If, like me, you’re not that bothered about the Royal Wedding, stay away from your television.
For that matter, you might as well stay away from your radio too – regardless of the station you tune to, that’s all they are banging on about.
Before I get the comments of “but it’s the royals” and “its the most famous family in the world” etc etc, I know. I get it.
So how’s this for a simple solution then?
It doesn’t matter what the American networks do, they can go Royal Wedding crazy for all I care to be frank. Here in the UK it’s a different story.
I agree that the event is a matter of national historical importance and should be marked.
I similarly have no problem with the state broadcaster covering the event, in its entirety, will the state pomp and circumstance that should go with it.
So the simplistic way would be to have the wall-to-wall Royal Wedding coverage on BBC Two, much like where live political coverage is shunted – the Budget for example means far more to me than Harry and Megan’s big day.
That way, BBC One is left for the hefty numbers of licence fee payers that don’t have an interest in two people taking their vows in a massive church, at a ceremony that 99.99% of us couldn’t even dream of having the experience of.
Quite why the BBC News Channel insists on simulcasting the wall-to-wall coverage is a decision I’d dearly like to put to the editors at New Broadcasting House.
Two people exchanging vows in Windsor is not news.
Put whatever spin on it you like, it is not news.
With the frenzy of the build up to the wedding yesterday, I was disgusted, not only with the BBC it has to be said, but also Sky News, ITV News, and many other international broadcasters, for failing to adequately cover the deaths of 10 people at a school shooting in Texas, and the deaths of over 100 in a tragic plane crash in Cuba.
Any other day, both of those stories would have been top billing, and frankly should have been yesterday too – wedding or no wedding.