I agree, and I'm not particularly a fan of the BBC. They should have cut to the studio, but they didn't. It was a mistake, a bad one, but a situation no one was prepared for. Perhaps now they will be. I have sympathy for the presenters who were visibly upset, particularly Alex Scott.I don’t think so. It was a very difficult situation for everyone, and the production team had to think on their feet and respond correctly in real time.
Sure, they made mistakes, but that’s all it was: a mistake. This wasn’t a cynical exploitation of tragedy, like you’d see from red top tabloid. I genuinely think it was just a case of ‘deer in the headlights’, and I imagine those responsible are probably feeling pretty bad about it.
What is very cynical, IMO, is the usual suspects exploiting this horrible situation by stoking another round of Beeb-bashing
there are protocols. There’s guidance that they shouldn’t broadcast people in distress.Was anyone else surprised there weren’t protocols in place with broadcasters for something like this? It’s happened often enough by now.
I turned the tv off the moment they showed Eriksen being given CPR. Just found it way too distressing to watch.I didn't look away but I was in utter disbelief on how they continued to air the CPR scenes and then his wife being consoled.
One of the BBC producers should have made the call to cut to any alternate angles they may have had but with the same audio.
how Long should people go on about it? Is 6 hours too long?How long we going on harp on about this for? Do we want to see loads of people sacked and their heads on poles outside The Tower of London?
Yes it was a mess, yes they shouldn't have shown it and yes they could have cut back to the studio. Make a complaint about it and the regulating body will deal with it. If you aren't happy with that boycott the BBC.
Who said I'm not happy about it?how Long should people go on about it? Is 6 hours too long?
has anyone said people should be sacked…
It’s almost as if we shouldn’t debate something on a forum…
If you aren’t happy with this - then boycott the Caf?
I agree with you. I guess it's down to one producer who makes that judgment call and they made the wrong decision.I turned the tv off the moment they showed Eriksen being given CPR. Just found it way too distressing to watch.
I didn’t see them showing his wife being consoled but my mate told me about it. The BBC showing that whilst she watched on in complete horror, very scared, deeply upset and massively worried at seeing her husband like that is just completely disrespectful and wrong on all levels.
What I don’t understand is they can quickly within a second cut away from showing a naked streaker or two running onto the pitch but can show someone completely scared and being consoled at the thought that she might possibly lose a loved one right in front of her is just absolutely disgusting.
you could say that about most threads/debates then.Who said I'm not happy about it?
I'm simply asking what people want from the situation. Everyone knows it shouldn't have happened. What's left to discuss?
I'm sure those who are outraged will continue to watch the BBC coverage of the tournament though..you could say that about most threads/debates then.
there are however people who don’t see a problem in the coverage - and so that’s probably the reason this persists.
so if you found the coverage offensive today - you have to boycott the BBC or what be a hypocrite?I'm sure those who are outraged will continue to watch the BBC coverage of the tournament though..
I guess if you're that disgusted with the BBC over it then logic would suggest you wouldn't bother with their coverage again. Like if you get a fly in your soup at a restaurant.so if you found the coverage offensive today - you have to boycott the BBC or what be a hypocrite?
I think you want the organisation to hold their hands up and say they got it wrong. Not blame the broadcaster. Everyone would accept that - it’s obviously an exceptional circumstance. No one expects perfect decisions. My personal issue is that they have currently taken no responsibility, where they could have cut the feed.I guess if you're that disgusted with the BBC over it then logic would suggest you wouldn't bother with their coverage again. Like if you get a fly in your soup at a restaurant.
Either that or you complain, accept someone messed up and move on with life.
What do you think?
I agree they should apologise for not cutting sooner. The Danish production team are a disgrace for having filmed it but the BBC could have chose not to show it quite easily.I think you want the organisation to hold their hands up and say they got it wrong. Not blame the broadcaster. Everyone would accept that - it’s obviously an exceptional circumstance. No one expects perfect decisions. My personal issue is that they have currently taken no responsibility, where they could have cut the feed.
whether they apologise or not - I’ll still watch their coverage. It’s not quite the same as your restaurant analogy (not a criticism) - as yes there’s a fly my soup, and maybe I’d like to go elsewhere, but it’s the only restaurant within 50 miles, so where else can I go?
I trust you'll be boycotting any football coverage provided by the Danish production team from now on?I agree they should apologise for not cutting sooner. The Danish production team are a disgrace for having filmed it but the BBC could have chose not to show it quite easily.
Why? I'm not repeatedly moaning about it.I trust you'll be boycotting any football coverage provided by the Danish production team from now on?
It’s funny that you agree with both the fundamental issue of what went wrong, and the action they should take, yet somehow are highly critical of people who are “repeatedly moaning about it”.I agree they should apologise for not cutting sooner. The Danish production team are a disgrace for having filmed it but the BBC could have chose not to show it quite easily.
The point is the BBC should put some kind of protocol in place. Yeah the producer made a bad call and yes the BBC will rightly receive some backlash (the company responsible will always receive the backlash, that’s just common) but the whole point is to learn from it and have a plan in place. It’s not just for football. There may be other events or scenarios where one might have to cut away from what’s happening and they should have some kind of protocol in place.I agree with you. I guess it's down to one producer who makes that judgment call and they made the wrong decision.
