Post a reply

The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby SnookerFan

Or reasons that the UK doesn't feel like a major that aren't about the match shortening.

This is going to be something of a long-winded post, which serves no real purpose. Other than me getting some thoughts down. The reason this post is a bit pointless will become apparent.

I have now booked the UK Championship off work, I was in two minds about this. I haven't booked the televised portion off since 2017. Partly because I don't feel it's as good a televised spectacle as The Masters and The World Championship. And this has nothing to do with the length of the matches.

Here's some of the problems for me.

1. Not all matches get televised.

Now, this has been the case for most of the time the UK Championship has existed. There was a short period where the BBC televised every match of the rounds they televised. (If that makes sense.) There were still pre-televised matches, but once the TV stages kicked in you didn't miss match.

I always think it is a shame that most matches aren't televised, because in the last 64 you've got six matches per session which you have no way of watching. In the last 32, they only televise 2 of every 4 matches.

Now I know the BBC aren't going to change this. They want nine days of coverage, so nine days is what you're going to get. A lot of the other tournaments don't televise every match either. So why the big deal? Well the BBC, one of the main channels in the UK, continually describe this tournament as 'a major'. But there's loads of matches that aren't even being filmed. That doesn't feel very major. The Home Nations are like this as well, but they aren't being put above other tournaments by the channel that shows them.

2. The BBC's insistence on fitting the last-64 matches through to the final into 9 days of TV coverage.
(Sub-problem; Their insistence on putting higher ranked players/more popular players on over what could be better matches.)

In the old days, TV coverage kicked in at the last 32. Now it's the last 64. That's not a problem per se. As "a major", it should have as many of the matches on TV as possible. But the BBC have a terrible track record for picking the wrong matches. They basically chose the two higher ranked player's matches, unless Ronnie is playing and they automatically pick him. I get that they have to think about their viewers, and I understand Ronnie is by far the most popular player among those who pay their license fee. So I'm not saying don't show Ronnie. What I am saying though is, in the last 64, the higher ranked players are often playing people comparatively lower in the rankings. So you're still getting a fair amount of one-sided matches. Especially if you're picking the top guys all the time. There are some years where it feels like Tuesday or Wednesday before you're seeing decent matches on TV.

I mentioned 2017, which I was off work for. (Though busy for the opening weekend.) I remember Ronnie and Murphy were in the final, and it seemed to be they got on TV almost every day. That's probably an exaggeration, but I remember seeing a lot of them. Now, I probably have myself to blame a bit for being away for the opening weekend. And of course, the further a player gets in a tournament, the more of them you'll see play. Somehow though, I did feel like I was seeing the same players over and over again. Very little variety there.

Was is better when televised coverage kicked in for the last 32? At least the qualifiers then had already won two games, so we were watching a point where the lower names were more likely to make a match of it against the big boys. Would it be better if they kept it as it is now, but allowed you to watch a higher selection of matches? That way if there were players that the BBC weren't as bothered showing, but might be in a good match, you could at least watch it on the I-Player or something.

To slightly answer my own question, the BBC is never going to open it up to show more matches, or add extra days to the tournament length. That'd cost more money. And Hearn is never going to change the format. So this thread is next to pointless. But am I alone in thinking that if this is a major, like the BBC claim it is, their coverage doesn't reflect that?

The Masters and The Crucible there is television coverage for every second of every match, or I-Player coverage at least. That makes every match feel like it's important. And if a qualifier goes on a run in The Crucible, it promotes them a bit because we know they're doing something meaningful. Sometimes at the UK, a player can be in the quarter or semi before they're on TV.

Like I say, it's nothing that'll change. But somehow the TV Coverage doesn't fit with it's description as a major somehow. Though I have booked it off now, so it can't be that bad. rofl
Last edited by SnookerFan on 11 Nov 2020, edited 1 time in total.

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby badtemperedcyril

It's got nothing that a home nations event hasn't got. Granted the matches are b/o 11, not b/o 7, but still, its all over in one session.

