Emily Maitlis & Jon Sopel To Leave BBC

[groovydavidii]

Emily Maitlis and Jon Sopel – two first-class presenters – leaving BBC to join Global Group. I'm increasingly listening to LBC these days, namely to James O’Brien, Shelagh Fogarty, Matt Frei, Eddie Mair, include Natasha Devon, equally good presenters. If Newsnight reduce first comment call-up to IDS, Peter Bone, Peter Lilley, may return to watching the programme.

[Cockney Sparrow]

I've been wondering why Emily Maitlis has been absent from Newsnight. Haven't there been a couple of "issues" about her making comments /questions that contravene the recently re-inforced BBC's neutrality in news presenters expressing an opinion (any opinion). Perhaps she is attracted by the opportunity to leave that straight jacket behind....

.......If Newsnight reduce first comment call-up to IDS, Peter Bone, Peter Lilley, may return to watching the programme.

I've seen both Bone and Lilley on Newsnight in the last 2 or so weeks. I turn the sound down and ignore Bone, who's epic complacency I find highly annoying. It does fill the "Tory time allocation for balance" segment so I don't have to decide whether to cut the sound as I so often do when I'm about to be asked to accept the preposterous reasons they advance to explain away the acts or omissions of their immoral and corrupt government. I wouldn't regret Lilley not appearing again, but I do find his extreme annoyance amusing - annoyance that the BBC dare to express any point of view which conflicts with his extreme "freedom" position. Lilley is resistance to global warming personified so the best thing that can be said is that he can air his views in the open and be assessed for what he is.......

However, none of the developments on presenter departures to date is likely to drive me into being an LBC (or Times Radio) listener....

[DracoM]

Both a massive loss to BBC esp Emily M. She is my only reason for watching Newsnight most nights!

[cloughie]

Both a massive loss to BBC esp Emily M. She is my only reason for washing Newsnight most nights!

So now you’re washing your hands of it!

[Alison]

As we say in our family ‘they’ve both had a good run’.

You’ve still got Kirsty Wark, DracoM.

[gurnemanz]

Emma Barnett (came from LBC to Beeb) has also left to concentrate on Woman's Hour and 'other projects'.

[cat]

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.

[french frank]

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.

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.

[Ein Heldenleben]

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.

It’s never really meant that . There is no equivalence given in matters of fact or where the balance of science is based fairly on one side . E.g. The greenhouse effect (fact ) , global warming (strong balance of evidence), man made global warning (ditto maybe slightly less ) .
The problem comes on all the other issues from Brexit , the economy, culture wars , the housing problem , the funding of the health service where there is a big range of views some very nuanced. It’s almost impossible to reflect the entire range of views or even a selection of them in anything less than an hour long programme and very few people these days are prepared to devote that amount of time to viewing a film or reading a 10,000 word article.
The complexities of the NHS - how it’s structured how it’s funded , how “successful “ it is for example. In the past when working Ive spent weeks researching pieces on it - it’s like trying to wrestle with a whale greased in oil. Just with academia there are a range of opinions - spend more on primary care - no spend less spend more on hospitals - no spend more on health education . The real problem is private practice - no it’s not it’s underfunding etc etc. The irony is that as far as the NHS is concerned there’s more consensus amongst politicians and the public ( to just keep shelling out) than those that work in it and study it . The only thing that the latter two groups have some consensus on is the need for some sort of continental style hybrid insurance system - but try selling that to the public. And try making a film about it and getting it shown…

[french frank]

It’s never really meant that . There is no equivalence given in matters of fact or where the balance of science is based fairly on one side . E.g. The greenhouse effect (fact ) , global warming (strong balance of evidence), man made global warning (ditto maybe slightly less ) .

Except there was the case of Nigel Lawson being rolled on to represent the climate deniers.

The problem comes on all the other issues from Brexit , the economy, culture wars , the housing problem , the funding of the health service where there is a big range of views some very nuanced.

I truncated my last reply to ignore this as possibly leading to controversy . But, yes, and not just nuanced. Completely polarised. Where on earth do you draw the line between reasoned doubts and copper-bottomed certainties on both extremes of the argument?

[gurnemanz]

I like Emily M but won't be following her to LBC. I don't buy a daily paper any more, just Observer on Sunday and now get my news from various sources, but a rolling news channel is not what I want as my radio listening. I regular check out Sky News and BBC News on the TV to keep in the picture and nearly always watch Newsnight, whoever is presenting, as a good way to round off the day. I mainly obtain latest news on my phone or tablet. The apps, Fast News and NewsNow, are very useful for tracking latest news from various sources, also HuffPost. I also like to use German news sources for a different line on things.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Except there was the case of Nigel Lawson being rolled on to represent the climate deniers.



I truncated my last reply to ignore this as possibly leading to controversy . But, yes, and not just nuanced. Completely polarised. Where on earth do you draw the line between reasoned doubts and copper-bottomed certainties on both extremes of the argument?

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…

[french frank]

I could write a thesis on media coverage of climate change . The Lawson interview on the Today programme was many many years ago .

Not exactly Back to Methuselah - it was 5 years ago, but point taken that it's now 'ancient history' as far as the BBC's practice is concerned.

The position now is there is no need to “balance” where the balance of scientific opinion is strongly on one side.

And it may be just human nature that gets enraged when some 'obviously' wrong/morally wrong opinion is being spouted by some (evil) idiot … So much is in the eye and ear of the beholder. Yes, sometimes unfortunately the 'balance' IS wrong, but only because some other individual approaches the issue from a different place. Not only allowed but inevitable. I'm not so sure of always being right on anything to want to have to make these decisions.

Thanks for taking the time to read this…

A pleasure

[Ein Heldenleben]

Not exactly Back to Methuselah - it was 5 years ago, but point taken that it's now 'ancient history' as far as the BBC's practice is concerned.



And it may be just human nature that gets enraged when some 'obviously' wrong/morally wrong opinion is being spouted by some (evil) idiot … So much is in the eye and ear of the beholder. Yes, sometimes unfortunately the 'balance' IS wrong, but only because some other individual approaches the issue from a different place. Not only allowed but inevitable. I'm not so sure of always being right on anything to want to have to make these decisions.



A pleasure

The whole notion of “balance “only really works in short form journalism where there. are two opposing views on a relatively simple subject. Any issue of any complexity needs a range of voices all given the time to expound an argument and a intelligent guide ( who can never be completely neutral and needs to be completely conscious of that ) to steer the argument. And all that needs time …tine that the public often aren’t prepared to give .
It’s not all bad - if there’s a strong narrative people will follow a complex eight episode podcast but these are people and emotion -led they are not going to change government thinking much. Another positive sign the return of the long essay in The Guardian and Times - these are nearly always worth reading . A particularly good one from a retiring GP this week…

[Cockney Sparrow]

5 years seems like a long time. Lawson also sallied forth to lecture us how Brexit would make life better for us. When I say "us" I mean those of us living in the UK. Lawson himself, like a number of other Brexit enthusiasts, has presumably returned to live in pleasant surroundings in France where being ruled by an over bureaucratic and EU dominated government is preferable to the "freedoms" the rest of us are now saddled with.