At the first sign of distress they could have cut the live feed and kept the audio if they felt that they wanted to portray live scenes without showing visuals. Now the BBC will get some backlash due to one person's overriding decision..
And I think that’s fair. Ultimately the point of the complaint is indeed to ensure they have a protocol in place. And perhaps hold their hands up and apologise. But mainly the former. So if you believe that’ll happen anyway then it’s fair enough to not complain.They got it wrong. They know that. They'll have a policy now that insures they won't react the same way should something similar ever happen again.
Given I'm very confident of all of that, I don't really see what complaining could achieve.
It’s not important, in your view. On the other hand I think it is important. The irony of moaning about people in the UK being keen to complain, yet you coming into this thread to complain about it ...People are keen to complain about non important things in the Uk. Evidence : This ridiculous thread.
Also, the whole country is told it’s closeted, all the while it’s actually pretty loose and liberal when it’s not told to be offended.
Anyone that has a problem with the BBC live coverage (that wasn’t cool)… check out The Daily Mail, Express, The Sun right now.
Monetising the incident.
Sure, they made mistakes, but that’s all it was: a mistake. This wasn’t a cynical exploitation of tragedy, like you’d see from red top tabloid. I genuinely think it was just a case of ‘deer in the headlights’, and I imagine those responsible are probably feeling pretty bad about it.
The Daily Mail is currently running this headline "What is way, way worse, is how haterags like the Daily Mail are reporting it, showing the footage and zoomed in photos of the incident. Broadcasters responded in real time as it happened. The gutter press have the benefit of hindsight ... The fact is, the BBC are going to receive immeasurably more complaints than the Daily Mail in the next 48 hours, without a doubt.
Hope so.I imagine this will break records for complaints
I thought the coverage zoomed out from Erikson as soon as the severity of it was clear - but it became a news story so no immediate need for BBC to pull away: under your scheme, we wouldn't have known anything about the terrorist attack at the Munich OlympicsNow I am not one to complain about coverage (actually, have never raised a complaint).
But I truly believe that people should be complaining about this. Hence just thought a specific thread for this was important - at least to me. Not sure if in the right section though.
Ignoring the criminal person in charge I. Denmark for UEFA for the overall coverage, I know BBC don’t control the actual camera footage at the game, but they DO control what they air i.e they could have cut away from that feed to the studio earlier.
I cut some slack for some of the initial footage when it was clear it was serious but not clear how serious (and that’s a fine judgment to make, so should give some benefit of doubt). But we are talking minutes. We are talking broadcasting CPR and use of a defibrillator. We are talking zooming in to his wife/GF.
Like I said I know they weren’t in charge of those shots. But they damn well could and should have stopped that feed long before giving the feed the chance to show it. It’s appalling. Like, we’ve seen how quickly they pan way from pitch invaders for example.
This, people complain about everything and anything these days.Jesus Christ get a grip,
This wasn’t a planned event, it must of been a distressing event for everyone there and pure shock, you could have easily just switched channel, it’s not always about people like you and your sensitive feelings
As well they should. The BBC should be held to a higher standard. People can choose whether to fund the Daily Mail or not.the BBC will receive far more complaints than any tabloid
One of the worst ABU commentators that was out there, his departure was long overdue.Alan Green
That, tooIf we should be complaining about anything it’s Jenas.
It’s glorious how badly he’s taken it.One of the worst ABU commentators that was out there, his departure was long overdue.
But are unable to use the channel changer or the on/off switch.This, people complain about everything and anything these days.
But you continued watching presumablyNow I am not one to complain about coverage (actually, have never raised a complaint).
But I truly believe that people should be complaining about this. Hence just thought a specific thread for this was important - at least to me. Not sure if in the right section though.
Ignoring the criminal person in charge I. Denmark for UEFA for the overall coverage, I know BBC don’t control the actual camera footage at the game, but they DO control what they air i.e they could have cut away from that feed to the studio earlier.
I cut some slack for some of the initial footage when it was clear it was serious but not clear how serious (and that’s a fine judgment to make, so should give some benefit of doubt). But we are talking minutes. We are talking broadcasting CPR and use of a defibrillator. We are talking zooming in to his wife/GF.
Like I said I know they weren’t in charge of those shots. But they damn well could and should have stopped that feed long before giving the feed the chance to show it. It’s appalling. Like, we’ve seen how quickly they pan way from pitch invaders for example.
Yes, both are insane choices but Sunday was less insane. At least they would have had a night to calm down. Why did they choose to play yesterday then? That was even worse if they were really so shocked, no doubt they were.Letting the game go on was an even bigger disgrace. UEFA are even defending the decision now afterwards calling it the players' choice.
They gave Denmark two insane choices: play now or play tomorrow at 12. How is any of those scenarios feasonable options when you just witnessed a close friend close to dying. Like you'd be able to sleep that night or gather your thoughts. It takes some serious cnuts to also defend the decision in this way afterwards. Mæhle who (didnt) defend the finnish goal was clearly somewhere else. Kjær subbed himself out as he couldnt cope with it all. Utter disgrace from UEFA - they really should reveice numerous complaints. Inhuman.
