91Èȱ¬

What makes anyone at the 91Èȱ¬ begin to think that the majority of people in this country are remotely interested in the US Presidential elections? Your coverage is completely OTT as is the size and number of your reporting team in America no doubt at huge License paying viewers expense. To put the US elections on the main news before reporting any home news to the British people is a disgrace.

Thank you for the succinct explanation of the US presidential electoral system.

Could you also give one, on the way in which democratic legitimacy passes in the EU from its people, to the Council Of Ministers, and the latter's relationship with the European Parliament, please?

A lot of people here seem to think it's unaccountable, and would benefit from being so disabused.

The sycophantic coverage of the Obama campaign is painful to watch. I was amused by one readers comment who said she thought Mark Mardell favoured Obama 'a bit' - hilarious. I suppose at least the picture of the supporter in an Obama hat wasn't a 91Èȱ¬ journalist this time. You know, what with all that impartiality & everything.

I wonder if Yo Bama :) will stick a feather in his hat, l had Romney for 200.

Life moves on. Angela is here to whisper to David that Greece is kaput and we must pull together to save naughty German banks and their investors. That is the real probby, ya know. All that over valued asset investment and the piles of untaxed cash generated.

91Èȱ¬ must be happy their man Obama won! I expect there will be champagne bottles strewn around broadcasting tonight, as Jane Garvey, 5 Live, said they were when Labour won in 1997. All very impartial.

Dead heat?

I understand that the 91Èȱ¬ had around 100 people in the US to cover this election. That is a staggering waste of licence payer's money and something the Director General needs to answer for.

7.At 07:46 7th Nov 2012, JWP.

Absolutely right. This is a disgrace and there should now be a full scale Leveson style inquiry into the 91Èȱ¬ including this, the left wing bias, Savile, tax, and the other scandals at the 91Èȱ¬

I don't see why the 91Èȱ¬ should be any more required to be "impartial" between democrat and republican in the US, than it should between say, reformer and military in Burma.

It is a different country, but I think it did OK anyway on that count.

The word has no absolute meaning in any case.

Re Bias

Should the 91Èȱ¬ reflect:

1. British opinion
2. Global opinion or
3. American opinion?

Would the husband of a future female US president be referred to at the "First Gentleman"?

9.&10. The 91Èȱ¬ is required to report impartially under the charter through which they are taxpayer funded. In UK you are forced to pay for the 91Èȱ¬ & if you don't pay you will go to prison. The 91Èȱ¬'s opinon is an increasing part of the output with which I and many other taxpayers are increasingly unhappy & would like to see a full scale inquiry into that & other scandals.

12. "if you don't pay you will go to prison"

Is this true? If you don't have a device that can receive 91Èȱ¬ television, you don't need a licence. But even if you do and haven't paid the fee I suspect it is very unlikely you would be imprisoned.

To PhilSpace #11
So when it comes to the American election it doesn't matter if the 91Èȱ¬ reflects British, Global, American or your opinion, you'll still be unhappy.

13. wmfs TV Licencing: 'You must be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV. It makes no difference what equipment you use - a laptop, PC, mobile phone, digital box, DVD/video recorder or a TV set, you still need a licence.' Prison is the final sanction, but in the end if you refuse to pay you'll be highly likely detained at HMP.

14. _marko

Yes, because I buy a newspaper for opinion - they can print what they like as I am not forced to buy it. But the 91Èȱ¬ are publicly funded and their opinion should not enter in to it - they should just report the news in an impartial manner.

Wondering when next 91Èȱ¬ Eds would step into the open again.

2.Eddy from Waring

Explanations have never been their forte; especially now Mr. Patten has explained how uniquely holding power to account actually works.

13. wmfs

Semantics can be cute. In 2012, they are crass. Leave the suspecting of likelihoods to 91Èȱ¬ editorial; they're immune from consequence.

The 91Èȱ¬'s coverage today is outrageous. It is so biased and OTT it's unwatchable.

It is high time the 91Èȱ¬ was reeled in.

I'm really surprised the Editor's blog hasn't been updated since election night. Yesterday's news is soooo absurd on the 91Èȱ¬!

Boring isn't the word.. happy it's over now. Agree with comments about bias but glad 91Èȱ¬ was biased in the right direction! Romney would've taken us a step closer to realising the Mayan 2012 prediction! Loved this which gave the best take on this election for me.

