BBC wins the crowds as broadcasters navigate an unpredictable election night

http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2015/may/10/david-dimbleby-general-election-bbc

Version 0 of 1.

Election night, we’re live on air from a count and a familiar face says: “It’s a shambles! No one knows what’s going on.” No, not Dimbleby, Bradby or Boulton, this was the live drama The Vote on More 4.

However, it was prescient as the broadcasters revealed the BBC exit poll at 10pm to shared confusion among pundits, pollsters and politicians alike. The rehearsals, portentous theme tunes, garish computer graphics, live links and guests had not prepared for such an SNP tsunami and the decimation of the Liberal Democrats. “I’m puzzled, you’re puzzled, everyone’s puzzled,” YouGov’s Peter Kellner told David Dimbleby. Imagine how the audience felt.

But it was, as ever, the BBC’s night. The election programme is one of those moments when the corporation sets out to prove why it exists. The combined resources and talent it can offer outgun the other broadcasters by a margin political parties can only dream about. Five times the number of viewers watched the BBC’s coverage compared with ITV’s – which was pushed into third place by Channel 4.

Britain still chooses to be nursed through events by Dimbleby and the latest generation of computer graphics. And at each election the BBC raises the stakes again. This year it rolled out projections on to the outside of Broadcasting House and three different sets of analysis — from Sophie Raworth outdoors, Emily Maitlis at the big screen and of course Jeremy Vine, this time performing among some slightly spooky breathing avatars of politicians and a literal House of Cards.

At times the production bling threatens to overshadow the story. But then we cut to Andrew Neil and are back on track. Not for the first time, this is said to be Dimbleby’s last election programme. Assume nothing. His stamina and grip appear undiminished. Political editor Nick Robinson, absent in the campaign but now back from lung surgery, was still hoarse but as incisive as ever and Laura Kuenssberg showed why more women should have a place at the top table of analysis.

On ITV Tom Bradby provided charm, insight and a good array of guests, Adam Boulton was a commanding presence at the heart of Sky’s programme – but they lack the ambition or sense of occasion the BBC brings and their secondary presenters offer charm, but less expertise. The commercial broadcasters know they must throw all they can at results night and want to be part of the story – but also know the audience is largely with the BBC.

Channel 4’s alternative election programme performed better in the ratings and at least lived up to its title. But Jeremy Paxman attempting comedy with a studio audience was painfully uncomfortable. With fellow presenters calling him “Jezza” it was, as someone on Twitter noted, “like watching a once proud bear dragged from its habitat and forced to dance”. In the end, even as an alternative, the election of a government requires more than some mediocre blokeish quips.

As the results emerged the programme machines finally got a grip on the story. Pundits across the broadcasters were desperately searching for the “Portillo moment” – the symbol of this election. Was it Danny Alexander, Douglas Alexander or Vince Cable? Of course, it came the next morning with Ed Balls.

As opinion swirls on social media, broadcast regulation means all programmes relied heavily on newspaper correspondents to speculate and analyse – Gaby Hinsliff, Isabel Hardman, Tim Shipman, Andrew Rawnsley, Jonathan Freedland, David Aaronovitch – a carefully balanced cast from the left and right moving through the studios. Tangible evidence of the extent to which broadcasting still leans on press expertise.

By breakfast and a change of shift, with a move from studios to outside broadcasts at Westminster, there was a clear story to tell the waking audience. Huw Edwards stepped in after David Dimbleby’s nine-hour shift. Clear lines of succession there when the BBC chooses. Bradby moved alongside Susanna Reid in the Good Morning Britain studio – bleary eyed and a little uncomfortable with a daytime approach. Kate Garraway at Labour HQ looked at the red-eyed supporters and declared: ”You don’t know whether to jump on them and be a journalist or give them a hug to be honest.”

The night had opened with the pollsters in the crosshairs. How could an exit poll of 22,000 people be so at odds with the campaign polls? John Curtice, uncomfortably hanging over the BBC studio balcony like a jilted Juliet, was cautiously defensive: “Well we got it right last time.” And as the night progressed we all adjusted to the fact they had indeed got some of the most surprising things right, but perhaps not the most important thing.

The dominant narrative shaping this election – that it was neck-and-neck between Labour and the Conservatives and that a coalition deal was the most likely electoral outcome – turned out to be plain wrong. Yet it had determined much of the election coverage, eclipsing policy analysis, and had set the expectations and planning of the overnight programmes.

We are in for a new kind of politics, but not one of European-style coalitions. Rather, Britain faces fundamental questions about Scotland v England and an electoral system which offers huge disparity between votes and seats for minor parties. Neither the campaign coverage nor the overnight programmes were able to tackle those in the way the public deserved, having been distracted by inaccurate polling. This raises big questions for the 2020 election. What role should the polls play next time? Will Scotland still be in the UK? Will Britain still be in Europe? And will David Dimbleby any longer be there to take us through the night?

Richard Sambrook is a former director of BBC News