Derfel Cadarn Posted April 12, 2021 Share Posted April 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Werthead said: Both my grandmothers predeceased my grandfathers and both my grandfathers lived for more than a decade afterwards. The Queen is also pretty indefatigable. Whilst it's certainly not impossible this could have an impact (plus she's 94, when getting very mild illnesses or injuries can be an issue), it's far from a given. She could just as easily live as long as her mother if not longer, and her mother survived her father by fifty years. The Queen living to 149 is less likely, although it would be amusing just for the impact on Charles. She should also consider the benefits of cryofreeze, with her head wheeled out once a year to deliver a pre-recorded Queen's Speech in perpetuity and stare unblinkingly at the PM once per week. I think you might be onto something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted April 12, 2021 Share Posted April 12, 2021 BBC’s Prince Philip coverage breaks UK TV complaints record Quote The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history, as viewers expressed their annoyance that shows such as EastEnders and MasterChef were replaced with royal tributes. At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband. BBC One and BBC Two dedicated Friday evening’s programming to Philip, and their ratings fell as viewers switched off altogether, turned to streaming services or watched shows such as Gogglebox on Channel 4. According to an internal BBC complaints log seen by the Guardian, an unprecedented level of viewer feedback was received over the weekend, meaning the coverage appears to have elicited one of the most negative reactions to BBC programmes ever seen. Who'd have thought that having this shoved down people's throats would prompt such a negative reaction, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soylent Brown Posted April 12, 2021 Share Posted April 12, 2021 It was absolutely bizarre. All they needed to do was dedicated a couple of channels / stations to coverage, and have everything else reference it often so people who wanted to could tune in, and instead they did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted April 12, 2021 Author Share Posted April 12, 2021 The British have an unusual sense of humor. I bet someone at the BBC said, "let's do wall-to-wall Philip coverage until they start to scream!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted April 12, 2021 Share Posted April 12, 2021 9 minutes ago, Soylent Brown said: It was absolutely bizarre. All they needed to do was dedicated a couple of channels / stations to coverage, and have everything else reference it often so people who wanted to could tune in, and instead they did that. Does this not just speak to the relationship between the royal family and the U.K.'s media titans? I was reading a few weeks back that the former goes out of their way to wine and dine the latter to make sure they get incredibly positive press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Which Tyler Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 4 hours ago, Spockydog said: BBC’s Prince Philip coverage breaks UK TV complaints record Who'd have thought that having this shoved down people's throats would prompt such a negative reaction, eh? And yet it was still continuing yesterday. It really was a great weekend to bury bad news - Cameron's attempted corruption barely got a look in, and you have to wonder how much other shit got simply ignored in favour of random idiot #72,837 being interviewed about their DofE bronze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 The BBC also set up a specific form to complain about whether there was too much coverage. Which is a bit odd. Its not really surprising that the internet latched onto that news and went with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A wilding Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 I remember that on the day the Duke died I momentarily thought that my car radio had broken - every channel was broadcasting the same output. My guess is that the BBC deliberately erred on the side of too much coverage because they are running scared of the government. They are far more happy about a massive wave of complaints that they have overdone it, than they would have been with having a bunch of right wing Tory MPs complaining loudly that their "insufficient" coverage was disrespectful and unpatriotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 Or maybe the Duke of Edinburgh had died, the husband of the Queen, someone who had been important to the people of Britain for decades.. and maybe that was seen to be of some relevance. I get the republican sentiment in this place is rife, but it seems kinda blinkered to not see how it might be something that other people think is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 12 minutes ago, Heartofice said: I get the republican sentiment in this place is rife, but it seems kinda blinkered to not see how it might be something that other people think is important. The only reason people think someone like Philip is important is because the media talk about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted April 13, 2021 Author Share Posted April 13, 2021 17 minutes ago, Rippounet said: The only reason people think someone like Philip is important is because the media talk about them. Lol, isn’t that a kind of the chicken or the egg matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 27 minutes ago, Rippounet said: The only reason people think someone like Philip is important is because the media talk about them. Hmmmm.... Ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Cadarn Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 47 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Or maybe the Duke of Edinburgh had died, the husband of the Queen, someone who had been important to the people of Britain for decades.. and maybe that was seen to be of some relevance. I get the republican sentiment in this place is rife, but it seems kinda blinkered to not see how it might be something that other people think is important. And they devoted multiple channels for hours on end to ensure the British people knew of any sudden change to Prince Philip’s status...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soylent Brown Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 The idea that every single radio station and television channel needed to be broadcasting the exact same thing is utterly cretinous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 8 minutes ago, Soylent Brown said: The idea that every single radio station and television channel needed to be broadcasting the exact same thing is utterly cretinous. Isn’t that what tends to happen when there is any major news event? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soylent Brown Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 A dozen or so channels/stations all completely stopping what they're doing and going to continuous coverage? Not in my experience. And what's going to happen when the Queen finally pops off? Are we all going to die horrible slow deaths because supermarkets and the water and electric companies have shut down for a month out of respect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 48 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Isn’t that what tends to happen when there is any major news event? Serious question: when was the last time the BBC did what they did last weekend? I shan't hold my breath waiting for your response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 49 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Isn’t that what tends to happen when there is any major news event? Maybe in the sixties, when there was only one channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 9 minutes ago, Soylent Brown said: A dozen or so channels/stations all completely stopping what they're doing and going to continuous coverage? Not in my experience. And what's going to happen when the Queen finally pops off? Are we all going to die horrible slow deaths because supermarkets and the water and electric companies have shut down for a month out of respect? Really? You don’t think if a major event happened that the major tv stations wouldn’t stop what they were doing and cover it? You don’t think it happened when princess diana died for instance?! Also let’s actually talk about the reality here, the BBC had a lot of coverage, but then it’s the national broadcaster. Channel 4 did an obituary programme, a slightly extended news and then went back to normal. Itv also did an extended news. Why would you expect anything different. Basically this comes down to ‘other people care about something I don’t care about, therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to be catered to’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 Once again, when was the last time the BBC had all their channels broadcasting the same thing due to a major news event? The irony of your last sentence is fucking ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.