In fact, the UK only used to be televised from the last 16 onwards if you're going back pre-early 90's. The reason for that is that they used multiple tables (can't remember if it was 8?) and then two tables for the last 16 onwards. Best of 31 (2 day) final then as well, of course. You are correct though, Barry's never gonna change it back.

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby SnookerFan

badtemperedcyril wrote:It's got nothing that a home nations event hasn't got. Granted the matches are b/o 11, not b/o 7, but still, its all over in one session.

In fact, the UK only used to be televised from the last 16 onwards if you're going back pre-early 90's. The reason for that is that they used multiple tables (can't remember if it was 8?) and then two tables for the last 16 onwards. Best of 31 (2 day) final then as well, of course. You are correct though, Barry's never gonna change it back.


But at the same time, that was in the early 1990s. Only 4 channels in the UK, no internet. That's understandable that not every match would get televised or streamed.

Nowadays, you could whack a camera on every table and stream every table on the BBC website if you wanted to. I get the I-Player on my TV by just pressing the red button, so it's pretty much like it getting televised normally.

The problems I guess are with having enough /paying enough for commentators to go on every table. And also the logistics of having commentators in the Sports Hall, where there just isn't room. Also, why would the BBC invest in the technology and extra staff for a sport that isn't as popular as snooker? It wouldn't and it won't. But maybe they could look into streaming them all without commentators. Or even look at spreading commentators so you only get one on the most important four matches of the tournament early on. Or using Rob Walker as a commentator more. Or just whatever. They could try something, even if the Sports Hall matches had no commentary. But they won't. Snooker just isn't popular enough for the effort or expense.

Also, I know that the term 'major' is subjective, and it's just something the BBC pulled out of it's bottom about ten years ago. But I find the UK is lagging behind the other two BBC offerings purely because of how much of it goes unfilmed. Look at the Champion Of Champions. People are already talking about it being one of the bigger tournaments of the year, despite being comparatively new. What do you notice about that? All matches are televised live.

Now look at the International Championship, another supposed major. Do any fans really look at it is a major, despite apparently being one? There are other factors, obviously. It might just be regional bias, that it's on a different time zone to me. Also, it doesn't sell tickets very well and plays to an empty arena, that doesn't help. Also, it's on Eurosport rather than a freeview channel, so a lot of casuals won't know about it. All these might diminish it's major status in my eyes.

But that's kind of my point. Presentation can make something look like a major. Total coverage on a freeview channel, and people talking about the CoC being one of the higlights of the season less than a decade after it was invented.

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby SnookerEd25

Yep, the unfilming thing is spot on, SF; 80s/90s it was impractical to show massive coverage when limited to just the terrestrial channels. But when the BBC cover Wimbledon (apologies for the Tennis mention :emb:), on the IPlayer and BBC website, you can find over a dozen matches to choose from during the early phases of the competition. How difficult would it be to do something similar with the UK?

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby chengdufan

For me, any event can be considered a major if there is a very high chance that...
...the quarter-finalists are the best 8-12 players in the world
...the semis are the best 4-6 players
...the final includes the best 2-3 players
...and that the best player at that point in history wins.

To achieve that, you need:
1. Match length long enough to have a high likelihood that the best player will win each match.
2. All of the best players taking part.
3. There being a strong incentive to win.

I know I'm in the minority on the next point, but I'll share it anyway. I couldn't give a flying one whether there is a crowd there or not, and don't think the 'best' player is a player who can 'handle playing in front of a big crowd'.
I think the best player is one who can find a way within the rules and spirit of the game to beat his opponent at snooker, whether there are people in the arena or not.
Although I don't think the effect of the crowd on the game should be a factor in deciding how important a tournament is, I would like to also add here that talking about the effect of the audience would be more relevant than talking about the effect of the crowd. It's not only the people there in the arena who influence the players' snooker, but the people watching on tv too, and I think that sometimes gets ignored here.

The history of the event is a factor in that it adds to the incentive to win, and means the best players are more likely to take part. Prize money has much more significant of an impact than history though.

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby SnookerFan

SnookerEd25 wrote:Yep, the unfilming thing is spot on, SF; 80s/90s it was impractical to show massive coverage when limited to just the terrestrial channels. But when the BBC cover Wimbledon (apologies for the Tennis mention :emb:), on the IPlayer and BBC website, you can find over a dozen matches to choose from during the early phases of the competition. How difficult would it be to do something similar with the UK?


