Coronavirus | Television News Coverage

Maitlis requested not to work this evening

So grateful to my friend and excellent colleague @katierazz for stepping in this evening . She did so because I asked for the night off -knowing tonight’s prog would be in the most excellent hands 🖐 #newsnight https://t.co/0ZkH2KbzBF

— emily m (@maitlis) May 28, 2020

Agree with all of you who have said it already: Emily Maitlis has become one of the most respected television journalists over the years.

And, I'm sure Emily stepped back from last night's programme because, in the words of one other, "it's the news that's the star. We just have the honour of telling it to the nation".

Ironically, by stepping back, she's inadvertently turned that statement on its head......

Been overwhelmed by all the kindness, messages - and support on here - and I’ve probably missed much of it. A big thank you from us all at #newsnight

— emily m (@maitlis) May 28, 2020

What does gender have to do with anything in this case? How patronising suggesting that women deserve protection from big nasty men!

Emily is a fine broadcaster who can stand up for herself. Honestly.

I love the BBC. To get rid of it (or the licence fee) would, to me, be cultural vandalism. I am not a BBC-hater - the absolute opposite, in fact.

However, Emily got it wrong on this occasion as does Andrew Neil (who I also respect and admire) with his monologues. I don't think Emily or Andrew should be sacked but they should be given a wrap on the knuckles.

The BBC must be impartial and present what it knows without bias. When a contributor gives his/her point of view, someone with an opposing opinion should be given equal airtime. News presenters should be ruthless and clinical with both sides. It's then up to the viewer to make his or her mind up.

I love newspapers as much as the next person although I am aware that they are trying to spoon-feed me their point of view.

The BBC and other broadcast media should just give me what is known and what is proveable so that I can come to my own conclusion. Emily's monologue at the start failed that test badly.

Cheerleaders from the left or right who champion editorialising by supposedly impartial anchors imperil the future of the BBC.

Ironically the situation mirrors the Cummings saga with it being interpreted one way by those in charge but in completely the opposite manner by the vast majority of the general public.

Nothing Maitlis did or said was worse or less neutral than every time the BBC defaults to Brexit being as an inevitability — in fact it was considerably more neutral than that. Balance is not saying ‘some claim humans need to breathe oxygen to survive, but those claims are disputed by one guy who says he’s lived in the sea for the past 10 years’. Two sides of a story are not necessarily equal. Public surveys, the view of multiple conservative MPs, a large number of legal experts and a number of political commentators who otherwise are supportive of the government and Cummings all point to him having broken the rules. The mere fact that he and the Government both refute the accusation his conduct broke the rules (a legal and moral claim, not a factual one) doesn’t make it so. Nothing Maitlis said was partisan, nor ideological. It was, objectively, a perfectly valid reading of the situation.

I reluctantly agree with your analysis even if it means that some deeply repellent people get to air their opinions as a result of the need for balance.

What troubles me far more is the Government has control of what becomes of the BBC. The Royal Charter cannot be determined by elected politicians and the BBC still be able to operate freely and independently without fear of reprimand or consequence everytime it upsets number 10 with its coverage. And that very much seems to be the world we’ve been living in for the past few years.

She knows Osterley well, as she was at Sky News before she left for the BBC.

You're taking my argument to an extreme conclusion although you do make your point well.

The fact that people who share her opinion are jumping to her defence and those who don't are attacking her clearly demonstrates that her summary of the situation expressed a point of view.

This is dangerous territory for the BBC. I sense you have as much affection for the BBC as I do and you're as keen to protect it as I am.




Its an often cited example but the oxygen of publicity destroys bad ideas.

Nick Griffin from the BNP appeared on QT about a decade ago and support for his party plummeted under interrogation from the audience and other politicians.

You always have to hold your nose and put on your gloves when you're cleaning up dog ****.

Sorry but completely disagree with the bit in bold. As much as I am not a fan of the man, Owen Jones has it spot on when he says "For journalists if one person says it's raining outside and another says it isn't, it's not your job to report both sides, it's to find out what's true'.
The natural endpoint for your argument though it's extreme is if that if you're discussing something like racism or LGBT rights if you have somebody on who's anti-racism or supports LGBT rights you then have to follow up with somebody who's pro-racism or homophobic which would be a ridiculous situation. Or the situation the BBC has with climate change where you have climate change deniers being given airtime and their arguments treated as if they're as credible as scientists. There doesn't need to be 'two sides' to every story.

And I do wonder what the point is of political coverage and political journalists if all they were to do was just to quote any old rubbish the political parties say without any analysis or context. A huge part of the role of a political journalist is to explain the context and to explain to the viewer what the stories means politically.

Is this the same Owen Jones who accused Newsnight of being right wing and doctoring a photo of Corbyn to look communist......
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jeremy-corbyn-newsnight-denies-photo-photoshopped-a8262351.html