Was the coverage of the royal baby biased and too long

This poll is closed

Was the coverage of the royal baby too long and biased to the royal family

YES 80%

NO20%

Total votes: 46

this is not a debate about the royal family but about the coverage of the royal family baby birth. The bbc gave at least 2 days non stop rolling coverage of the royal baby birth and it was top of the news agenda the night given the war in Syria or teachers strike.
15% of the population think we should scrap the royal family , according to guide lines tv channels are meant to deliver news in a fair and balanced way, and given that the royal family are a political entity does this not warrant that at least the BBc funded with tax payers money should have attempted to be more balanced.

(edited 10 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Clip

War in the middle east and teachers bitching about their lives happen all the time. Heirs to thrones only pop up once in a while.

Reply 2

Rajvir

Q. What the coverage of the royal baby biased and too long?

A. Defiantly, got sick and tired of the news about the royal baby. Had to turn the TV off eventually.

Reply 3

Ripper-Roo

Yep, the BBC was dreadful. It's made it seem like everyone was excited about the royal baby. When speaking to someone from another country they were shocked that I didn't care about it. The BBC is impartial? To hell is it impartial. :colonhash:

Reply 4

Plainview

The coverage of the coverage of the royal baby on this website is too long.

Reply 5

Isambard Kingdom Brunel

I wanted the Royal Baby to turn out black. Would have been funny to see the Daily Mail's reaction to their future King. :biggrin:

Reply 6

Maid Marian

Biased against what? :lolwut:

Reply 7

rcummins1

Original post by Maid Marian

Biased against what? :lolwut:

Royalists and pro-Monarchy supporters I presume he means.

Reply 8

Poseidon hero

Original post by Clip

War in the middle east and teachers bitching about their lives happen all the time. Heirs to thrones only pop up once in a while.

Yes when a royal baby pops out you can just do a pop out report not a all day long report and at least dont make the coverage seem like the brit public are a bunch of royal family worshipers and would drive to the palace just to hear a baby as been born.

Reply 9

contrapositive

It's obvious it was too long when the ITV presenters had to comment on everything Kate and William did: "The Prince will be driving himself;" "Safety, the Prince is putting his seatbelt on." They even measured the time it took to put the baby seat in the car, 7 seconds apparently. What has this country come to.

Reply 10

contrapositive

Original post by Isambard Kingdom Brunel

I wanted the Royal Baby to turn out black. Would have been funny to see the Daily Mail's reaction to their future King. :biggrin:

It wouldn't have been a future king then, bastard children can't inherit the throne.

Reply 11

Rooster523

Original post by Maid Marian

Biased against what? :lolwut:

Bias doesn't necessarily mean you're against something.

Bias is just a one-sided, not neutral viewpoint. You can be in favour of something and show bias toward it.

Reply 12

Poseidon hero

Original post by Maid Marian

Biased against what? :lolwut:

The royal family is apolitical entity so when you are doing reports u can be positive about the royal family and interview people who love them But at least give a substantial amount of coverage as well to people who disagree with a royal family.
OR you could just report the royal baby has been born simple.

Reply 13

dean01234

I wouldn't mind too much if they had new stuff to say all the time.

That same ****ing door was pretty much all I saw on the news for like 2 days... Then I see an interview with the crowd and there are two drunk Essex women trying to guess the name of the baby, I mean come on did anyone in the whole country actually care what they had to say? The news was just trying to dedicate as much time as possible to the royal baby, and they had literally nothing to say.

Reply 14

ChocolateMelody

It was quite obvious they had no news, all they needed to do was give short updates on the news: 'she's in labour', 'she's given birth', 'they will leave the hospital at 6pm this evening' etc, not a continuous stream of nothingness. While it was exciting that we were about to have a new heir to the throne, the 48 hours of complete drivel coming from the BBC with useless speculation about things that nobody cares about was painful to watch.

Reply 15

Superunknown17

Yes and what a quite astounding waste of time it was, I usually just keep BBC News on some days and I couldn't get a decent news story because that progressively dull coverage.

Reply 16

-aimz

I agree that they did drag out the same story by repeating the very small amount of details again and again, but it is silly season (an actual media phenomenon that I studied at uni!), and for a big story like this to happen means a lot of airtime can be filled.

Reply 17

Xotol

The BBC is absolutely **** now anyway, so I wouldn't have expected anything else.

I don't get why they couldn't have just hyped it up in the 6 and 10pm news, instead of abandoning all coverage and spending non stop hours literally reporting nothing.

I'll admit that the 'it's a black baby' had me rolling.

Original post by contrapositive

It wouldn't have been a future king then, bastard children can't inherit the throne.

Joffrey.

Reply 18

russellsteapot

It was a bit long for my liking, but my granny enjoyed it. Royal births are major news events, and it'd be a shame to see them offered limited coverage because a few people don't like the monarchy. News tends to show things which they feel will do the most to increase their viewing rates. Replacing the baby with the same Syria report we've been seeing for the last 10 days isn't really respecting that method. If people want to see it, they'll put it on there. Doesn't even have to be a majority, just sufficient to make good TV news.

I remember watching the last few Popes popping out onto the balcony, but I'm not remotely Catholic. I didn't feel it was biased, it's obviously a major world news event. We had quite a lot of coverage of Beatrix abdicating in the Netherlands.

I'm not a fan of constant blanket coverage, but I just turned it off without much of a thought. There are enough channels around, and enough news sources, to make it pretty easy to find something else to watch. It isn't biased, it's just significant news for a lot of people.