For royal wedding coverage, BBC has less "fairytale narrative" and "cheesy-looking" graphics than US networks.

Posted: 29 Apr 2011   Print   Send a link
Time, Tuned In blog, 29 Apr 2011, James Poniewozik: "It's possible to appreciate the romance, beauty and simple emotion of the day and still keep the troubled history of the monarchy in mind, but it felt as if the Americans didn't want to overstep their bounds as guests. This was especially true on the broadcast morning shows, which were stuck on a 'smile and keep saying "fairy tale"' loop. ... On the other hand, the BBC coverage—which caught the pageantry but still treated the wedding as a news event—was not as carried away by the 'fairytale' narrative. (It also included many more enjoyable man-in-the-street interviews with jolly onlookers in Union Jack afros.) It was also much lighter on the over-the-top, garish graphics; American TV, apparently, uniformly decided that what signifies "royal" in screen graphics is using more cheesy-looking gold than a strip-mall jewelry store. ... There was one news network here that was not carrying virtually nonstop wedding coverage, that you could turn to for reports on the devastation in America: al-Jazeera English (which most Americans, like me, would have to go online to see)."

The Hollywood Reporter, 29 Apr 2011, Mimi Turner: "The BBC feed alone was broadcast to 180 countries, in what is thought to be the biggest television event in broadcast history."