@Michelle Summers - biased in the right direction... seriously?! If you look at any objective analysis of since 2008, the thing that stands out most is failure and non-delivery... hardly anything right about it.

the lesser of two evils won.

Obama’s victory speech promised another dose of Hope and Change.

It was supposedly Albert Einstein who defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Now the election is over (Thank God) I would like to see some analysis of probable/possible Cabinet changes at State, Treasury, Defense, level etc. Is Hilary going to serve for 4 more years? She seems terribly tired and stressed, poor woman!

23.At 23:58 7th Nov 2012, newsaholic_professor wrote

Quite more of the same old, same old. As the effects of last nights party wear off and the 91Èȱ¬ remove the champagne bottles from broadcasting house. America is waking up to realise that re-electing Barry hasn't created one more job or paid off one more cent of the deficit - and it will not.

how much did this coverage cost the British tax payer and why so many presenters needed?

on somewhat puzzled.
Why has/is the 91Èȱ¬ still devoting headline space, valuable radio and TV air-time to an event that took place 2 days (48 hours) or more ago?
OK, so President Obama won. Move on. You spent, what, 20 minutes on Arab spring elections, but how long on this?

Jon, with respect, does the 91Èȱ¬ have an unlimited budget?
Or are the 91Èȱ¬ billing US citizens to pay for this? Thought not!

Shouldn't 91Èȱ¬ be covering 'business successes' and 'entrepreneurs' on the streets of Bristol, Cardiff, Northampton, Peterborough in the UK NATIONAL news?

Oh how dumbed down we have become to be the green sceptred isle-sorry, I mean 'shafted' isle!

@7: I'm fairly certain that the election night programme was simulcasted on 91Èȱ¬ World News and/or 91Èȱ¬ America, which aren't funded by the licence fee payer. It means that the cost would have been shared between the licence fee funded 91Èȱ¬ and 91Èȱ¬ Worldwide (the commercial arm). Also I imagine that some of the reporters are permanently based in America.

'91Èȱ¬ World News and/or 91Èȱ¬ America, which aren't funded by the licence fee payer.'

Great, then let's put an end to the tax on owning a TV which is about as absurd as taxing the ownership of a microwave oven, so that the people of the UK don't have to continue to fund this non stop left-wing nonsense daily spouted by the 91Èȱ¬.

To PhilSpace #30

I hope you can understand the perspective that bankers and people who've accumulated or inherited loads of cash shouldn't have the greatest influence on media and force their advertising on everyone.

Please let it be known, what the heck has the U.S election got to do with us and why was it inflicted upon us???

31. At 16:54 8th Nov 2012, _marko

Katty Kay @KattyKay91Èȱ¬
A: After Romney's super succesful trip to London this summer, Brits were mildly relieved not to see him elected #askkattybbc

But this lady should?

Spoken for and at without choice, and not much else allowed back.

To JunkkMale #33

Maybe, but when analysing the statement we should be asking was it nonsense or not? Did the statement accurately reflect British opinion? And there's still the question of would a correct impartial statement reflect British, American or a global viewpoint. What's your expectation in this case?

To George #32

because it affects the rest of the world?

33. That's exactly the kind of left wing bias to which I referred. Incredible.

31. No one forces you to watch anything you don't want to, or buy any particular newspaper. The only thing you are forced to do is buy a TV licence if you want to watch TV in the UK, so that you can fund the liberal left wing bias of the 91Èȱ¬.

To PhilSpace #35

"No one forces you to watch, ..or buy.." apart from watching the adverts and paying for the advertising in the products you buy!

36. At 10:38 9th Nov 2012, _marko

No, you still have a choice. Or to you only buy unadvertised products?

Not a great hole to excavate further.

34. At 00:16 9th Nov 2012, _marko

Expectations, as much else, now limited by the new 91Èȱ¬ character count.

What 'you' feel should be asked is noted.

If a BritBC journo presumes to speak for all Brits abroad, impartially or not, maybe best first to ask?

because it affects the rest of the world?

Well, these guys still seem stuck over there. Never been much for post-mortems myself. (Note the Graun piece they also seem less keen on sharing).



The 91Èȱ¬ does seem to shine lights...& hold power to account 'selectively'.