[DTV]

I think people are remembering Election night with rose tinted glasses like they do with Christmas TV and Comic Relief.

I feel the truth is somewhere in the middle - BBC election coverage, and politics output more widely, has always had issues and left a lot to be desired, including long being disucssion-heavy over actual analysis, but it has noticeably reached new levels of shallowness in the last few years.

Peter Snow's swingometer might have been a bit unnecessary at times, but it was only part of what he did - go and watch old coverage and he is for a large part presenting actual data from often specially commissioned opinion polls, adding vital context to discussions. That all went with Jeremy Vine, whose graphics - at best - are mere results summaries (presented in the most patronising way possible).

Similarly, the lead psephologist - then Anthony King - was also present at the main studio desk, able to correct politicians when they made blatantly motivated analyses. Now John Curtice is squirrelled away in some barely visited 'results centre', allowing his analysis to be contradicted unchallenged by politicians and talking heads for most of the programme. There are also smaller things, such as visits to regional editors being less frequent than they were on local election programmes. It's not that old election nights were great, it's just more recent ones are worse.

What amazes me, though, is they persist with such a derided format. Pretty much everybody I've ever heard discuss BBC election night programmes thinks it should be heavier on analysis and results, lighter on the 'discussion'. Yet this persists - is there some secret group of viewers who love hearing the same party HQ-approved talking points on a loop for hours? It wouldn't even be difficult - they've got cameras at the counts, they've got the graphics templates pre-made for the touchscreen, they've got pretty much every election expert in NBH as part of the exit poll team - why not try and be better, produce something worth watching.