uk f1 tv coverage - sky, bbc and ch4

[Akrapovic]

I haven't watched as hardcore as I used to for a few years, but I found Ted the opposite of that. When it was ITV, it was all so dumbed down it was beyond tabloid - it was just insulting how they spoke to you like you were a mentally disabled child. Explaining why pole positions are important, explaining why you need to change tyres at pit stops. Even refusing to go to adverts when Jenson was leading just in case you turn off. The entire broadcast quality was insulting.

Ted actually talks about technology, and asks questions that might be a little uncomfortable for certain people. He actually has knowledge which is utilised, and he does proper race run downs and analysis. Maybe his tone of voice can come over in that regard (like you say bella, his manner), but I don't think the content does. Having spent so long watching ITV, I considered Ted a huge breath of fresh air when BBC and Sky allowed him to unleash his inner geek.

Maybe team principles would enjoy it better if Mark Blundell was asking things like "Christian, Riccardo won the race, just how awesome is Riccardo?", but that isn't fun and we don't learn anything. I personally would prefer to know why Lewis was cost the race victory.

[Paradise City]

Kravitz stood his ground when he asked his question. I respect that.

Sky's post-race interrogation on Vettel's own manoeuvre on Hamilton was poor though. Was that Rachel Brookes handling the mike? Whoever it was let Vettel off the hook at that stage.

[Adam43]

I thought it fine up until the point where there wasn't the follow up question of "why did you drive into the side of Hamilton?". Up till then I thought it was going well as Vettel was giving us a lot of insight.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I thought it fine up until the point where there wasn't the follow up question of "why did you drive into the side of Hamilton?". Up till then I thought it was going well as Vettel was giving us a lot of insight.

Vettel would be forthcoming on his own problems with Hamilton though wouldn't he? That doesn't have to be coaxed out of him. Vettel's own villainy, now that's a touchy matter requiring talent from an interviewer to broach.

[Adam43]

I thought it was just beginning to show and that he was ignoring the elephant was highlighting, but you're right a good interviewer would have then pressed it. You don't have to be all Jeremy Paxman from the off to get a good interview, but you do need to know when to turn it on. Walking did make it difficult as Vettel wasn't trapped in the interview.

Still, a lost opportunity.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

That one of the reasons I dislike anything that involves the Murdock organizations and some of them are more than a bit tabloid.

Kravitz isn't in the Murdoch mould. He didn't approach Wolff looking for "head" to be served up on a platter or a body to be vilified or something.

He's bookish, nerdish guy and a stickler for details. He had a puzzle to solve and wanted Wolff to help him.

Wolff himself was probably in a state of some distress. We all saw his reaction shot over Hamilton's rest-thingy problem and hallucinated in Kravitz' question an intent to expand the controversy that just wasn't there.

[Adam43]

I get the anti-Murdoch thing, but I don't see the skyF1 coverage being super tabloid. Or, at least, not more that dumbed down stupid coverage you get everywhere. Same for most of their sports coverage (for the sports I watch). I'm not claiming it is the greatest thing ever, but not really tabliody (that is a new word).

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I get the anti-Murdoch thing, but I don't see the skyF1 coverage being super tabloid. Or, at least, not more that dumbed down stupid coverage you get everywhere. Same for most of their sports coverage (for the sports I watch). I'm not claiming it is the greatest thing ever, but not really tabliody (that is a new word).

They are very solid Sky. Lazenby -- whom I didn't like initially -- has gotten quite reasonable. Hill and Herbert work well together. There's no wild Jordan-esque clown-gossip on Sky. Kravitz isn't unlike a guy you'd find in RLM. I've no serious complaints about them.

[Adam43]

I agree, he could fit into RLM well. He's a bit of a prat sometimes, but no different to the rest of us. Especially round here. I suspect if you hate Ted, you hate a little bit of yourself.

[Akrapovic]

I'd take someone with boundless enthusiasm who is sometimes a bit of a prat, over the absolute droll of ITV. I think people have forgotten how bad the ITV days were, where James Allen didn't commentate on the race - just whatever Jenson Button was doing. Montoya was wheel to wheel with Raikkonen, but Jenson, who retired 14 laps ago, is having a sandwich and we need to know what filling it has. And then race run down by Mark Blundell, who'd tell you tyres are great because they keep the car off the ground.

The SkyF1 coverage is really good. But to be fair, most of it was lifted from the BBC coverage, which was absolutely brilliant, and IMO the best F1 coverage in the world, and for decades.

Of course, I'd rather have Sam Collins and Nick Damon arguing about the definition of hybrid on Radio Le Mans.

[Adam43]

That was a great argument. At the end of it I just thought both were wrong by the end! It was the radio equivalent of a TF110 and chernaudi discussion.

