Election Results, BBC vs. ITV

I watched the results programme last night for about 1 and a half hours.
I switched between BBC1 and ITV1, what I noticed was the ITV had more
results in than the BBC, EG BBC1 4 results and ITV1 8 results.
Were the BBC slower at getting results than ITV?
Or were the ITV in error?

--
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group.

David wrote:
I watched the results programme last night for about 1 and a half hours.
I switched between BBC1 and ITV1, what I noticed was the ITV had more
results in than the BBC, EG BBC1 4 results and ITV1 8 results.
Were the BBC slower at getting results than ITV?
Or were the ITV in error?


According to a thread in uk.media.tv.misc (sorry, I can't recall the
thread title) ITV have a habit of "pre-declaring" seats where they
consider the result to be a forgone conclusion.

--
Tony Walton

Tony Walton wrote:
According to a thread in uk.media.tv.misc (sorry, I can't recall the
thread title) ITV have a habit of "pre-declaring" seats where they
consider the result to be a forgone conclusion.

I guess they go on party claims and pre-announcement expressions as
indications - did they count any of the mistaken LibDem claims that
BBC mentioned?

Interestingly, Sky were slower, but seemed to display the counts
more quickly and overestimated Labour's majority (didn't believe
the BBC/ITN exit poll perhaps?).

Euronews and CNN both had very strange coverage of this one. I don't
remember either covering other national elections apart from the US.
Did I just not notice them?

Did anyone else notice that the sound went quieter and black
bars appeared at the edge of the widescreen image during local
results captions on BBC1?

Finally, BBC Parliament was carrying the Scotland coverage, but
Parlifax (Ceefax) was totally dormant. Shame.

--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

"David" wrote in message
...
I watched the results programme last night for about 1 and a half hours.
I switched between BBC1 and ITV1, what I noticed was the ITV had more
results in than the BBC, EG BBC1 4 results and ITV1 8 results.
Were the BBC slower at getting results than ITV?
Or were the ITV in error?

No, ITV were using unconfirmed information as fact.

"DB" wrote in message
...

"David" wrote in message
...
I watched the results programme last night for about 1 and a half
hours.
I switched between BBC1 and ITV1, what I noticed was the ITV had
more
results in than the BBC, EG BBC1 4 results and ITV1 8 results.
Were the BBC slower at getting results than ITV?
Or were the ITV in error?

No, ITV were using unconfirmed information as fact.


And then having to public backtrack...

Anyone else get confused by the BBC's virtual graphics? I could see
that John Snow's underfoot graphics were superimposed but I got
confused when they showed a shot of the BBC building with big neon
results signs on the front. Was that real or not? Should we be told?

Stan

MJ Ray wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the sound went quieter and black
bars appeared at the edge of the widescreen image during local
results captions on BBC1?

I noticed that on my 4:3 TV, the bottom of the picture from my Sky digibox
was cropped (the very bottom of the letters on the ticker tape was missing).
I don't think this is a TV issue - I've never noticed it before - and the
analogue 14:9 picture was fine. Any ideas?

KotF

On Fri, 6 May 2005 13:22:12 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
...

"David" wrote in message
...
I watched the results programme last night for about 1 and a half
hours.
I switched between BBC1 and ITV1, what I noticed was the ITV had
more
results in than the BBC, EG BBC1 4 results and ITV1 8 results.
Were the BBC slower at getting results than ITV?
Or were the ITV in error?

No, ITV were using unconfirmed information as fact.


And then having to public backtrack...

I downloaded and installed software from the BBC website so it
could alert me when the results were in for my constituency.
At 2 am it announced a Conservative gain. At about 6 am I
learned from News24 that Labour had kept the seat with a few thousand
majority. It was one of the more remote Tory target seats
one they would need to win to get a majority.

--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

In article , Stan The Man
writes
Anyone else get confused by the BBC's virtual graphics? I could see
that John Snow's underfoot graphics were superimposed but I got
confused when they showed a shot of the BBC building with big neon
results signs on the front. Was that real or not? Should we be told?

Not real, it's all done with mirrors you know

And I think it was Peter Snow.
--
Tim Mitchell

Kenny of the Fells wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:

Did anyone else notice that the sound went quieter and black
bars appeared at the edge of the widescreen image during local
results captions on BBC1?

The BBC English regional studios can only take the incoming *analogue*
(14:9 letterbox or 4:3) distribution feed from London.

This can be a problem during what the Beeb call 'soft opting'.
Soft opting is the period when the network feed is fed through the
local vision and audio mixers, normally a minute of so before they
actually opt out. On analogue this is not really noticeable, but
it is on DTT/D-Sat. Therefore normally the DVB output
is only switched via the local mixer during *actual* local material
(hard opt). GPIs from the vision mixer control when the DVB outputs cut
to and from local sources. At other times the BBC 1 signal seen on DVB
is the nationally distributed *digital* network feed.

Because the local studio were superimposing their own captions over the
network feed, this meant they had to 'hard opt' for the period, and
pretend that the network input was really a local source, hence the
black side bars, what you were seeing was the 14:9 analogue network
picture being ARC'd up to 16:9 for transmission on D-Sat and DTT.

The dip in audio is simply because the local audio mixer operator had
not equalised the levels correctly.

I noticed that on my 4:3 TV, the bottom of the picture from my Sky digibox
was cropped (the very bottom of the letters on the ticker tape was missing).
I don't think this is a TV issue - I've never noticed it before - and the
analogue 14:9 picture was fine. Any ideas?

Yes the ticker was at the limit of the 'safe area'. My TV was the same.
Its 'overscan' is bit too much.
Viewing on analogue (or if you had set your digibox to 16:9 letterbox)
they were visible, as they were obviously moved well into the scan area
of your TV.

Have a look at this page about half way down:-

http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/T...l#Aspect-Ratio

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply