BBC v ITV (and maybe C4)

[Donnywolf]

I have already stated that any Goverment of any colour would be struggling with the current crisis. I get that

However I have also said that (in my opinion) I have never seen such a clueless set of Ministers in my "lifetime" which I define as since I started voting in 69 or 70 onwards.

To a man and woman their only qualification seems to be they are Johnsons men and women who are being rewarded for their ability to toe his line and repeat " we must get Brexit done" "we must deliver on the will of the British people" etc

Unfortunately (notwithstanding my opening sentence) they are now in charge of overseeing the crisis and are not doing a very good job of it it seems and to get to the Title and connect it to my post they are not being held accountable and simply trot out the three planks of defence.

I have watched Atkins MP and Minister in this Goverment - in charge of leading us through this crisis and she was given virtually a free ride on the BBC on Breakfast. They seemed to let the answers be evaded again and again and because Panorama had aired last night and been severely critical of the Governments action and reaction there was plenty of challenging questions that were put but which when batted back by platitudes - repeats - mantras they were not followed through.

I really wanted them to be. Example Billion pieces of PPE have now been delivered to the front line / war zone (yawn) but apparantly each glove is counted as a piece. Is that true Atkins was asked. I never did find the answer

I turned off in disgust wondering what had happened to the Media. I turned to ITV something I rarely do because the adverts are frustrating but I have always seen them as "second class" to the Beeb and I find Piers Morgan (though I dont know him personally) irritating - cant zero in more than that. Irritating will have to do

By coincidence Atkins was next up - obviously her turn to do the rounds. Piers Morgan was way over the top as I have seen hime before but Atkins did not get a free ride. She was hassled / put on the spot held to account and even pulled up several times for "laughing" and I was impressed by the difference
He was still ranting that we as a Country had the chance to react to the Exercise in 2016 that we should gear up for such a situation as we are now in and instead we had not got a single Gown "in stock" when this started and as such the chance to "save" the huge numbers of frontline NHS workers by having such PPE ready and waiting and he didnt let up.

Atkins was pinned like a butterfly to a board and several times he called her incompetent and when she had gone he had a row with his partner about how outraged we as the Public should be and how Johnson should stop sending "nobodies" who knew nothing of the current situation and I thought - yes - he is correct and how refreshing (if that is the word) to see someone being held to account

He did make a big thing of the Gloves being counted "individually" thus seeming to boost the figure of a Billion bits of PPE but to my regret I still did not get the anwer or indeed denial
ITV or BBC I can see which is more independent now and though the adverts will be galling it will be them for News ( and /or C4) from now

 

[Glyn_Wigley]

The BBC have never really found anyone to replace Paxman as a hard-hitting political interviewer.

[Donnywolf]

True Paxo would have been Morgan like I suppose but probably only if the BBC let him. They seem to just capitulate on this issues and those of  the recent past

[nightporter]

The BBC are terrified of the government and what they will do to them.

[ravenrover]

Robin Day, the master
Well may I say a here today gone tomorrow minister to John Nott

[albie]

Word is that C4 are in the naughty corner, and along with the Murdoch Sunday Times will not be allowed questions at the daily briefing.

It would be good to know how the journo's are chosen for the asking of questions?
By individual, by publication, by rota or by names in a hat?

[Donnywolf]

Robin Day, the master
Well may I say a here today gone tomorrow minister to John Knott

Corking - yes - I had forgotten that. Thanks for reminder

[Glyn_Wigley]

Robin Day, the master
Well may I say a here today gone tomorrow minister to John Knott

Corking - yes - I had forgotten that. Thanks for reminder

But how many remember what it was about?

[idler]

I remember Robin Day interviewing Richard Crossman in a quite fiery exchange. At the end Robin Day said something like " Thank you Mr. Crossman as always it is a pleasure crossing swords with you".
A different world.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Robin Day, the master
Well may I say a here today gone tomorrow minister to John Knott

One of the problems with political interviewing is that some of the subsequent generation took on the combative approach for the sake of it, rather than as a technique to get to the truth.

