The modern Beebs men and women did neither, mainly I suspect because they are too ignorant and uninformed too even know how to start out on such a challenge.
That may or may not be true, but that's not really the point. The issue is not what
could be done, but what is
desired to be done by the people who design this sort of broadcasting. Of course they could get people with the requisite knowledge if they wanted to, and most of the presenters they used are more than capable of doing the research - there's just no desire to produce that sort of programming, at least at the executive level.
I am of course building something of a straw man here, but I suspect that proposals to produce a broadcast along the lines of what's being discussed in this thread - involving a factual review of the history of the vessels involved - would be received, after the laughter had died down, of being far too much of a lecture, far too dictatorial in tone and inappropriate for something that was supposed to be a celebration (and I might agree, to some extent). In a wider sense, due to "the unique way in which it is funded", the BBC is often terribly self-conscious about its public service remit (much more so than the other PS broadcasters in the UK) and has a terrible tendency to overdo things like audience participation, even when that participation involves monosyllabic responses to a presenter's questions from a clearly-uncomfortable member of the public. At risk of sounding like Richard Littlejohn, there would very likely have been a review process (that's a "debrief", mil types) after the event at which some chortling exective producers would have given themselves a slap on the back every time a member of a visible minority appeared in shot. I have been in meetings like this. It is very horrible.
To be clear, I'm not supporting this state of affairs, much as the citizenry of this board doesn't necessarily support the fact that Typhoon is many times over budget and ten years late; nevertheless, this is the situation, and it is not the fault of the presenters. In general it's worth giving TV presenters the benefit of the doubt, as in many cases they're paid talking machines. They bear a much-reduced responsibility for what they're saying than, say, a politician.
What's much more interesting is to discuss what the
correct solution would have been, and this is a matter of opinion. I get the feeling that my audience here is mainly retired and serving RAF officers, their friends and families, and associated people, a largely male, upper-middle-class group likely to be the most tolerant of a four-hour lecture on the small boats of Britain. Nevertheless, I suspect if you'd seen it, you would probably have complained that it was a bit dull and failed to make the most of the situation, and you'd have been right.
I'd wholeheartedly agree that the BBC's choice to go completely to the other end of the spectrum, for the imaginary audience of stupid people I mentioned above, was just as much a mistake. The best approach, as so often, would seem to be somewhere inbetween.
P