Eddie Mair

[Serial_Apologist]

Do not worry: they'll entice Mair back into the BBC when Humphrys is finally pensioned off - and the sooner the better, to judge by his "interview" of John McDonnell this morning. Compare the later courtesy with which a rep from the Soil Association was treated: no "Well that's no answer" to a question just answered; no "Well how do you think the nation can be fed if you say farmers have to look after the soil?" etc etc. You get my point.

[Bryn]

Do not worry: they'll entice Mair back into the BBC when Humphrys is finally pensioned off - and the sooner the better, to judge by his "interview" of John McDonnell this morning. Compare the later courtesy with which a rep from the Soil Association was treated: no "Well that's no answer" to a question just answered; no "Well how do you think the nation can be fed if you say farmers have to look after the soil?" etc etc. You get my point.

A late and disturbed night meant I drifted off (not enmtirely unintentionally) during today's Today. I will catch up via the iPlayer.

[LMcD]

Is it possible that one of these interviewees was more evasive than the other.? After about 2 minutes of the John McDonnell interview, during which he was not unnecessarily interrupted as far as I was aware, I realized it was time to return to Petroc.
(If it's rude interruptions you want, Martha Kearney is guaranteed to oblige).

[Cockney Sparrow]

I agree Humphreys can be intolerable in not allowing the person to answer (talk about never ask a question you don't know the answer to....) - although some interviewees get an easy ride in that respect.
However, my impression is that the interviewers vary, but generally surely in general this is determined by their relentless criteria of allocating a small amount of time. And that applies to mid/late August when there is dearth of the meat and drink political subjects and they cast around for content which by no means can be described as news. They must be firmly of the view if they give enough time to properly address any issue, us poor listeners would lose interest.

Other forums (one in particular of which I am aware) despise BBC News programmes - they link to and follow Podcasters and You Tube channels (which runs the risk of partisan followers talking only to each other and endlessly re-inforcing their standpoint). And in the last 10 days there was a R4 programme (I'll update this thread when I find it) which pointed out some of those "channels" are getting very large followings - hence the BBC waking up and pushing podcasts left right and centre.

Supposedly BBC News is carefully balanced and held to journalistic and charter standards - but I wonder whether the trivial and shallow treatment meted out by such short time allocations are on anyone's radar.

[DracoM]

I've taken to listening more and more to BBC World Service apart from R3.

[Serial_Apologist]

Is it possible that one of these interviewees was more evasive than the other.? After about 2 minutes of the John McDonnell interview, during which he was not unnecessarily interrupted as far as I was aware, I realized it was time to return to Petroc.
(If it's rude interruptions you want, Martha Kearney is guaranteed to oblige).

I didn't say McDonnell was "unneccessarily interrrupted".

[french frank]

Do not worry: they'll entice Mair back into the BBC when Humphrys is finally pensioned off - and the sooner the better, to judge by his "interview" of John McDonnell this morning. Compare the later courtesy with which a rep from the Soil Association was treated: no "Well that's no answer" to a question just answered; no "Well how do you think the nation can be fed if you say farmers have to look after the soil?" etc etc.

The comparison isn't really like with like, though: politicians can be 'held to account' for what they say and do. The Soil Association isn't in that position, being a charity.

[Serial_Apologist]

The comparison isn't really like with like, though: politicians can be 'held to account' for what they say and do. The Soil Association isn't in that position, being a charity.

I'm still unhappy about the McDonnell interview this morning - but you've made a very strong point there, which hadn't occurred to me, ff.

[french frank]

I'm still unhappy about the McDonnell interview this morning - but you've made a very strong point there, which hadn't occurred to me, ff.

I gave up Today years ago (probably decades ago) because I couldn't stand the interviewing style of J Humphrys et al (but Humphrys in particular). There's persistent and there's belligerent.