The BBC have been overwhelmed with complaints about coverage of Prince Philip

[ArseInTheCoOpWindow]

Showing the same thing on 2 channels simultaneously.

Now you just enter your email to complain as they couldn’t cope with the amount of complaints.

I think there are lessons to be learned here especially by the BBC ahead of the demise of the Queen.

I turned on for one of the news specials whilst I was cooking tea in Friday and within an hour they were repeating clips and bringing on the same talking heads to discuss not a lot.

This was for a man who had lived a long and rich life. How on earth they did they come up coverage so uninspiring? Put it on one channel for those who are interested, but for heaven's sake make it interesting.

My annoyance centred round the fact that other news was bumped of the front pages. Violence breaking out again in NI is to me of much greater consequence to us all that Prince Philip, already very old and in poor health, died.

This is a guardian article from 2017. I wonder if things will now be reviewed www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge

Peregrina
I'd agree with that, and have said on the news front agree, but complaining that normal service was disrupted and it's not fair BBC1/2 showed the same thing, not everyone cares about an old rich guy dying, doing their coverage of Prince Philip is forcing people to be deferential etc when tellies come with the ability to change channel or turn the box off is silly in my opinion.

It's not hard to change the channel or turn the TV off.
The way Mumsnet has been the last couple of days I'm amazed our household managed to function with TV we enjoy, radio, our music playlists and general life. We've managed to live our lives without death by royal coverage quite easily.

So was Forth Bridge (code name for plans for the Duke’s death) but his has been tweaked because of COVID restrictions. So nothing to say why Operation London Bridge can’t be tweaked.

Rolling media doesn’t help either.

When the King George VI died very few people had tvs. Quite a few people bought them for the coronation.

Some of these plans were probably arranged on the basis of what was in place many years ago, without numerous tv channels etc.

But that's what it comes down to. People are objecting to the fact that when there's several channels available and a life beyond telly, the BBC have used standardised outputs for less than a day. I've already said I have an issue with BBC News limiting news reporting for the day as they should be covering the day's news, but most of the BBC1/2 complaints come down to "but I don't like the royal family, some old guy died, why are they making a big deal of it, showing the same thing on 2 channels isn't fair".
There's life beyond telly, and it's not much in the grand scheme of things.

Have you read any of this thread or did you decide to just chime in with your insights?

If you had read it, you would know that most of the objections were not in fact about liking or disliking the royal family, or the fact that few of us knew Prince Philip personally or that Friday and Saturday programmes were disrupted.

No, what is irksome is that somebody has decided that we should all mourn and that the mandatory mourning should be enforced by removing programming and having the BBC radio stations play sad music irrespective of whether the viewers and readers want to mourn or listen to lengthy retrospectives on the life of a 99 year old man. Do you like having your leisure pursuits decided for you on the basis of a ‘protocol’ you had no say in? I don’t, and nor do many other people judging by the level of complaints.

Plus, you have been told several times, by different posters, that the disruption to the schedules was not for ‘less than a day’. It went on for longer than that. Did you miss those bits too?

@ineedaholidaynow

You could look at it the other way too *@PandemicAtTheDisco* and that people should accept the national TV station observing national mourning for about 12 hours.

Would you be happy with no coverage or national mourning? No one is asking for that.

Everyone understands the Queen's husband died and the BBC should cover that. A measured response would be acceptable.

There are many people that aren't royalists. They pay license fees. The BBC should cater to them too.

The entire plan, together with code name, "London Bridge" for when the queen dies is already in place.

Plans can be changed. I suspect that this one will be, unless QE2 is spectacularly bad at reading the room.

No, what is irksome is that somebody has decided that we should all mourn and that the mandatory mourning should be enforced by removing programming and having the BBC radio stations play sad music irrespective of whether the viewers and readers want to mourn or listen to lengthy retrospectives on the life of a 99 year old man. Do you like having your leisure pursuits decided for you on the basis of a ‘protocol’ you had no say in? I don’t, and nor do many other people judging by the level of complaints.
The BBC changing it's programming isn't forcing me, or anyone else, to mourn, nor is it ruining people's leisure pursuits (unless by that you mean BBC aren't showing the shows I want to watch).

I don't get how you can object to me saying people are objecting to their TV viewing being disrupted, but then saying that the BBC removing programming is deciding people's leisure pursuits. So you're acknowledging people are objecting to having their TV time changed.

There's an off button, the big shows will be shown another time, there's catch up options, there's other channels available. Not being able to watch your chosen TV show isn't being forced to mourn someone.

Some people really do not have anything much to complain about so they will latch on to something like this.

Only one thing about Prince Philip on tonight, on Channel 4, so it was a storm in a teacup.

I can't believe Radio 2 were still doing their sad songs, whispery serious presenter voices this morning! Honestly, enough now.

We have switched over to Virgin radio. It's great. Think we'll stick with it for good now

I should imagine it was all hands on deck scenario, combining bbc1 and bbc2 as well as bbc4, rather than anything else

An evening Special giving an overview of Prince Philips life - for most of us, fine and in parts told us things we didn't know.

But now the coverage has degenerated into space filling drivel:

'Opportunity to heal Royal Rifts', 'Dear Papa was very special', 'Prince Philip's death has left a huge void for the Queen.'

