Emily Maitlis & Jon Sopel To Leave BBC

[Serial_Apologist]

The much-vaunted BBC "impartiality" is become so hard to sustain with everyone from Jonathan Humphries to Nana Akua jumping at the chance to go full Daily Mail the moment they quit, that I wonder whether we'll soon see AI presenters being rolled out across their news programmes.

Exactly - yet some choose to avoid the all too obvious significance of this.

[Serial_Apologist]

The most urgent matter is a complete redefinition of what 'impartiality' means as far as the BBC is concerned. It can no longer mean allowing both sides of a disagreement equal time/opportunity/treatment to state their case.

A clear example of this was offered on Sunday Morning this week on BBC4 - the ex-Andrew Marr Show - in which host Sophie Raworth played impartiality by repeatedly subjecting the PM to a question which he adamantly refused to answer, having only just questioned a leading Labour MP who was barely into giving each reply before being interrupted. At least Johnson was given the chances to reply! The manner in which questioning is done includes tone of voice, posture and engagement, whether or not the questioner is really interested in getting an answer, let alone fully fledged out argument; yet these nuances are often overlooked in merely analysing the words used.

[teamsaint]

I could write a thesis on media coverage of climate change . The Lawson interview on the Today programme was many many years ago . Back then there were plenty of journalists (and indeed members of the public) who didn’t “believe “ in man made climate change or , a slightly different thing , man made global warming. Weirdly there were some who didn’t believe in climate change at all - which takes a bit of beating .Indeed I even had a “heated debate “ with a colleague about the greenhouse effect - he didn’t “ believe “ in it. When I told him it could be demonstrated in vitro in an experiment he refused to accept it. About a few weeks later a scientist did precisely that experiment on Newsnight with a flask and a light source.

The position now is there is no need to “balance” where the balance of scientific opinion is strongly on one side. The problem now is addressing the mind boggling complexity of climate change and energy issues. Are people in the West really going to reduce their consumption of hi energy products and almost certainly a lower standard of living (though possibly higher quality) ? Are electric cars really “ greener” than internal combustion? Why are we subsiding the burning of wood chip and aerobic digestion of maize ? Just how green is that? Why have so many nations ruled out nuclear ? On the other hand are the billions being spent on Hinkley money well spent ? Trying to convey even a part of the complexities of those debates in the short amount of time given to them on the contemporary media is very hard which is one reason why the public debate is so thin.
Thanks for taking the time to read this…

Thanks, I think you make the points very well. I am somewhat wary of elements of the climate debate precisely because the issues are surely deep and wide, and such close focus on one aspect is not the best way forward.
We won’t effectively deal with the world’s pollution issues from a position of energy insecurity.

[Serial_Apologist]

Thanks, I think you make the points very well. I am somewhat wary of elements of the climate debate precisely because the issues are surely deep and wide, and such close focus on one aspect is not the best way forward.
We won’t effectively deal with the world’s pollution issues from a position of energy insecurity.

The trouble is "other things" constantly getting in the way to circumvent dealing with the world's pollution other than from a position of energy insecurity, if you see what I mean.

[teamsaint]

The trouble is "other things" constantly getting in the way to circumvent dealing with the world's pollution other than from a position of energy insecurity, if you see what I mean.

I’m not sure I do see exactly what you mean, in fact !!( sorry )

Energy insecurity isn’t just bad luck, it has, at best, been allowed to happen, and the ordinary people will suffer worst.

[Serial_Apologist]

I’m not sure I do see exactly what you mean, in fact !!( sorry )

Energy insecurity isn’t just bad luck, it has, at best, been allowed to happen, and the ordinary people will suffer worst.

Things like Brexit, covid, racism and mysogyny in the police. And yes, I agree with your second paragraph! There's an expression I've been hearing since time immemorial, it's "but things are as they are", used as a pretext for never sorting out endemic problems because they have to be set aside for something more urgent.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I’m not sure I do see exactly what you mean, in fact !!( sorry )

Energy insecurity isn’t just bad luck, it has, at best, been allowed to happen, and the ordinary people will suffer worst.

Well worth reading Dieter Helm on this. He has been criticising the lack of an over arching UK energy strategy for 25 years . Now the chickens are coming home to roost in a way that even he didn’t foresee…

[cloughie]

Well worth reading Dieter Helm on this. He has been criticising the lack of an over arching UK energy strategy for 25 years . Now the chickens are coming home to roost in a way that even he didn’t foresee…

I would say the UK energy strategy went wrong 40 years ago when politics appeared to be more important than appropriate use of our energy resources!

[Serial_Apologist]

I would say the UK energy strategy went wrong 40 years ago when politics appeared to be more important than appropriate use of our energy resources!

But isn't politics PRECISELY about appropriate use of energy (and all other) resources?

Surely you meant the WRONG KIND of politics!

[cloughie]

But isn't politics PRECISELY about appropriate use of energy (and all other) resources?

Surely you meant the WRONG KIND of politics!

I’ll stick with what I said!

[Ein Heldenleben]

But isn't politics PRECISELY about appropriate use of energy (and all other) resources?

Surely you meant the WRONG KIND of politics!

As a massive generalisation I would say that the UK energy strategy (lack thereof) , like NHS funding and structure , agriculture and food is one of those very complex areas where there’s been a remarkable amount of political consensus and I don’t think that’s helped solve any of the problems. Most of the radical ideas come from academics , think tanks like the Kings Fund , and interestingly, from within the sectors themselves.Many doctors will tell you a paid -for -out -of -tax NHS isn’t sustainable and that some from of continental style hybrid funding is needed - but the politicians can’t grasp the nettle. Many farmers (outside the NFU) know that production subsidies are counter productive etc etc…And as for energy where do you start ?. In the sixties we had a cutting edge World leading nuclear industry and were largely self supporting (albeit through coal ) now we just hope the wind blows and the sun shines…

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm amazed the BBC has seen fit to put two of its main hosts in the heart of danger, with Justin Webb and Clive Myrie joining their by now effective political sacrificial lamb Lise Doucet in Kyiv. I truly hope they have rescue arrangements in case.

[muzzer]

I think BBC News is in real trouble. Maitlis and Sopel’s podcast on the US is really good. I was highly skeptical at first, they both get on my nerves, but with the inestimable help of Anthony Zurcher they’ve won me over. I can’t believe they’ll keep the same high level of access to top quality guests from a commercial platform, not at least in the US where the Beeb has most visibility by far.

And will their LBC role be limited to a podcast or will it be tv too? Or will it be a televised podcast? Daily? I’ll give them a go.