9 Jul
1:39pm, 9 Jul 2024
25,056 posts
|
larkim
richmac wrote: larkim wrote:There'll always be some triviality. Wasn't it the "rumour" that "Mark D'Arcy" in Bridget Jones' Diary was partly based on Starmer? When he was elected I think Lucy Porter made a similar observation about Starmer on HIGNFY or a similar show. (And I think I went on record here noting that Starmer photographed well in the manifesto. I'm not totally immune to the trivialities of politics!) Film is 2001, doesn't rake much to dispell does it He was well known well before then; the grauniad article shows why it was a credible concept, but apparently Fielding has denied it (privately). |
|
9 Jul
1:44pm, 9 Jul 2024
25,057 posts
|
larkim
Cheg wrote: Come on Larkim I do try and find the good in your constant attempts to be contratary, but the 'I suppose' there is no way to spin that. It was such an odd turn of phrase, there is no way that wasn't pre planned. It is just two words, but pretty significant ones. We have the Olympics coming up soon. If a GB athlete gets a bronze because a couple of people trip in their race, if the interviewer says "Well done, I suppose." That interviewer can be rightly told to fuck off. LOL. Yes of course they can, and we can infer personal things about people's opinions; if Gabby Logan detests Richard Kilty and has a snotty interview with him, that's not very professional and not great. But my point is, it doesn't matter and particularly doesn't matter in the political journalism world. What matters in political Q&A sessions / interviews *fundamentally* is the answers given, not the way the questions are phrased or delivered. As I've said, I can see it being an issue if an interviewer persists with a clearly biased line of enquiry and ignores the response given, or editorialises beyond the interview (e.g. at the end of an interview with "well, thank you Minister, you've clearly set out how your policies are inferior to the Conservative ones"), but the odd throw away comment *whilst not ideal* doesn't evidence institutional bias, or indeed stop the politicians from answering and responding effectively and robustly. In fact, I want politicians to be put on the spot and challenged robustly; cosy chats about success add very little. |
9 Jul
1:55pm, 9 Jul 2024
4,285 posts
|
Cheg
I've stopped listening to the Leading podcast because I am so tired of the constant negative and aggressive interview style. They are clinging onto my listenership for the main podcast for much the same reason. Each to their own. Of course I want their views and stances interogated but there are ways and there are ways. Back to the sports for a minute, everytime I see Clare Balding I can only ever think of "Liam, just give us a big grin to the camera. No,no, let's see your teeth. He hasn't got the best teeth in the world, but you can afford to go and get them done now if you like." How she is still fronting the BBC's sports coverage is beyond me. Vile. |
9 Jul
2:09pm, 9 Jul 2024
8,643 posts
|
um
This chat on TV interviews (sport & politics) all seems very much out of context. Yes, the TV personalities are all highly paid professionals. Most of the time they'll have an earpiece in and guidance/questions/quick reminders to reset or apologise coming from a director. And generally, in my experience, the presenters will follow without too much question or thought what their director is telling them. The 'piece to camera' is probably just a small part of their experience. They can have been talking, bantering, laughing and joking, winding each other up (interviewer and interviewee) before the start. So the 'I suppose' could have been a private comment to something they'd been chatting about before going live, and that's why there was no reaction. Or maybe not? Who cares? Ditto Clare Balding, and any other sports interviewers, teeth and any other odd seeming line. Generally they're all trying to be, or appear, as friends of the sports person they're chatting with. And (as I've been told) they spend a lot of time chatting and mixing when the cameras aren't on. |
9 Jul
2:50pm, 9 Jul 2024
134 posts
|
Yakima Canutt
LK is a bit to the right. That is clear. Naga Munchetty is definitely aggressive against Tories. Andrew Marr is fairly balanced IMHO (but like to write and blog on New Statesman). Channel4 is also still government owned on a different commercial model and KGM and fellow presenters are definitely left leaning.. There's enough balance in the MSM for both sides - goodness knows the amount of Guardian clips getting posted here. My advice is this. Pick the presenter you like and stop whining about the others. There's always an angle every repeated sticks on the story. |
9 Jul
2:51pm, 9 Jul 2024
9,101 posts
|
Pothunter
Don’t mind Clare Balding but Davina McCall sets my teeth on edge for some reason 
|
|
9 Jul
3:07pm, 9 Jul 2024
135 posts
|
Yakima Canutt
Telegraph saying putting VAT on public school fees can be challenged in the ECHR as a denial of a right to education. Oh the irony. |
|
9 Jul
3:08pm, 9 Jul 2024
4,286 posts
|
Cheg
You have the right, to go to a state school.
|
9 Jul
3:10pm, 9 Jul 2024
9,898 posts
|
simbil
The Telegraph are surely trolling..?
|
|
9 Jul
3:13pm, 9 Jul 2024
9,899 posts
|
simbil
In other news I see Dyson is cutting UK jobs. Wasn't he the chap that said Brexit was good for business?
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Oct 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