No, I think that's one of the times the tennis mention is on subject and relevant.

I thought that myself, but thought if I said it everyone would have a go at me for doing something I'd critcised in the past.

The difference is, of course, tennis is massively more popular than snooker. And the coverage reflects that sadly.

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby Iranu

SnookerFan wrote:
SnookerEd25 wrote:Yep, the unfilming thing is spot on, SF; 80s/90s it was impractical to show massive coverage when limited to just the terrestrial channels. But when the BBC cover Wimbledon (apologies for the Tennis mention :emb:), on the IPlayer and BBC website, you can find over a dozen matches to choose from during the early phases of the competition. How difficult would it be to do something similar with the UK?


No, I think that's one of the times the tennis mention is on subject and relevant.

I thought that myself, but thought if I said it everyone would have a go at me for doing something I'd critcised in the past.

The difference is, of course, tennis is massively more popular than snooker. And the coverage reflects that sadly.

It's also surely several times more expensive to film, though?

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby chengdufan

SnookerEd25 wrote:Yep, the unfilming thing is spot on, SF; 80s/90s it was impractical to show massive coverage when limited to just the terrestrial channels. But when the BBC cover Wimbledon (apologies for the Tennis mention :emb:), on the IPlayer and BBC website, you can find over a dozen matches to choose from during the early phases of the competition. How difficult would it be to do something similar with the UK?

I think this is down to the perception the broadcaster has of snooker viewers. The people making these decisions think that watching snooker is something people do while bored at home scanning through channels. They flick through and come to a snooker match and think, 'Ooh, Ronnie O'Sullivan is playing. I've heard of him. Don't people say he's exciting to watch? I think I'll watch a bit of this'.
To them, the idea of a 'snooker fan' is someone who will watch snooker when it is on, but doesn't really care who is playing as long as it is someone they have heard of (most likely someone who's been at the top of the game for at least 10 years).
The idea of someone knowing who any of the lower ranked players are, and of wanting to watch matches they play rather than Mark Selby v Joe Nobody is just ludicrous and completely beyond their comprehension.
So why would they bother broadcasting any of those matches?

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby SnookerFan

chengdufan wrote:For me, any event can be considered a major if there is a very high chance that...
...the quarter-finalists are the best 8-12 players in the world
...the semis are the best 4-6 players
...the final includes the best 2-3 players
...and that the best player at that point in history wins.

To achieve that, you need:
1. Match length long enough to have a high likelihood that the best player will win each match.
2. All of the best players taking part.
3. There being a strong incentive to win.


How do you determine the best? By ranking, I assume?

If so, your logic doesn't really make sense. For example, if one season you had a couple of players from outside the top-6 reach the semi-finals of The Crucible, then that specific tournament is automatically less prestigious. What happens if just by chance, the top-4 ranked players in the world reach the semi-finals of The Shoot-Out, that doesn't suddenly make it more prestigious than The Crucible. In 2005, Shaun Murphy won The Crucible as a qualifier. Does that make that tournament less prestigious?

I'm probably being pedantic, but for me longer matches tends to determine who is playing better that tournament more than who is 'the best'. Or is that what you meant? Best on the day, rather than best in terms of the ranking?

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby Iranu

chengdufan wrote:The idea of someone knowing who any of the lower ranked players are, and of wanting to watch matches they play rather than Mark Selby v Joe Nobody is just ludicrous and completely beyond their comprehension.

Especially when their own commentators have no idea who those players are.

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby chengdufan

SnookerFan wrote:
chengdufan wrote:For me, any event can be considered a major if there is a very high chance that...
...the quarter-finalists are the best 8-12 players in the world
...the semis are the best 4-6 players
...the final includes the best 2-3 players
...and that the best player at that point in history wins.

To achieve that, you need:
1. Match length long enough to have a high likelihood that the best player will win each match.
2. All of the best players taking part.
3. There being a strong incentive to win.


How do you determine the best? By ranking, I assume?

