Turning-point for the BBC? - the new DG

**Paul Sherratt** · 04-06-12, 14:30

Unlikely Caliban. BBC tv producers and managers don't know any better.

**Wallace** · 04-06-12, 14:34

Unlikely.
The BBC defended its coverage. A spokesman said: "We're very proud of the quality and breadth of the BBC's coverage of this extraordinary event."

**Lateralthinking1** · 04-06-12, 14:42

Stephen Fry uses baby language all the time, when not indulging in inverted snobbery - while Wossy, 51, is hardly the new Alvar Liddell. It will be Clarkson next. If these really have to be the spokesmen of my generation, let's hand the influence back over to those considerably older or very quickly onto those younger. They might be right about this issue but they are unelected popes. We've heard more than enough of them to last several lifetimes. They merely epitomise the failings of a specific age group in this country - no leadership, humility, balance, connection, vision or depth. The trivialities yesterday seem profound by comparison.

**Serial_Apologist** · 04-06-12, 14:42

I've been wondering the same question as that posed by this thread's title all morning.

How much longer is it before the DG goes??

**Nick Armstrong** · 04-06-12, 14:43

Originally posted by Wallace View Post

Unlikely.
The BBC defended its coverage. A spokesman said: "We're very proud of the quality and breadth of the BBC's coverage of this extraordinary event."

I wonder if the unanimity of condemnation might make everyone realise at last how meaningless such self-justifying platitudes are, and make the BBC hierarchy confront the reality of how the trend to mediocrity betrays our trust (and the Trust).

**MrGongGong** · 04-06-12, 14:44

Originally posted by Caliban View Post

I wonder if the unanimity of condemnation might make everyone realise at last how meaningless such self-justifying platitudes are, and make the BBC hierarchy confront the reality of how the trend to mediocrity betrays the trust (and the Trust).

Sorry , I don't think so

**Tevot** · 04-06-12, 14:44

Hello Caliban.

Sadly I'm inclined to disagree. This attack isn't about poor standards - it is essentially an attack on the statist BBC.

Leveson points to the thinking of the current powers that be.

Ironically the perception of a patronising BBC along the lines of the "Third Programme"- led to the drivetime culture we have now.

The MP you mention (perhaps a Tory?) has only one state institution to defend at heart perhaps - The Monarchy . Could it perchance be that other institutions - BBC / NHS - can be sold off by the pound?

Best wishes,

Tevot (one of the squeezed 99%)

**salymap** · 04-06-12, 16:57

To borrow a phrase from the Iron Lady ' You turn if you want to; Aunty's not for turning'.

**MickyD** · 04-06-12, 17:09

Apart from anything else, I was bitterly disappointed to see only a misty long shot of about ten seconds of the barge carrying The Academy of Ancient Music playing Handel. What a let-down.

**french frank** · 04-06-12, 17:10

My mind was moving in the same direction as Caliban's as I read the criticisms. There are all sorts of parallels, and the BBC response was what one has come to expect.

If the criticisms are widespread, and they get a lot of complaints, it might shake the Trust out of its sleep-walking torpor.

**mangerton** · 04-06-12, 17:33

Originally posted by Caliban View Post

The BBC shambles that was its river pageant coverage seems to be meeting a rising tide of criticism e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-coverage.html

"Low grade, celebrity driven drivel. How did Beeb get it so wrong?" said one MP.

The phrase sounds familiar.

Might this herald a reconsideration of the tendency towards patronising, infantilised 'drivel' that has spoiled so much of the BBC's output, including Radio 3?

Having listened to R4's "PM", and the vox pop they did at Buckingham Palace before tonight's concert, I regret to say that it's highly unlikely.

I lost count of the "amazings" and "brilliants".

**Petrushka** · 04-06-12, 17:39

Originally posted by french frank View Post

My mind was moving in the same direction as Caliban's as I read the criticisms.

As was mine. One wonders if what the BBC says in public and what it says behind closed doors will be the same thing. This was always going to be a tricky event in which to get the tone exactly right as there was no real precedent for such an event. The funereal tones of a latter-day R. Dimbleby would have wildly inappropriate to a mood of celebration but the CeeBeebies presentation as seen yesterday was truly a new low. Comments elsewhere on the internet and in the press are practically unanimous in their condemnation and the BBC can't just shrug it off. Will there be blood on the carpet?

**Word** · 04-06-12, 17:57

I suspect it will be used as an argument for even less 'worthy' programming on the basis that the public supposedly wants another hour of The Voice or some other dreadful talent show rather than three or four hours coverage of a state occasion.
(That said, I think yesterday was always a hiding to nothing, compounded by the bad weather. I'm sure even the Queen would rather have been at home watching the tennis from Roland Garros on the other channel.)

**Pegleg** · 04-06-12, 18:04

Originally posted by Petrushka View Post

the BBC can't just shrug it off.

I think that's exactly what they will do.

Will there be blood on the carpet?

Only if you let me in Broadcasting House and White City HQ. The BBC deserves a simultaneous broadside and raking for yesterday's lamentable TV coverage. No music, no sense of history, no interest in detail, just endless empty presentational prattle in a hideous hybrid style of "Blue Peter" and a Crystal Palace track meet. Never in a month of Sundays would I have expected to find the Sky News coverage far more accpetable.