John Humphries was shocking in that sense. He would make it his aim to turn every interview into a confrontation. And that inevitably leads to politicians being defiensive and bland in the way they approach the interview.

THE best ever political interview was David Frost, interviewing Nixon after he's stepped down. No thuggish confrontation. Frost gently coaxed Nixon into effectively admitting his crimes. It was a masterpiece of interviewing.

[ravenrover]

Robin Day, the master
Well may I say a here today gone tomorrow minister to John Knott

Corking - yes - I had forgotten that. Thanks for reminder

But how many remember what it was about?

Naval cuts after the Falklands was it "nott"?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Robin Day, the master
Well may I say a here today gone tomorrow minister to John Knott

Corking - yes - I had forgotten that. Thanks for reminder

But how many remember what it was about?

Naval cuts after the Falklands was it "nott"?

The interview was conducted in the handsight of the Falklands War, but referred to the initial cuts Nott wanted in 1981 that received a lot of criticism from the Navy, before the Falklands.

[Donnywolf]

Now EVEN my guilty pleasure of watching ITV instead of BBC has been "supressed"

Since Piers Morgan tried to hold a Minister to account https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/piers-morgan-rages-lying-government-21943876 it appears they have decided no longer to offer him the chance of interviewing any more for the time being

I saw this mornings Minister who was allowed to say (on BBC) that one of the Govts success stories in the crisis was their "clarity of message". Personally I didnt agree with that but it was just left to drift off without further challenge as they are more infatuated with Capt Tom and his 100th Birthday which is understanable of course

I remembered I am now an ITV viewer and it reminded me to swap over where I knew the nameless Minister would not be allowed to "get away with that" without further scrutiny from Morgan but he quickly made it clear that the Govt Minister nor any other Govt Minister would be appearing in the near future.
So good luck BBC but grow a pair and get some teeth stuck into these people AND get some answers

[IDM]

Clarity of message.?  Is that the actual wording used?  If so, that’s being clever.

You could interpret that as them saying they deliver messages clearly, rather than the message content actually conveying clarity about the situation..

[Donnywolf]

Its hard to know IDM - because on BBC they didnt follow up and let his answer just slide off unchallenged and as I have said elsewhere ITV have been denied access to Ministers any more after Piers Morgan has been getting stuck into them.

He obviously watches the Minister and their answers on BBC and when they later come on his show (lets face it its his show) he goes straight to the points that need addressing - but no more - so more free rides on BBC

[BillyStubbsTears]

Read this by Kuenssberg.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52475630

She is the political EDITOR at the BBC. A political editor is supposed to present a nuanced critique of political issues. Delving into motives and educating the reader on the complexities of decisions. Whether politicians are being trustworthy. Honest. Fair.

Read that piece. What she is doing there, right up to the throwaway last sentence is simple stating what someone in Govt had told her. She's acting as a mouthpiece for the Govt.

This is utterly dreadful lack of professionalism. She has built her position on being well connected with the Tory party insiders and she gets first dabs on what they are going to do. But she pretty much never gives a critique. She just tells us what Govt wants us to hear.

Remember, she was the one who rushed to report that a Labour activist had assaulted one of Matt Hancock's aides outside a hospital in the election campaign. It was absolute b*llocks. A lie whispered to her by No 10. And she never apologised for that.

This is the BBC. It used to have a reputation as one of the finest political broadcasters in the world. But it's lost its soul.

[IDM]

Although that report is a preface to what may or may not be said by the PM later.  I would expect more of a critique after the PM has spoken.?

The cynical mind could suggest that the PM taking the briefing today is to deflect from the probable failure to meet the test target..

[BillyStubbsTears]

IDM

It's flying a flag for the speech. It's a tactic. See what the response is the Kuenssberg's piece and make adjustments to the speech if the article draws flak.

She's acting as a Govt communications aide.

[IDM]

Possibly, that is one explanation.

It looked to me like putting something out as a preview for the sake of putting something out..

[BillyStubbsTears]

There is that. But that's how she operates. She gets fed information by Govt and she passes it on undigested. Where do you think that information about what Johnson will say came from? It'll be direct from the No 10 Comms team!