If so, your logic doesn't really make sense. For example, if one season you had a couple of players from outside the top-6 reach the semi-finals of The Crucible, then that specific tournament is automatically less prestigious. What happens if just by chance, the top-4 ranked players in the world reach the semi-finals of The Shoot-Out, that doesn't suddenly make it more prestigious than The Crucible. In 2005, Shaun Murphy won The Crucible as a qualifier. Does that make that tournament less prestigious?

I'm probably being pedantic, but for me longer matches tends to determine who is playing better that tournament more than who is 'the best'. Or is that what you meant? Best on the day, rather than best in terms of the ranking?


The nature of the tournament itself should determine who are the best players. Taking the World Championship as an example, the rankings will give a decent indication of who the best players at the time are, but the Championship itself shows us who is actually the best in those few weeks.
In your example, if a couple of players from outside the top-6 in the rankings reach the semi-finals, we need to decide if it is because they are among the best players at that point in history, or they have reached that stage through the luck of the draw, or the run of the balls.
If it is because they are playing better snooker than the other players, this adds to the prestige of the tournament. If it's down to luck (short formats, a bad run of the balls), it detracts from the prestige.

Regarding the 'best players taking part'. Obviously, the more that can play in the competition, the better. That way, if a lesser light has a sudden upturn in form, they won't miss out through not being given the opportunity to play.

Having the best 16 players proven through results over the preceding couple of years (like in the Masters) will usually be enough to be sure of having the best players of the time taking part. Though really, you'd like a fairer ranking system than the current one being used.

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby SnookerFan

chengdufan wrote:
SnookerEd25 wrote:Yep, the unfilming thing is spot on, SF; 80s/90s it was impractical to show massive coverage when limited to just the terrestrial channels. But when the BBC cover Wimbledon (apologies for the Tennis mention :emb:), on the IPlayer and BBC website, you can find over a dozen matches to choose from during the early phases of the competition. How difficult would it be to do something similar with the UK?

I think this is down to the perception the broadcaster has of snooker viewers. The people making these decisions think that watching snooker is something people do while bored at home scanning through channels. They flick through and come to a snooker match and think, 'Ooh, Ronnie O'Sullivan is playing. I've heard of him. Don't people say he's exciting to watch? I think I'll watch a bit of this'.
To them, the idea of a 'snooker fan' is someone who will watch snooker when it is on, but doesn't really care who is playing as long as it is someone they have heard of (most likely someone who's been at the top of the game for at least 10 years).
The idea of someone knowing who any of the lower ranked players are, and of wanting to watch matches they play rather than Mark Selby v Joe Nobody is just ludicrous and completely beyond their comprehension.
So why would they bother broadcasting any of those matches?



:goodpost:

I think that's pretty much how the BBC think.

Not that they don't think that people like snooker, but they assume the vast majority of their fans are people who only watch sporadically. Will sit down and watch for a few hours if they come across it. Or are the sort of fans who really only want to watch when the bigger names are in it. You can just tell by their coverage, and the way the pundits talk. Not that they think the people at home hate snooker, but that it's very few people's favourite sport.

The sad thing is, there's probably some truth to it. Us fans who post about it on forums, and aren't only watching the big events are in a minority. We exist, but it's not who the BBC cater to.

ITV 4, even despite also being a freeview channel, doesn't seem to hold that view. But I wonder if they're anticipating smaller viewers than the BBC, so are more at ease catering to a more passionate minority?

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby LDS

I've never really understood the need for the UK event at all, even back in the 80s/90s.

It always seemed to be just the WSC poundland edition. Cheap knock-off edition. The same thing but less.

Having the English, Scottish and Welsh opens & etc makes sense. The idea of an open is to have these vast sprawling events that genuinely give everyone a much more fair crack at the competitive whip.

The Worlds and the Masters make sense as they are the two big prestigious events that are a player's reward for hacking through all the opens and coming out on top.

But the UK? Or indeed The International? They don't make any sense. They purport to be 'bigger than a country' but 'smaller than the world', to which, what's the point of that?

Surely just having each country have its opens & then have the worlds and the masters, seems far more logical.

