Read on Twitter
The BBC couldn't win today. It's had so many complaints about excessive coverage of the Duke of Edinburgh's death there's a special page on the website to add your name to the list of angry viewers and listeners. (1/8)
Certainly the coverage was heavier than it was when Diana died in 1997. Then, BBC 2 broke away mid-afternoon and offered an alternative schedule. Today, BBC 1 & 2 have been identical almost all day. (2/8)
The same on radio. In 1997, @BBCR1 blended chilled out music with news. Today it relayed @BBCRadio4 for hours, along with every other network and local station, after which I imagine almost no-one was listening. (3/8)
Why? I suspect fear of being lambasted for doing too little. Fear that the Daily Mail, or similar, would stoke outrage at an inappropriate song, or a programme deemed by some self-appointed guardian to be unacceptable. (4/8)
Remember Peter Sissons was targeted in 2002 for wearing a dark burgundy tie to announce the death of the Queen Mother. Someone's decided it's better to be accused of doing too much than too little. (5/8)
The hour-long documentary about Philip's life, aired at 9pm, was excellent. But at times it's felt very heavy-handed. Why close down @BBCFOUR for the night? Why not put a few carefully-chosen alternatives on @BBCTwo ? (6/8)
I found it very interesting (as something of an anorak) to compare approaches in the 10pm news. @BBCNews treated it as a state event, while @ITVNews treated it no less respectfully, but as a big news story. It felt a little sharper, a little more relevant to the audience. (7/8)
On and off, I've had a very vague hand in planning coverage of Philip's death. Everyone involved thinks about it a lot. It’s hard work, and getting the tone right is tricky. Especially when you're the national broadcaster. I'm glad I wasn't in the hot seat at the BBC today. (8/8)
