uk f1 tv coverage - sky, bbc and ch4

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Derwent

I do wonder why on so many motoring programmes we have to have non motorsport people doing the presenting. [...] I wonder what the reaction would be if they put either of them as lead on Match of the Day?

Probably the same reaction there was when Kenneth Wolstenholme, David Coleman or Des Lynam were the leads...

Sometimes motorsport people present tv shows - sometimes tv presenters present tv shows.

[Aysedasi]

Coleman and Wolstenholme generally knew what they were talking about...

[bella]

you need somebody on the coverage to represent the viewer, especially when it’s something highly technical and specialist like f1 that you’re broadcasting to people who may lack specialist knowledge or who just don’t take it all quite so seriously.

the skill is in finding someone like jake humphries who you don’t notice quite so much, who can lead the experts into saying accessible things. especially someone like webber who hides all this knowledge behind cliche bingo.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Greem

Channel Four is 90% funded by ad revenue and a further 10% from the government (so UK taxpayers).

They can cover F1 by the sale of high value advertising slots.

This is all somewhat confused by the intent of HMG to privatise C4, because they're the one broadcaster that repeatedly asks awkward questions of the government. Of course, that's my opinion, and there are many more!

Funded by the government, or funded by the TV license fee from which the government appropriates money for other uses?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wnut

Funded by the government, or funded by the TV license fee from which the government appropriates money for other uses?

I am fairly certain that all the licence fee revenue, which is collected for the BBC by an outside contractor, actually goes to the BBC less the administrative costs incurred in it's collection. The Beeb's revenue is also boosted by their other revenue streams.

I believe that Channel 4's funding comes from Treasury revenue from general taxation.

[Anyopenroad]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I believe that Channel 4's funding comes from Treasury revenue from general taxation.

C4 is 90% funded by ad revenue, the rest from commercial activities like its studios. It receives no public funding, whether from tax, license fee or any other source. It is owned entirely by the state and has some public service broadcasting obligations, but is financially self-sufficient.

[chavez]

Originally Posted by bella

you need somebody on the coverage to represent the viewer, especially when it’s something highly technical and specialist like f1 that you’re broadcasting to people who may lack specialist knowledge or who just don’t take it all quite so seriously.

the skill is in finding someone like jake humphries who you don’t notice quite so much, who can lead the experts into saying accessible things. especially someone like webber who hides all this knowledge behind cliche bingo.

Absolutely! This post wins the internet today.

A great example is Paul Page who would draw the information from Bobby Unser by playing the role of the viewer.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by bella

you need somebody on the coverage to represent the viewer, especially when it’s something highly technical and specialist like f1 that you’re broadcasting to people who may lack specialist knowledge or who just don’t take it all quite so seriously.

Agreed - and I think Steve Jones does a good job of that - I can however see why he might not be to everyone's taste.

Originally Posted by bella

.... someone like webber who hides all this knowledge behind cliche bingo.

I thinnk Channel 4 could lose Webber without the coverage suffering at all - you don't need Coulthard and Webber, they both bring the same thing to the table and Coulthard is just better at it.

[S griffin]

I think Steve Jones has done an excellent job. Considering he came in as an F1 virgin in terms of knowledge, he certainly has managed to really get into the sport and show enthusiasm for it.

[Aysedasi]

I don't have a problem with Steve Jones, although he can be a bit OTT at times. I also like Webber and Coulthard together. I'd like to have more of Billy Monger, and like most others, I'd like to have Ben Edwards back..... At least we're not having to suffer Eddie Jordan.....

[Tourer]

Both Croft and Pinkham on Sky were pretty pathetic regarding Lando's shunt today - both trying to fire up controversy in hindsight about whether Q3 should have been started when it was - both shut down by the commentators who actually know what they're talking about, both then agreed with the relevant expert but still kept chirping a bit about it.

Pretty sad really - don't know why they think they need to stir up controversy when there's plenty of actual action to cover?

[EastonNeston]

I'm just enjoying the lack of Kravitz, the coverage from Sky is so much better without his "village idiot" level contributions.

[john ruston]

….and some of us like Ted despite his occasional odd views. Quirky viewing.

[S griffin]

Ted is doing the W Series coverage on C4. Did alright to keep the show together during the delay

[EastonNeston]

Excellent work by David Croft, Martin Brundle, Karun Chandock & Ant Davidson to fill almost four hours of very limited action.
Worthy of TMS at it's best.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by EastonNeston

Excellent work by David Croft, Martin Brundle, Karun Chandock & Ant Davidson to fill almost four hours of very limited action.
Worthy of TMS at it's best.

"Excellent work by David Croft.."
May I just stop you there a moment please?

Although you did exclude Dull Resta from your praise. He really ought to be able to string a simple sentence together by now?! Painful listening.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by john ruston

….and some of us like Ted despite his occasional odd views. Quirky viewing.

Indeed we do, I enjoy Ted too.

[Adam43]

He’s an enthusiast. Not the main man on the coverage, but loves the sport. He’s fine and works well in all the practices when he’s rightly given more time.

[EastonNeston]

The perfect amount of time for Kravitz is Zero, he really adds nothing to the coverage at all, either repeating information thats already been provided, in a more elequent manner, or he'll be inflicting verbal excrement with no value whatsoever. The low point was at the Spanish GP when he was talking excrement about avian excrement in a car park.
That is not what we pay our subscriptions to watch.

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by EastonNeston

The perfect amount of time for Kravitz is Zero, he really adds nothing to the coverage at all, either repeating information thats already been provided, in a more elequent manner, or he'll be inflicting verbal excrement with no value whatsoever. The low point was at the Spanish GP when he was talking excrement about avian excrement in a car park.
That is not what we pay our subscriptions to watch.

Maybe the last sentence should have “I” instead of “we”.
I’m in the pro Ted group.

[Akrapovic]

Pro Ted here. Him and Brundle are the best on it.

[Mystery]

Pro Ted as well but each to their own. Frankly I'm glad I had MotoGP and BTCC in order to avoid all the filing

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by EastonNeston

I'm just enjoying the lack of Kravitz, the coverage from Sky is so much better without his "village idiot" level contributions.

He would fit right in on BBC Radio 5

[The Fat Clerk]

He's dumb enough for any BBC programme.

[john ruston]

In defence of BBC!
They have some very good people but unfortunately a few high profile idiots
Certainly their license fee is a lot better value for money than Sky’s astronomical sums