Likewise, isn't the champion of Champions just a masters rip-off? Do we really need them both?

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby Iranu

LDS wrote:I've never really understood the need for the UK event at all, even back in the 80s/90s.

It always seemed to be just the WSC poundland edition. Cheap knock-off edition. The same thing but less.

Having the English, Scottish and Welsh opens & etc makes sense. The idea of an open is to have these vast sprawling events that genuinely give everyone a much more fair crack at the competitive whip.

The Worlds and the Masters make sense as they are the two big prestigious events that are a player's reward for hacking through all the opens and coming out on top.

But the UK? Or indeed The International? They don't make any sense. They purport to be 'bigger than a country' but 'smaller than the world', to which, what's the point of that?

Surely just having each country have its opens & then have the worlds and the masters, seems far more logical.

Likewise, isn't the champion of Champions just a masters rip-off? Do we really need them both?

I mean, at this point I think we should accept that many of the names are meaningless. International Championship, UK Championship, World Open etc.

Worth remembering that the UK was initially only open to British passport holders, too.

You also seem to be proposing that each country should only have one tournament, which doesn’t make much sense to me. Surely there should be as many tournaments as reasonably possible?

Champion of Champions has different criteria for eligibility than The Masters so I wouldn’t call it a rip-off.

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby The_Abbott

I thought this was a saviour post then realised it can't be it makes sense.

I do agree with your points but strangely enough I never used to over think these things until London 2012 when we had several different channels to watch on the red button - in fact I think you could watch every event regardless who was playing. Then Tennis where you could watch number 348 V number 239 out on court 76 and was more interesting than watching the usual garbage on BBC 1 or 2.

But they have cut down their red button coverage over the recent years, Its terrible. But I guess it comes down to cost as the BBC have made extensive cuts in recent years.

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby SnookerFan

Iranu wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
SnookerEd25 wrote:Yep, the unfilming thing is spot on, SF; 80s/90s it was impractical to show massive coverage when limited to just the terrestrial channels. But when the BBC cover Wimbledon (apologies for the Tennis mention :emb:), on the IPlayer and BBC website, you can find over a dozen matches to choose from during the early phases of the competition. How difficult would it be to do something similar with the UK?


No, I think that's one of the times the tennis mention is on subject and relevant.

I thought that myself, but thought if I said it everyone would have a go at me for doing something I'd critcised in the past.

The difference is, of course, tennis is massively more popular than snooker. And the coverage reflects that sadly.

It's also surely several times more expensive to film, though?


Well, yeah.

I mean, if Ronnie is playing on table 1, how many people are going to be wanting to tune into table 6,7 or 8?

They probably deem it unfeasible and they're probably right. As sad as that is.

This is kind of why I said this thread was a bit pointless. From the BBC's perspective, it's probably the correct decision and they're not going to change it.

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby Iranu

SnookerFan wrote:
Iranu wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
SnookerEd25 wrote:Yep, the unfilming thing is spot on, SF; 80s/90s it was impractical to show massive coverage when limited to just the terrestrial channels. But when the BBC cover Wimbledon (apologies for the Tennis mention :emb:), on the IPlayer and BBC website, you can find over a dozen matches to choose from during the early phases of the competition. How difficult would it be to do something similar with the UK?


No, I think that's one of the times the tennis mention is on subject and relevant.

I thought that myself, but thought if I said it everyone would have a go at me for doing something I'd critcised in the past.

The difference is, of course, tennis is massively more popular than snooker. And the coverage reflects that sadly.

It's also surely several times more expensive to film, though?


Well, yeah.

I mean, if Ronnie is playing on table 1, how many people are going to be wanting to tune into table 6,7 or 8?

They probably deem it unfeasible and they're probably right. As sad as that is.

This is kind of why I said this thread was a bit pointless. From the BBC's perspective, it's probably the correct decision and they're not going to change it.

I meant tennis.

You could air a snooker match with essentially a webcam. I feel like tennis requires more to effectively show it.

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby SnookerFan

LDS wrote:I've never really understood the need for the UK event at all, even back in the 80s/90s.

It always seemed to be just the WSC poundland edition. Cheap knock-off edition. The same thing but less.