You don't say! I would never have guessed. How on earth is that newsworthy? At this stage silence would be more dignified.

PurpleWh1teGreen What a fascinating and horrific article! I really hope they revise it, in fact overhaul it altogether.

I'm not a republican but we must surely recognise that nowadays the death of the monarch is of relatively little actual importance to the man in the street (though it may be of great interest), and whilst the pomp and ceremony is part of the package, the nonsense about there being a light that comes on in a local radio station to tell us a senior royal has died is just mad nowadays. Have a light that is the 'major event' light, used for any significant news story by all means, but not one just for the death of certain members of a ceremonial family.

Once upon a time we all believed in royalty as being somehow better than us. Once upon a time indeed royalty would decide whether we were allowed to practice our religion. Nowadays our royal family is a ceremonial and arguably important part of the country's PR machine, but this does not require cringeworthy levels of deference.

There are many people that aren't royalists. They pay license fees. The BBC should cater to them too.

There are many people that aren't sports fanatics yet as I said upthread, I can hardly watch anything on the BBC while the Olympics is on. Seriously, you pay less than a pound a day for a tv licence. I agree that normal news coverage should have continued but it is really not an unacceptable length of time for normal services to be disrupted. Making a complaint is quite ridiculous.

@ineedaholidaynow

I wonder if it was just easier for BBC to go blanket coverage, rather than go through the scheduling and removing anything that might be deemed ‘disrespectful’ in some eyes in those first few hours. Because there would have been complaints if they had shown some programmes.

This is probably the reason

Sounds pragmatic but not good enough for a public broadcaster.

*ineedaholidaynow

I wonder if it was just easier for BBC to go blanket coverage, rather than go through the scheduling and removing anything that might be deemed ‘disrespectful’ in some eyes in those first few hours. Because there would have been complaints if they had shown some programmes.

This is probably the reason*

That doesn't explain why the headline story in BBC news website is currently, to all intents and purposes: "Son confirms that his mother is sad that her 99yo husband has died."

It's cringeworthy just the efforts they're going to in order to make it all feel like significant news and keep the story on the front page.

Some people really do not have anything much to complain about so they will latch on to something like this.

Some people are really so poor at understanding. Even now they hang around for the odd jibe.

I rarely give feedback in writing actually. Once when I got fed up with radio 4 constant interruptions.

There are many people that aren't sports fanatics yet as I said upthread, I can hardly watch anything on the BBC while the Olympics is on. Seriously, you pay less than a pound a day for a tv licence. I agree that normal news coverage should have continued but it is really not an unacceptable length of time for normal services to be disrupted. Making a complaint is quite ridiculous
That's how I feel about it. Fair enough if it's a complaint regarding poor news coverage of other events from the day, but otherwise it's really not the end of the world.

I'm no royalist, but it's not difficult to select another channel or turn the telly off.

@LolaSmiles

There are many people that aren't sports fanatics yet as I said upthread, I can hardly watch anything on the BBC while the Olympics is on. Seriously, you pay less than a pound a day for a tv licence. I agree that normal news coverage should have continued but it is really not an unacceptable length of time for normal services to be disrupted. Making a complaint is quite ridiculous That's how I feel about it. Fair enough if it's a complaint regarding poor news coverage of other events from the day, but otherwise it's really not the end of the world.

I'm no royalist, but it's not difficult to select another channel or turn the telly off.

As people keep posting.

The BBC can ignore it all and do the same when the Queen dies, but given the declining relevance maybe they’ll listen.

The whole 'period of mourning' thing has actually made me rethink my views on the royal family.
Up until now I kind of wasn't bothered about the Royal family. Don't really mind them, felt a bit of loyalty to Harry and William being a similar age and because of them losing their mother at a young age.
I have an interest in them, certainly.
But this whole response by the media, which as I've said before and so have others on the thread, made me feel like I was being told to mourn has made me realise I don't think they are any more special than anyone else.
People keep saying Prince Philip was a person of importance, well yes he was. But was he a person of such significance that the whole country goes into mourning? Really??? I don't feel he was that important.

The Queen on the other hand, her death will be more significant because it will bring with it a change. There will be a new Monarch. I actually probably wouldn't mind the same sort of scheduling when she dies.

There's an off button

You are the first person to make this profound remark. Oh wait, you aren’t.

Not being able to watch your chosen TV show isn't being forced to mourn someone.

You’re not getting it. Do you like having other people decide what you should watch and listen to because they think you should be mourning? That’s the creepy thing and that’s what people are objecting to, not missing their favourite TV show. That’s before you even start on the banner message on CBeebies. Even little kids have to be co-opted into the mandatory grief.

You’re not getting it. Do you like having other people decide what you should watch and listen to because they think you should be mourning? That’s the creepy thing and that’s what people are objecting to, not missing their favourite TV show. That’s before you even start on the banner message on CBeebies. Even little kids have to be co-opted into the mandatory grief.

I don't like being told to mourn, I just don't feel like I am being forced into anything just because they're not showing anything else. I just haven't watched, beyond the first couple of hours. When I came to put BBC1 on yesterday evening, something else was already on. I'm not seeing the drama over one day. It has not cost anyone anything significant.

The BBC can ignore it all and do the same when the Queen dies, but given the declining relevance maybe they’ll listen.

I highly doubt it, her death will be in a totally different league in terms of significance.