The BBC Fail thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Bring back Steve Rider as host.

A no nonsense journalist who had a genuine interest in Formula One.

Always used to remeber Grandstand and the difference in attitude when Steve introduced F1 - lots of enthusiasm - and then when Des Lynam introduced it - really couldn't give a ****!

Jake has got it into his head that he is Mr F1 now and can do what he likes. He'll soon piss off the paddock unless he shows some more respect.
 
allsaintchris said:
Bring back Steve Rider as host.

A no nonsense journalist who had a genuine interest in Formula One.

Always used to remeber Grandstand and the difference in attitude when Steve introduced F1 - lots of enthusiasm - and then when Des Lynam introduced it - really couldn't give a ****!

Jake has got it into his head that he is Mr F1 now and can do what he likes. He'll soon piss off the paddock unless he shows some more respect.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't mean to comment on TV presentation in a journalism thread but are you out of your mind? Ryder is the most lugubrious, despondent, depressing presenter I've ever seen! He didn't just lack enthusiasm for F1, he lacked enthusiasm for being Steve Ryder. He was just as bad as Rosenthal.
 
genjioleone said:
Sorry, I don't mean to comment on TV presentation in a journalism thread but are you out of your mind? Ryder is the most lugubrious, despondent, depressing presenter I've ever seen! He didn't just lack enthusiasm for F1, he lacked enthusiasm for being Steve Ryder. He was just as bad as Rosenthal.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about his ITV or BBC days?

ITV dragged everyone down.
 
genjioleone said:
True enough, but I've been dipping into the '96 season recently and he was just as dour then. We just didn't notice because he was sat behind a desk in a studio on his own.
Click to expand...

When he was live at the GP's I thought he was a good host.

If we are all getting pissed off with the arrogance of Humphreys, then the down to earth style of Rider is the antidote.

Or,

Who would everyone like to see front F1 on the BBC and think they would do a genuinely good job?

I like Jeremey Shaw from Eurosport. Very knowlegable.
 
I think Jake is just filling time before the Olympics, he seem to mention travelling to GP's a lot on twitter, people like him are very lucky to be seeing the world in such a privileged position whilst most people are grinding out a living so I have no sympathy for him.
 
Bad presenters I can deal with because they go away when the race comes on. Bad commentators ruin my enjoyment of the race, so I am glad I no longer have to listen to James Allen or Jonathan Legard. I can even listen to no commentary like I did when watching the Canadian GP. You can always hear the cars, and you don't miss out on anything because of the wealth of timing information, and the driver tracker.

Can I ask what would constitute a good blog, or good journalism? What would be good enough for those that are unable to write themselves?
 
I know this is going much further off topic but in regards to insufferable commentators I would give the number one spot to bbc tennis commentators (only) while commentating on a Murray match, the delusion and rationalisation is on another level.
 
Basil_Brushzenberger said:
Can I ask what would constitute a good blog, or good journalism?
Click to expand...
I would say: factual accuracy; a degree of impartiality (although I'd respect a journalist who declared his allegiance and then attempted to be impartial); honesty (i.e. when you're proved wrong, don't retcon your article to make it look like you were originally right); some level of insight or relevance; good spelling and grammar, especially if you're a BBC journalist.
 
genjioleone said:
I would say: factual accuracy; a degree of impartiality (although I'd respect a journalist who declared his allegiance and then attempted to be impartial); honesty (i.e. when you're proved wrong, don't retcon your article to make it look like you were originally right); some level of insight or relevance; good spelling and grammar, especially if you're a BBC journalist.
Click to expand...

I would also add: going for a different/unique angle, approach or topic.
 
Mifune said:
I think the BBC coverage although still good would be improved greatly if they got rid of Jake Humphrey for a multitude of reasons:
- He is a rubbish presenter.
- He knows nothing about F1.
- He does not care much about F1.
- He is very tedious and annoying.
- His tweets are inane and irrelevant.
- He is fixated about Eddie Jordan.
Click to expand...

I have to say I disagree with you there.

- If Jake's 'tweetings' bother you, surely the easiest thing to do is not read them? They aren't part of the bbc tv coverage as they only get incoming ones from viewers. I see there are some on the bbc webpage, but then they're pretty easy to avoid should you not wish to read them.
- Not sure why you feel that Jake is 'fixated' with Eddie Jordan. With DC in the commentary box, Jake has only Eddie to put questions to most of the time so I could imagine why it might appear the way you see it. However, I don't honestly see it that way myself. If anything, I think that maybe Eddie needs to just take his job a little more seriously as he just jokes around too much for my liking. No one wants to see serious faces so yeah, have a bit of a laugh, but not at the expense of presenting the show.
- I'm not sure what to say about your other points. I would imagine that since the BBC took over F1 in 2009, the employment of Jake Humphrey as lead presenter would not have happened if he knew nothing about f1 nor cared about it. This was F1 coming back to the beeb! It was their chance to repackage it and bring in a new audience (conveniently timed with Lewis Hamiltons WDC). What are the chances that they would employ someone who knew nothing about the sport and who didn't care!? I honestly can't believe that they would employ someone who had no interest in the sport when they have a multitude of sports presenters they could have chosen.