Having the English, Scottish and Welsh opens & etc makes sense. The idea of an open is to have these vast sprawling events that genuinely give everyone a much more fair crack at the competitive whip.

The Worlds and the Masters make sense as they are the two big prestigious events that are a player's reward for hacking through all the opens and coming out on top.

But the UK? Or indeed The International? They don't make any sense. They purport to be 'bigger than a country' but 'smaller than the world', to which, what's the point of that?

Surely just having each country have its opens & then have the worlds and the masters, seems far more logical.

Likewise, isn't the champion of Champions just a masters rip-off? Do we really need them both?


I've made the point before that calling it the UK Championship seems outdated.

There was a time when it was only open to people from the UK, hence the name. But that ceased to be true when it became a ranking event. With the Welsh Open, for example, the winner is announced as the Welsh Open Champion. For this tournament, they are called the UK Champion. Which makes it sound like they are the champion of the UK. Which is a bit silly as it's open to an international field.,

Saying that, I kind of agree with Iranu. The name itself is meaningless. And kind of has been for decades. It just is more obvious now, because the sport is more international than it's ever been. The fact that it's called the UK Championship is somewhat outdated, but at the same time isn't some massively huge issue. It sounds odd when you think about it, but probably not worth changing it. I don't think anybody cares that much about it, even the people competing in it. Should really be called the UK Open. Though, I suppose you could argue the same with the China Championship is open to an international field also. Not worth the hassle thinking about.

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby HappyCamper

The title of thread says UK Championships. But it's actually singular. This does raise that it might be a nice idea to have women's and junior events running concurrently. Even doubles if you like that sort of thing.

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby SnookerFan

Iranu wrote:I meant tennis.

You could air a snooker match with essentially a webcam. I feel like tennis requires more to effectively show it.


Oh, I see what you mean.

Yeah, now you mention it, you'd probably need a full camera crew for tennis, yes. Whereas, secondary tables at snooker you could whack up a few webcams at the top of the table, you're right. It wouldn't be as good as the main two tables, but it could be watchable. How affordable would that be?

Personally, I'd miss commentary if they didn't have it. I watch snooker in the arena without the earpieces, but would miss commentary if it wasn't on TV. But at least it'd be good to have the choice to watch it. It'd certainly feel like a bigger event if you could flick between tables.

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby SnookerFan

HappyCamper wrote:The title of thread says UK Championships. But it's actually singular. This does raise that it might be a nice idea to have women's and junior events running concurrently. Even doubles if you like that sort of thing.


True. rofl

For some reason, I always do that with the UK and the Worlds.

Not the biggest bungke in history, it has to be said.

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby Iranu

SnookerFan wrote:
Iranu wrote:I meant tennis.

You could air a snooker match with essentially a webcam. I feel like tennis requires more to effectively show it.


Oh, I see what you mean.

Yeah, now you mention it, you'd probably need a full camera crew for tennis, yes. Whereas, secondary tables at snooker you could whack up a few webcams at the top of the table, you're right. It wouldn't be as good as the main two tables, but it could be watchable. How affordable would that be?

Personally, I'd miss commentary if they didn't have it. I watch snooker in the arena without the earpieces, but would miss commentary if it wasn't on TV. But at least it'd be good to have the choice to watch it. It'd certainly feel like a bigger event if you could flick between tables.

If you want commentary (I’d prefer it too) they could always use a similar format to the world qualifiers judgement day and have one or two commentators moving between all the other tables. They have like 8 commentators anyway and I’m sure someone like Angles would be happy to have that role. Maybe with good old Dave Farrar who deserves a role in snooker commentary after doing pretty well at the Worlds. Could be with Walker but obviously he has MC duties.

Could still have all the tables available without comms as well.

Re: The way the BBC presents the UK Championships

Postby lhpirnie

All 8 tables will probably be streamed if you know where to look.

As for the 'big names' argument, that's the way modern media works. Their 'recognition factor' takes precedence over everything else, like clickbait. Also, when there are two main TV tables, the players who have the highest ranking usually get priority - they complain otherwise. But yes, in general broadcasters are lazy and formulaic.