Well Said Michael Buerk!

[Ann]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254682/BBC-veteran-Michael-Buerk-savages-airhead-colleagues--pneumatic-bird-brain-strictly-Sorry-Tess-DOES-mean-you.html
I'm sure most of the population agreed with you! Embarrassingly awful! Hope the BBC have now learnt their lesson!

[chaptazbru]

I don't agree with him, who does he think he is, Mr Perfect ??!

[Ann]

Chaptaz - the coverage was pathetic, silly, giggly, frothy with amateurish presenters who showed not an ounce of respect for such a special occasion. The worst part of it was (we said at the time) not showing or commenting on the tall ships or the little ships of Dunkirk - as the article said it was completely missed!

[Answerprancer]

A true spokesman for this great nation, the Daily Mail must be very proud of this outstanding display of loyalty to the royalty.
All stand ...God shave the Queen.

[hc4361]

He doesn't need to be so appallingly rude about individual colleagues though.

Will he continue to work for the BBC, or does he think narrating Pineapple Dance Studios for Sky is more worthy of his talents?

[aelmpvw]

never watched 'strictly' because i'm not interested but millions of viewers will disagree with mr buerk

[chaptazbru]

Maybe so Ann, but I don't think he has to be so rude, especially about Tess.

[weecalf]

It alright for Michael he gets paid by the bbc ,we have to pay them to watch it

[boxtops]

The Jubilee presentation was appalling and vacuous - we missed the Queen's barge going under Tower Bridge, the most important picture, because the presenter (who knew nothing about events) was chatting to a spectator. It was dire.

[Ann]

I think the presenter who really came across as the worst ever, was Matt Baker, he should stick to Countryfile, he is fine on there but not on official royal occasions like this was.

[craft1948]

I agree with practically every word he said............the Jubilee presentation was dire.

[Ann]

Thanks for backing me up Boxy - began to think I had imagined how awful it was - most of my family and friends said so too!

[gness]

It was, as Boxy said, dire and shamefully embarrassing.

[boxtops]

Ann, it was dreadful, well below the standard expected of the BBC. Bring back Jennie Bond!

[Ann]

Well I suppose, it may not have been ALL the fault of the presenters, after all they are told what to do and who to interview, but they had clearly not done their homework on historical facts, names etc. The filming was also at fault, we were so disappointed not to see the tall ships going down the Thames after having seen a few of them in dock a few weeks before. I wonder what the Queen thought as she watched it afterwards in the comfort of own lounge?

[ichkeria]

Part of the problem of the jubilee boat thing was that it wasn't really a televisual thing, and the weather made it worse. Personally I think the BBC is a British institution to at least rival the monarchy. Buerk does appear to hsve gone off on one rather here.

[NOX]

I myself prefer weightier matters to be treated in a weighty way, however this was a jubilee celebration, where common folk held street parties, people dressed up like idiots and tried to enjoy themselves despite the appalling British weather. There were young, people old people, little kids, native British folks, foreigners, recent and distant immigrants, straight people, gay people, tall people, short people etc etc etc all trying to celebrate more than anything else. Therefore it didn't need to be a history lesson, dull, or otherwise heavy weight in it's reporting and if it had been you would have lost the interest of the majority of children watching and probably the majority of not very bright people watching too of which I am sure there are millions. The little ships were important and should have been mentioned, but critiquing people individually is crass and rude and gives Michael Buerk the image that he's well named which is a shame because he's a great journalist. Times move on, I didn't personally find it intellectually challenging to watch but then things don't necessarily have to be they simply have to be enjoyable, and as a whole I think it was. If we are going to cringe every time someone fluffs something then it would never be worth making anything and it was a live show, so no room for error. I think all in all people could be a little more forgiving of the odd faux pas and not take the moral high ground quite so much, especially since Her Maj is a well know fan of crap TV soap operas ( so she's clearly not fussy ;-)

[Bazile]

//In a final swipe, Mr Buerk says that the Royal baby could unite the nation in 2013,........//.

Why does he believe so - ' unite' the nation in what way ?

[boxtops]

bazile, I don't know how he means either - one would think we are already united hat with Jubilee and Olympics!

[Just-Jude]

Buerk's lucky to have a job! If he worked for any other organisation, he'd be sacked for gross misconduct.

You never hear anyone from Sky or ITV criticising their employer, they know they'd be out the door in 10 minutes flat. It's time the BBC did the same!

[jno]

from Wiki: Buerk asserted in a Radio Times interview in August 2005 that the "shift in the balance of power between the sexes" has gone too far and that men are now little more than "sperm donors". In particular, he objected to the many women now in senior positions within the BBC

Another Daily Mail rent-a-rant.