The Newsroom

2019 General Christmas election.

12th December: NO drama just presentation. (October 2019)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
CA
Cando
Brekkie posted:
A former member posted:
Marr was absolutely frustrating as hell. He literally wouldn’t let Johnson finish a sentence. I’m all for leaders being challenged but the level at which he was interrupting will probably be the main takeaway from the interview at the expense of what was actually said.

I was really hoping after the Prince Andrew interview many interviews would have taken a leaf from the book of Emily Maitliss and realised that actually pausing and giving people time to answer is how you can get gold from an interview. Politicians are far more likely to mess up if you leave them dead air to fill rather than if you badger them into answering the same question over and over again three seconds after you asked it.


Prince Andrew's and Andrew Neil's interviews were not live. There is a massive difference. Both formats are not comparable.
BF
BFGArmy
Brekkie posted:
A former member posted:
Marr was absolutely frustrating as hell. He literally wouldn’t let Johnson finish a sentence. I’m all for leaders being challenged but the level at which he was interrupting will probably be the main takeaway from the interview at the expense of what was actually said.

I was really hoping after the Prince Andrew interview many interviews would have taken a leaf from the book of Emily Maitliss and realised that actually pausing and giving people time to answer is how you can get gold from an interview. Politicians are far more likely to mess up if you leave them dead air to fill rather than if you badger them into answering the same question over and over again three seconds after you asked it.


Indeed the Nina Hossain interviews were good because rather than a gotcha type style she asked well-placed questions and didn't interrupt every few seconds. Similarly, Maitlis in the Prince Andrew interview very much gave him time to dig his own hole.
Many interviewers try to go for the Andrew Neil/Paxman route these days -and some are quite good at it like Emma Barnett. But often if you try and aren't very good at it - it just ends up with people watching/listening not learning anything new and the end result being everyone having a headache by the end of it.
Jeffmister and Brekkie gave kudos
MS
msim
Jonwo posted:
The latest BBC debate only got 2.2m, I think the novelty of the debates especially ones without the big names has worn off and I suspect ITV's debate on Sunday will be crushed against Strictly and HDM.

I personally think for future elections, they need to streamline the TV debates and perhaps limit each broadcaster to one debate/forum. In other countries like Canada and Australia, there is only 4 or 5 debates.


The 'debates' add nothing to the scrutiny and detail of reporting an election campaign and this needs to be the last election in which the broadcasters are so addicted to them. We have neither a Presidential or PR system, so debates just do not work in a FPTP process. 2010 they had a novelty factor and did the job as a bit of an add-on to wider coverage. Now they are practically the main focus of the broadcasters and each election sees a whole load of messing around with formats and participants and now it is a total mess. The ITV 2-way was far too short, the BBC (and no doubt tonight's ITV) seven-way had far too many people on stage and was just a total bore. They're also allowing (some of) the party leaders to effectively hide, sending out others to do their bidding or not at all. Farage has been MIA completely. Johnson we all know about.

We need to return to proper sit down interviews with the leaders faced by a properly briefed interviewer, audience and leader Question Time formats, and great office of state specialty interviews. I really hate to say this but the broadcaster's dumbing down of politics to a form of shouty prime-time entertainment is now harming the democratic process in this country and allowing ever more lies to seep through totally unchallenged. There really cannot be anyone who thinks we are better served by seven people on a stage talking over each other or responses clipped to 30 second soundbites than forensic interviewing no matter how 'dull' the latter might sound.
IU
I am not from UK
peterrocket posted:
ITVs 2005 theme is library now - not sure what they used in 2010 - can’t remember what it sounded like!


It should be at the library as well.
Same album as the 2013 ITV Theme.
:-(
A former member
The member requested removal of this post
RD
RDJ
Wish ITV didn't get rid of their colourful light reflective podiums from 2015. The current ones are very bland and ordinary.
:-(
A former member
The member requested removal of this post
CA
Cando
Both ITV and the BBC are only having these 7 way debates so that they can get past OFCOM requirements and have head to head debates with Corbyn and Johnson.
JO
Jonwo
Rich Tea posted:
Here is the kind of debate I would like to see in this General Election campaign. A debate that would be considered the pinnacle set piece between the two, three or four main party leaders.

I'd like a pooled broadcasters debate, shown across BBC/ITV/Sky and hosted by a three person proven heavyweight moderator panel comprising of Andrew Neil for BBC, Adam Boulton for Sky and Alastair Stewart for ITN. (Women may apply too!) The moderators would be seated. The leaders at lecterns. There would be a studio audience but it would be for reaction/atmosphere only, not for questioning.

The three moderators would choose the questions and follow ups. The debate would be structured to cover the main themes expected. It would last two hours, no breaks.

Personally I'd like to see this kind of debate given only to the Tory and Labour leaders, the only viable PM options. I suppose it is along the lines of the US Presidential debates.

I do not understand why people are looking at these debates as a potential to give any party leaders "a knockout blow". That is not what we should be expecting or aiming for. We should expect a bit of heat but most importantly a lot more light. Don't tell me that the likes of Brian Walden, Robin Day or others used to prepare to interview Thatcher, Kinnock or whoever and hope to draw them into a fatal campaign blow.

Let's face it, can anyone here point to any interview, ever, that could be cited as one that maybe changed the course of a British General Election and cost a potential victory? There aren't any in the UK.

In the United States you could cite Nixon in 1960 being decisive but it was more for how he looked on TV rather than what he actually said, because he came over far better on radio.


I think showing one debate across three channels would end up cannibalising the audience, my previous suggestion of having four or five debates spread across the various broadcasters would ensure everyone gets a slice of the action but also share the load and make it a bit easier to schedule as well.
:-(
A former member
The member requested removal of this post
AN
Andrew Founding member
Also ITV and Sky, ITV in particular would not agree to a pooled debate as everyone would watch it on the BBC. Therefore they’d be best not showing it at all, or doing their own, which gets us back to square one.
CW
Charlie Wells Moderator
A reminder to everyone (and especially to certain individuals) please do not hijack threads on these forums with comments about the politicians and/or the political parties. Please keep posts to aspects of the presentation.

We've already had to hide some posts and edit others where they've gone off topic. Repeat offenders risk being issued with a ban from the Newsroom section or potentially a total ban.

Newer posts