On the Oscars...
It's what we call a 'hardy annual'.
Every year, we cover the results of the Academy Awards, live from LA. Every year, it draws strong audience figures, yet appears to divide our audience.
This year was no different.
On the plus side, we had good figures on Monday. Kate Silverton's interview with Dame Helen Mirren (watch it here), live from the red carpet at the Vanity Fair party, was rebroadcast across the day and was also one of the most downloaded bits of video on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News website. We had a big email and text response from viewers who really appreciated the live interviews, which also included James McAvoy, Michael Sheen, Kate Winslett, Sam Mendes and Beyonce.
Others felt we had gone over the top, complaining that there was "too much Oscar coverage" and fearing that "licence fee money is being wasted".
I've responded to a few of those who emailed to complain, but thought I ought to blog about it as well.
Firstly, is it 'news'? I say yes.
Dame Helen Mirren is a household name here in Britain, but to win in the coveted 'Best Actress' category in America has to rank as a very significant achievement. The film industry is important to the economy of course, but above all I think it's about covering popular culture. If you were to strip popular culture out of news, you'd end up with something that bears little relation to peoples' lives. And, of course, we still covered the rest of the news, as on any day.
Did we do too much? Probably. But it's an event that is happening as we are on air and we know from all our research that viewers like to see live coverage, even if it's a bit rough and ready, of live events. Interviews with stars of the calibre seen on that red carpet are very rare, so it presents a great opportunity for us.
Why did we send Kate? Another question that was asked more than once. We always send a Breakfast reporter to the Oscars. This year, we sent Kate instead. She was effectively there as our reporter, with the added advantage that she could 'co-present' the programme. She worked tirelessly - with live inserts last Thursday, Friday and Saturday, as well as on Monday morning. The 'sit down' interviews she conducted included Clint Eastwood and Dame Helen, along with Cate Blanchet, Ralf Little and even the throaty voiceover man who does most of those Hollywood film trailers. She also presented a special for Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News 24.
Her dress? It was borrowed, as we made a point of saying on a number of occasions. Most of those who got in touch absolutely loved it, although some people missed seeing her wearing her trademark specs.
Will we do it again next year? Certainly. And will some people complain?...
It's a hardy annual.
Comments
Hi David,
A thoughtful analysis. As you say, the film industry is important to the economy - but so are hundreds of industries that don't recieve this amount of free advertising.
As you say, it's important to refelct popular culture. But you, the mass media, define the terms of popular culture. Cinema is much more interesting than what is represented in the Oscars - but you barely ever scratch the surface of what's out there.
Cover popular culture if you wish - but try to reach for the stars a little more!
I welcome the red carpet coverage hugely more than the red faced busking tactics of ill-prepared 24-hour News presenters scrabbling for 'breaking news' script! A fly-on-the-wall or stone-walled on-the-fly?
No, the Oscars are big issues in a big business. They can help lighten the load in a doom-and-gloom world centre-stage, so time-efficiently scrambled to our attention! Big pictures are big news - but the 'bigger picture' is more important to be treated with authority and timeliness well-balanced.
I do not usually watch the oscar buildup, but happened to be watching whilst feeding my boys before work on both thurs and fri, and have to say, I thought it was presented extremely well, and loved Ms Silverton's approach and obvious hard work. She was more down to earth than most (i.e spilling coffee and iced bun !) and had me laughing !
Congratulations
The film industry is hardly important to the economy. Maybe fifty years ago but not anymore. It has to be subsidized by the government in order to survive, remember? It's hardly like the financial services from which UK Plc makes most of its income.
All this is possible, but what you haven't yet defended is why "the search for Kate's dress" warranted a 5 minute slot of Breakfast news coverage last week...
I'd be interested in the editorial justification of this!
A general comment, but it applies to the Oscars coverage as well as many others.
Why do you send people like Kate to the Oscars when you have perfectly good reporters there already. This happens many times.
Would it not be more cost effective to use your reporters on site. I asume you pay travel, subsistence etc to people like Kate.
regards
John Herrington
While you'll never please all the people all the time, I think the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú coverage was flawless as always although maybe next year let someone else have a wee turn on the carpet - I'm sure Natasha would be in her element!
If you were to strip popular culture out of news, you'd end up with something that bears little relation to peoples' lives.
That seems like an unnecessarily convoluted justification. Of course lots of people are interested in the Oscars, but isn't that because it's a fantasy world that bears almost no relation to their lives?
So, let's try it again: If you were to strip popular culture out of news, you'd end up with something that bears little relation to the dreamworld that people like to live in.
Well, fair enough, David, good point. But you say it like you think it's a bad thing.
Who is going to give Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú an Oscar for their spectacular coverage of the events of 9/11?
I listened to R5s Colin Patterson doing a sterling job of reporting on the Oscars - why do you keep these reporters quarantined from each other ???
A double act with the two would have been marvellous. And ref the above poster - why don't you use the local Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú stringers ?? They do excellent work on R5 but only available to insomniacs at 4am.
I think coverage of the Oscars is important, but then I would say that as a cinephile. As for the people who would criticise the amount of money spent, well it isn't as if Kate Silverton gets to keep those expensive sparklers, although I'm sure she wouldn't say no.
The point is you don't have a crystal ball to predict the number of British winners. If there had been a dozen and you had done the coverage on a shoestring someone else would have complained.
On a more important note I went to see 'Venus' this evening. If you haven't seen it yet, put it in your diary NOW - Richard Griffiths is great, Leslie Phillips is fantastic, and Peter O'Toole absolutely tremendous.
No problem at all with your level coverage, well done - but as a UK citizen living abroad, I do find the emphasis on 'Brit contenders' a little parochial.
Sure, you're broadcasting to the UK, and of course you'll tell me that Kate interviewed a lot of non-UK stars. But year after year, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's coverage is headlined as whether the Oscars were a "good/bad night for the Brits.."
Don't forget that your audience includes some well-informed film fans who are interested in the event for it's own sake. Thanks
"Did we do too much? Probably"
The inference is that you will do less next year. Can you confirm?
You were right to cover it - like it or not, it's news and people are interested. But there is no reason to send Kate out there, when you already have reporters based in LA.
We've been watching David Willis live out his obsession with LA for the last year - He would have been a better choice, but then he probably wouldn't look so glam in a red dress...
We don't need your propaganda anymore Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. YouTube and others let people choose what they wish to watch, rather than the lies, fluff and moronic content that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú spurts out.
Thankyou.
John Oakland