That is 100% NOT how the BBC political editor should operate. Yes she needs to be well connected and get inside info. But she should be a filter. A prism. Breaking up the information and analysing it.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Clarity of message.?  Is that the actual wording used?  If so, that’s being clever.

You could interpret that as them saying they deliver messages clearly, rather than the message content actually conveying clarity about the situation..

Janet And John books also have an unblemished record of clarity of message. And probably have the same intended target audience.

[Filo]

There is that. But that's how she operates. She gets fed information by Govt and she passes it on undigested. Where do you think that information about what Johnson will say came from? It'll be direct from the No 10 Comms team!

That is 100% NOT how the BBC political editor should operate. Yes she needs to be well connected and get inside info. But she should be a filter. A prism. Breaking up the information and analysing it.

Whats the betting she gets the first question this evening?

[Ldr]

Apart from the fear and outrage agendas that I have spoken about before. Reporting in the country has moved from reporting fact to reporting opinion and feeling, listen to the questions asked at the conferences

[IDM]

From what I have seen, the BBC always gets the first question at the daily briefings..

[IDM]

Clarity of message.?  Is that the actual wording used?  If so, that’s being clever.

You could interpret that as them saying they deliver messages clearly, rather than the message content actually conveying clarity about the situation..

Janet And John books also have an unblemished record of clarity of message. And probably have the same intended target audience.

I prefer the Terry Wogan Janet and John stories...

[BillyStubbsTears]

Apart from the fear and outrage agendas that I have spoken about before. Reporting in the country has moved from reporting fact to reporting opinion and feeling, listen to the questions asked at the conferences

Ldr.

I'm not sure if that was in response to my posts, so forgive me if I've misread.

If it was, it misses the point. Kuenssberg here is not reporting "fact" or "opinion". She's acting as a conduit whereby, through her No10 controls the news agenda.

What a political editor SHOULD do is, yes, report facts but dissect them. Analyse them in light of other issues. Look at what they mean for likely policy implications. How they fit with political objectives. What the consequences are likely to be.

In doing that, she should be synthesising information from several sources and helping the reader make sense of complex situations.

Kuenssberg rarely does any of that. She just repeats what somebody in No10 has whispered to her.

[Copps is Magic]

https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2020/29/april/coronavirus-the-revolving-door-between-politics-and-the-media-owen-jones

[BillyStubbsTears]

https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2020/29/april/coronavirus-the-revolving-door-between-politics-and-the-media-owen-jones

Yeah I saw that. It was quite a shock to see just how many leading BBC (and to a lesser extent, ITV) journalists have bounced between there and the Tory party.

The only one I can think of on the other side is Paul Mason, who was briefly the BBC economics editor 10 years or so ago and is now a Labour activists (but not employed by the Labour party).

And yet the Right insist that there is a terrible left-wing bias at the BBC.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Apart from the fear and outrage agendas that I have spoken about before. Reporting in the country has moved from reporting fact to reporting opinion and feeling, listen to the questions asked at the conferences

The way I see it is that the media (and especially the newspapers, who have been losing money all over the place) have been sacking so many people to save money that they don't employ real journalists any more, they now employ glorified data gatherers who either reprint press releases that someone else has written or nick stories from one another instead of going out and doing the job properly. Anything to fill space as quickly and cheaply as possible.

[Ldr]

Apart from the fear and outrage agendas that I have spoken about before. Reporting in the country has moved from reporting fact to reporting opinion and feeling, listen to the questions asked at the conferences

Ldr.

I'm not sure if that was in response to my posts, so forgive me if I've misread.

If it was, it misses the point. Kuenssberg here is not reporting "fact" or "opinion". She's acting as a conduit whereby, through her No10 controls the news agenda.

What a political editor SHOULD do is, yes, report facts but dissect them. Analyse them in light of other issues. Look at what they mean for likely policy implications. How they fit with political objectives. What the consequences are likely to be.

In doing that, she should be synthesising information from several sources and helping the reader make sense of complex situations.

Kuenssberg rarely does any of that. She just repeats what somebody in No10 has whispered to her.

Nah it was a general whinge mate