One viewer said there was ‘zero chemistry between two pretty useless hosts’ (Image: BBC)
Among the disgruntled viewers who were eagerly awaiting the results of the general election was one who expressed confusion over the show’s “impossibility to navigate.”
The BBC’s “terrible” coverage has drawn criticism from British citizens seeking to stay up to date on the results of the general election.
In the wake of Labour’s resounding victory, which will see Sir Kier Starmer take the helm as the UK’s next prime minister, presenters on Sky, ITV, Channel 4, and the BBC are still reporting live from constituencies across the nation this morning.
However, a number have expressed dissatisfaction with the BBC’s coverage, criticising the show’s “useless hosts” and asserting that the network did not provide a fair and impartial report on the outcomes. Some claimed that it was just “impossible to navigate” through the programme.
Using X, a viewer said, “The BBC’s coverage has been f**king awful.” Poor set design, cluttered visuals, a history of poor editing choices, awful guests, and little chemistry between the two essentially worthless hosts. Not its best hour or hours.”
The BBC's coverage has been fucking awful. Terrible set, busy graphics, repeated wrong decisions on what to cut to, crap guests, and zero chemistry between two pretty useless hosts. Not its finest hour(s).
— Jim Dickinson (@jim_dickinson) July 5, 2024
Another concurred, saying just, “The BBC’s coverage has been appalling. All I’d keep is Vine.”
One viewer on iPlayer said, “What the hell is going on at the BBC? “, calling the coverage a “mess” and “impossible to navigate”. Turn on to watch Jeremy Vince display an Asquith graphic. It’s tough to traverse iPlayer coverage. a disarray.”
