Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 8, 2015 17:28:22 GMT
We covered the BBC's pathetic coverage of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. You'd think that following the numerous complaints that in covering the fact that she is now the longest reigning monarch in British history they would have put aside their own disdain for her position, but no. Hall likes to pretend that the BBC upholds British values, when in fact they wouldn't recognize those until they are shoved down their throat - literally.
That used to be a British value to deal with unmitigated unethical and immoral despots, and among many - still is.
That used to be a British value to deal with unmitigated unethical and immoral despots, and among many - still is.
Couldn't the BBC be bothered to celebrate our Queen properly? CHRISTOPHER STEVENS reviews last night's TV
By Christopher Stevens for Daily Mail
The BBC’s coverage of recent royal celebrations has been so grudging and lacklustre, you almost wonder if New Broadcasting House is stuffed full of republican Lefties.
The spectacularly inept coverage of the Diamond Jubilee in 2012, so dreadful that the Beeb actually issued a muttered apology afterwards, was one of the lowest points in the broadcaster’s 90-year history.
The vapid commentary from inane presenters was not just an affront to viewers, but downright disrespectful to the Crown, and drew thousands of complaints.
Among numerous awful moments was an interview by Radio 1 DJ Fearne Cotton with pop singer Paloma Faith, who sneered that the royal memorabilia on sale ought to include a sickbag.
Crass was hardly the word for it.
Auntie’s coverage of William and Kate’s wedding the previous year wasn’t much better, with viewers turning over in droves to watch on ITV.
As the Queen becomes the longest reigning monarch in British history tomorrow, this week offers a chance for the Corporation to redeem itself — but The Queen’s Longest Reign: Elizabeth And Victoria (BBC1) made a proper bungle of it.
The title appeared to be assembled from random words of approximate relevance, and the content was much the same.
The kindest interpretation is that the programme suffered from meddling by committee, with too many suits suggesting ‘improvements’ and imposing changes.
A more cynical mind might wonder if the Beeb could even be bothered to get it right.
This one-off documentary consisted of a zigzag narrative, supposed to convince us Elizabeth II and her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria were very alike.
The similarities were vague: neither was born the direct heir to the throne, both married good-looking men, both lived through eras of great change.
There was no real effort at analysis. If there had been, perhaps director Sally Norris would have realised there was a far more intriguing story in how intensely different the two were: Victoria self-indulgent, melodramatic and controlling; Elizabeth so self-disciplined and calm that she has ensured the future of the monarchy by sheer strength of will.
Moments of interest were thrown away. A picture flashed on screen for a couple of seconds, showing Prince Philip during wartime with a full beard that emphasised his likeness to Tsar Nicholas II.
And, apparently, as a child Victoria had 132 dolls, all of them listed in her own itemised inventory of royal toys.
Details like these were wasted, tossed between endless shots of statues and palaces, while violins and oboes played in the background.
The talking heads were less than convincing, too.
Professor Peter Hennessy assured us that when the 25-year-old Elizabeth came to the throne, Prime Minister Winston Churchill ‘was in love with her, there’s no other way of putting it, he was dotty about her’.
Really? Not according to royal author Ingrid Seward’s new biography, which revealed this month that, upon learning of George VI’s death, Churchill lamented in tears to his private secretary that the new Queen was only a child and he didn’t know how to work with her.
If a documentary skirts around awkward truths, it has no business on our screens.
The Queen’s remarkable milestone tomorrow deserved a brilliant tribute. It appears the BBC couldn’t be bothered to make one.
By Christopher Stevens for Daily Mail
The BBC’s coverage of recent royal celebrations has been so grudging and lacklustre, you almost wonder if New Broadcasting House is stuffed full of republican Lefties.
The spectacularly inept coverage of the Diamond Jubilee in 2012, so dreadful that the Beeb actually issued a muttered apology afterwards, was one of the lowest points in the broadcaster’s 90-year history.
The vapid commentary from inane presenters was not just an affront to viewers, but downright disrespectful to the Crown, and drew thousands of complaints.
Among numerous awful moments was an interview by Radio 1 DJ Fearne Cotton with pop singer Paloma Faith, who sneered that the royal memorabilia on sale ought to include a sickbag.
Crass was hardly the word for it.
Auntie’s coverage of William and Kate’s wedding the previous year wasn’t much better, with viewers turning over in droves to watch on ITV.
As the Queen becomes the longest reigning monarch in British history tomorrow, this week offers a chance for the Corporation to redeem itself — but The Queen’s Longest Reign: Elizabeth And Victoria (BBC1) made a proper bungle of it.
The title appeared to be assembled from random words of approximate relevance, and the content was much the same.
The kindest interpretation is that the programme suffered from meddling by committee, with too many suits suggesting ‘improvements’ and imposing changes.
A more cynical mind might wonder if the Beeb could even be bothered to get it right.
This one-off documentary consisted of a zigzag narrative, supposed to convince us Elizabeth II and her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria were very alike.
The similarities were vague: neither was born the direct heir to the throne, both married good-looking men, both lived through eras of great change.
There was no real effort at analysis. If there had been, perhaps director Sally Norris would have realised there was a far more intriguing story in how intensely different the two were: Victoria self-indulgent, melodramatic and controlling; Elizabeth so self-disciplined and calm that she has ensured the future of the monarchy by sheer strength of will.
Moments of interest were thrown away. A picture flashed on screen for a couple of seconds, showing Prince Philip during wartime with a full beard that emphasised his likeness to Tsar Nicholas II.
And, apparently, as a child Victoria had 132 dolls, all of them listed in her own itemised inventory of royal toys.
Details like these were wasted, tossed between endless shots of statues and palaces, while violins and oboes played in the background.
The talking heads were less than convincing, too.
Professor Peter Hennessy assured us that when the 25-year-old Elizabeth came to the throne, Prime Minister Winston Churchill ‘was in love with her, there’s no other way of putting it, he was dotty about her’.
Really? Not according to royal author Ingrid Seward’s new biography, which revealed this month that, upon learning of George VI’s death, Churchill lamented in tears to his private secretary that the new Queen was only a child and he didn’t know how to work with her.
If a documentary skirts around awkward truths, it has no business on our screens.
The Queen’s remarkable milestone tomorrow deserved a brilliant tribute. It appears the BBC couldn’t be bothered to make one.