No on covers most sports like the Beeb. They are the standard bearer. The sky coverage is close. The small bit we lost in quality we gained massively in quantity (if you can be bothered). I'd have it back on the Beeb in a heartbeat. I'd sacrifice the quantity if I could chose, but it's not bad where it is.

The sky coverage is like the Beeb coverage! I agree, but where does that leave the Murdoch and Beeb lefty approach theories that you get every time you mention either. It probably shows the theories aren't as true as people's prejudices?

[S griffin]

I feel ITV raised the bar with more coverage, then the BBC did even better. Just a shame we get half he races live on freeview now

[bjohnsonsmith]

F1 could do with a 21st Century Murray Walker.

[Paradise City]

ITV is a mass broadcaster just tried to pull in everyone, so they had simplicitic punditry so even the most foolish would get it. Public broadcasters haven't that kind of pressure, so they've more breathing room to craft a solid middle brow product and Sky being a niche, dedicated channel has space to make a decent showing as well.

TBH, TV punditry in any sport annoys me generally (lots of cliche's n' chaff) so I kind of screen that out and join the race just before the start and when its finished and then later on digest what happened with my bros on here and read the literature during the week.

I did see the gridwalk on Sunday now that I think of it. Brundle chasin' Mariah Carey was very cringeworthy. I hate celebrities and I have a particular dislike for her. But it'll be a cold day in hell before any of the broadcasters abandon those type of antics I suppose.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

F1 could do with a 21st Century Murray Walker.

Ben Edwards has been the most solid since he retire. He's had so much experience in all types of motorsport and is very enthusiastic

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

ITV is a mass broadcaster just tried to pull in everyone, so they had simplicitic punditry so even the most foolish would get it.

ITV aren't a broadcaster. They sell advertising. Numbers is the game, not quality. sky might have adverts, but they need to sell subscriptions too. So don't annoy those into a sport who are likely to be annoyed. what you say about the beeb and sky fits this.

I did see the gridwalk on Sunday now that I think of it. Brundle chasin' Mariah Carey was very cringeworthy. I hate celebrities and I have a particular dislike for her. But it'll be a cold day in hell before any of the broadcasters abandon those type of antics I suppose.

I thought it was played well by Brundle, almost expectant of failure to tell us something about The Mariah. He rather let it down with the I love her music comment. I understand DC played it in a similar way on channel 4.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Adam43

ITV aren't a broadcaster. They sell advertising. Numbers is the game, not quality. sky might have adverts, but they need to sell subscriptions too. So don't annoy those into a sport who are likely to be annoyed. what you say about the beeb and sky fits this.

I thought it was played well by Brundle, almost expectant of failure to tell us something about The Mariah. He rather let it down with the I love her music comment. I understand DC played it in a similar way on channel 4.

Why do you say ITV aren't a broadcaster?

[Adam43]

I'm repeating a theory I once read years ago (possibly here?) that explained the style and quality of programmes on ITV.

Basically the BBC's purpose is to make good telly. ITV's purpose is to generate advertising income. Ideally with the highest audience (more income potential), with lowest cost. There are some nuances to this theory, but I quite liked it.

[bjohnsonsmith]

That's surely to do with programming and content, rather than whether ITV are a broadcaster or not.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Adam43

ITV aren't a broadcaster. They sell advertising. Numbers is the game, not quality. sky might have adverts, but they need to sell subscriptions too. So don't annoy those into a sport who are likely to be annoyed. what you say about the beeb and sky fits this.

Oh, yes they are. ITV do engage in the activity of broadcasting, ergo they are a broadcaster.

[Akrapovic]

They are a broadcaster, but I see what Adam is saying. BBC's first priority is to broadcast good TV. ITVs first priority is fitting as many ads in as they legally can, so the quality of broadcasting slips. They are a broadcaster but I understand what the theory is trying to say.

BBC are a television broadcaster
ITV are a way of getting ads to your home

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Oh, yes they are. ITV do engage in the activity of broadcasting, ergo they are a broadcaster.

I do know that, surely you realised I did? That is clear, self evident, goes without saying, and the base point. I was making an observation about the priorities of their business compared to other broadcasters.

[AdrianM]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

BBC are a television broadcaster
ITV are a way of getting ads to your home

By that token you could say a gentleman driver is the only pure racing driver as he's doing it for the love of it whereas professional drivers cram as many sponsors in as they can.

Not sure where EastEnders, Pitch Battle and the morning dross fit into the BBC only wanting to broadcast good TV. They are chasing ratings as much as anyone else otherwise they would find it even harder to justify the license fee if all the most watched programs were on other channels.

[Rob29]

Not sure why we are discussing the BBC here which has not covered any motorsport for years? Read somewhere that Sky are going to rename their sport channels-maybe I can cancel my subscription to all but the F1 channel which is the only one that covers any sport that I follow

[S griffin]

The only motorsport the BBC covers these days is F1 on Five Live. And also the odd documentary on the telly