Sure, Jake has presented a lot of other sports and has spread his wings somewhat since taking the F1 helm in 2009. Surely this just means that his bosses feel he has done a good job? It was a shame that he had to miss Japan last year for the Olympics, so I can understand how that would give the impression that he doesn't care about F1. If it was something like the FA Cup or the Ashes or something, I might agree with you. But the Olympics is a bit deal and is a huge thing to have on your CV.

I think perhaps you have a personal dislike for Jake and, on it's own, there's nothing too wrong about that; you'll never like everyone you ever meet so that's a natural part of life. I think you're being a little unfair on his professional skills though.
 
Good post West Coast. I can't even understand what the problem is. As long as I can see the race all the rest is incidental. Why demand all sorts of stuff you are never going to get? It sees the BBC listened to the viewers and got rid of the woeful Legard, but why on earth should they boot Jordan, Humphrey, the twittering woman and that other one? All because a miniscule minority don't like them.
 
WestCoastBoogaloo said:
- If Jake's 'tweetings' bother you, surely the easiest thing to do is not read them? They aren't part of the bbc tv coverage as they only get incoming ones from viewers. I see there are some on the bbc webpage, but then they're pretty easy to avoid should you not wish to read them.
Click to expand...
The thing is, you 'follow' @JakeHumphreyF1 for news or insight about F1 from a BBC perspective. I'm not remotely interested in what Harriet's cousin does for a living or anything he has to say about Norwich FC. He should use a different Twitter account for that crap (sorry, DHC!). These Twitter accounts very much are part of the BBC coverage, not only because they're pushed on BBC Online but also because it's his F1 Twitter account and F1 is his BBC job. To me that's like a company email account and it's not there for personal use.
 
WestCoastBoogaloo said:
I have to say I disagree with you there.

- If Jake's 'tweetings' bother you, surely the easiest thing to do is not read them? They aren't part of the bbc tv coverage as they only get incoming ones from viewers. I see there are some on the bbc webpage, but then they're pretty easy to avoid should you not wish to read them.
- Not sure why you feel that Jake is 'fixated' with Eddie Jordan. With DC in the commentary box, Jake has only Eddie to put questions to most of the time so I could imagine why it might appear the way you see it. However, I don't honestly see it that way myself. If anything, I think that maybe Eddie needs to just take his job a little more seriously as he just jokes around too much for my liking. No one wants to see serious faces so yeah, have a bit of a laugh, but not at the expense of presenting the show.
- I'm not sure what to say about your other points. I would imagine that since the BBC took over F1 in 2009, the employment of Jake Humphrey as lead presenter would not have happened if he knew nothing about f1 nor cared about it. This was F1 coming back to the beeb! It was their chance to repackage it and bring in a new audience (conveniently timed with Lewis Hamiltons WDC). What are the chances that they would employ someone who knew nothing about the sport and who didn't care!? I honestly can't believe that they would employ someone who had no interest in the sport when they have a multitude of sports presenters they could have chosen.

Sure, Jake has presented a lot of other sports and has spread his wings somewhat since taking the F1 helm in 2009. Surely this just means that his bosses feel he has done a good job? It was a shame that he had to miss Japan last year for the Olympics, so I can understand how that would give the impression that he doesn't care about F1. If it was something like the FA Cup or the Ashes or something, I might agree with you. But the Olympics is a bit deal and is a huge thing to have on your CV.

I think perhaps you have a personal dislike for Jake and, on it's own, there's nothing too wrong about that; you'll never like everyone you ever meet so that's a natural part of life. I think you're being a little unfair on his professional skills though.
Click to expand...

Jake tweets show up on the BBC F1 page so they should be about F1, nobody really cares if he is going to a wedding or redoing his house.

Jake consistently goes on about Eddie Jordan's old team, whenever there is an opportunity to bring it up or even if there is not he refers to it, I think he has mentioned it at every GP this season and also on multiple times.

Whenever Jake is interviewing somebody he mostly asks stupid or condescending questions. Jake also admitted that he did not really follow or know anything about F1 before he got the job, he had to watch loads of dvds to catch up.

I think Jake is clearly using F1 as a stepping stone for his own career, he missed the Japan GP just for the Commonwealth Games and has got his eye on the Olympics so will bugger off to that next year. I think the lead presenter for F1 should be someone who is knowledgeable and passionate about F1 who sees being the lead presenter for F1 as the pinnacle of their career not mearly an oppotunity to boost their career.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back