV coverage of the local election results has come in for a lot of flack, particulary for the Jeremy Vince / American Wild West shootout stuff. Of course the bit I appeared in was perfect! But overall – did the coverage give the depth of information you were interested in? Was it a successful attempt to make election results interesting? Or an awful trivialisation?

Vote in my poll and have your say – and of course comments welcome too.
(One vote per IP address)

0 thoughts on “What did you think of the BBC TV local elections results program on Thursday night?

  1. LynneNot one of your gang, but thought I’d take the opportunity to bash the Beeb.The coverage was poor, and each Jeremy Vine interlude riled me more and more. It was peurile stuff, and even the basic number crunching was so tuuuuuurgid – he was hanging the results in the air like it was the end of some pathetic ‘talent’ show.When he started on the shoot-out I turned over to catch bits of motor racing, police chases, snooker, even women having bits of their internals removed on camera – anything but Jeremy Vine.Ditch Dimblebore, Eddie Mair has got to be the main man now. King sounds good, but has developed a good face for radio. John Culshaw was so naff it was untrue, and Portillo is now a parody of Edward Heath’s Miserable, Bitter & Twisted Yesterday’s Man existence.The politicians can do well or badly, but the hosts and support bods should be better. Much much better.But why no ITV coverage ?.W.PS – Come on Boris !

  2. The BBC has decided the story was Lib Dem losses, and prepared graphics. Unfortunately when we failed play our part and did rather well, they still churned out “you’ve done badly” line and had a graphic with 25% well below 23%!

  3. Jeremy Vine’s stuff was diabolical. And they invited John Culshaw back for more awful, awful impressions. If the people making the programme find the subject so boring that they need that rubbish, can I suggest they are the wrong people to be making it?The viewers who stay up through the night to watch that coverage are politicos. They are not interested in that kind of tosh.The worst of it is that the rubbishy Vine parts are not without efforts. There’s CGI effects involved which means the BBC has used its resources for a load of nonsense that is panned by almost everyone. What a waste of public money.David Dimbleby is looking a bit tired too.

  4. Jeremy Vine is embarrassing at the best of times, but he excelled himself last night. Terrible. I also felt there was little hard info for the political junkies like me – and I suspect we make up the audience at 3am. Needs a full makeover before the General Election. You looked very nice Lynn.

  5. Jeremy Vine was just embarrassing and I am sure many must have turned off or over whenever he appeared (as I do when he comes on Radio 2 at lunchtime).The BBC must find someone better before the next General Election.The programme did seem have more problems than you would expect from the BBC. I don’t know whether that was lack of rehearsal, lack of money or just the way that the BBC has to rely so much now on outside production companies.

  6. Undoubtedly the most determinedly anti-Lib Dem commentator on TV is the appallingly arrogant Andrew Neil. To have Chris Huhne as a guest and not let him get a word in because Andrew was having so much fun mocking Hazel Blears and rejoicing in Tory gains was worse (if that’s possible) than the standard “There-are-really-only-two-parties” line from the dreaded Dimblebore.

  7. Can you sort out the poll, please Lynne? All I can see is an error message.Jeremy Vine was cringe-making, but you were whatever the opposite is of that! Well done.

  8. Echoing everyone else: Vine is an embarrassment. I’m glad Alix pointed it out live on air too.

  9. The whole thing was exceptionally weak, seemed designed to aspire to the status of light entertainment – it’s the kind of coverage I expect the 6 o’clock news will have descended to in five years time. To see it this soon and for such an important event is nothing short of depressing.Anyone who’s stayed up long past midnight deserves information, analysis, data, accurate charts and percentages, in-depth reviews of local situations. By treating an audience (that they could reasonably expect to be disproportionately comprised of political junkies) like ill-informed children was condescending, arrogant, rude, and a total waste of money. I’m normally a defender of Auntie, Radio4 is worth the licence fee alone (the decline in Today excepted), but they really should be ashamed of this year’s election night.

  10. Jennie has stolen my vote already it seems, but assures me it was what I’d have voted (ie: very bad). We were both swearing at the TV each time Vine came on, none of the graphics sets made any sense and each was both pathetic and unfunny.I don’t understand why they do it considering the only people staying up are politics wonks—we all know how the system works so patronising juvenilia just seems completely misplaced. Ah well, it’s our money after all.Still, at least they had the sense to put Alix on, more please.

  11. I became bored with the TV show at 1:30am so went to bed. I do not understand why these programmes are so jam-packed with MPs (sorry Lynn, think you are lovely!).There should have been representatives from the Local Government Association, and maybe the editors of Municipal Journal and Local Government Chronicle giving an analysis.These were LOCAL elections, and so local stories should have been the premium agenda item here, not the hopes that Gordon will survive.I heard Southampton fall – and would have liked to hear why LibDems and Lab created a coalition before the election? LibDems held Cheltenham… so what had the Tories done which had riled the local electorate to return to the LibDems?As for who should front this entertainment programme in the future? How about Emily Maitlis – she is such a bright button, surely our only hope for bright political reporting?

  12. I couldn’t understand why they kept going to London City Hall, when they weren’t going to start counting the votes until the next day.And they’ve got the wrong idea of what to use graphics for; they’re supposed to illuminate, not entertain.