MA
Honest to god, has there ever been a less charismatic presenter than Ben-bloody-Brown. I find his continued success unbelievable. He was a workmanlike, if unremarkable, reporter. He's an awful newsreader - dull, lifeless, absolutely no chemistry with his co-presenters.
I can sort of see why Kate Silverton or Emily Maitlis are flavour-of-the-month, even if I'm not a huge fan of either, but Ben Brown's soaring ascent is bizarre. Can someone explain to me what I'm missing?
I can't explain what you're missing but I do agree with you 100%. I don't understand the cult of the reporter at the best of times but at least the others are excellent at what they do. Brown just popped up everywhere, producing reports that told us nothing except for the fact that he was there at the latest story. Then a couple of days later he'd be the other side of the world, producing another undistinguished report. Baffling!
Bob Paisley posted:
Honest to god, has there ever been a less charismatic presenter than Ben-bloody-Brown. I find his continued success unbelievable. He was a workmanlike, if unremarkable, reporter. He's an awful newsreader - dull, lifeless, absolutely no chemistry with his co-presenters.
I can sort of see why Kate Silverton or Emily Maitlis are flavour-of-the-month, even if I'm not a huge fan of either, but Ben Brown's soaring ascent is bizarre. Can someone explain to me what I'm missing?
I can't explain what you're missing but I do agree with you 100%. I don't understand the cult of the reporter at the best of times but at least the others are excellent at what they do. Brown just popped up everywhere, producing reports that told us nothing except for the fact that he was there at the latest story. Then a couple of days later he'd be the other side of the world, producing another undistinguished report. Baffling!
MA
Honest to god, has there ever been a less charismatic presenter than Ben-bloody-Brown. I find his continued success unbelievable. He was a workmanlike, if unremarkable, reporter. He's an awful newsreader - dull, lifeless, absolutely no chemistry with his co-presenters.
I can sort of see why Kate Silverton or Emily Maitlis are flavour-of-the-month, even if I'm not a huge fan of either, but Ben Brown's soaring ascent is bizarre. Can someone explain to me what I'm missing?
I can't explain what you're missing but I do agree with you 100%. I don't understand the cult of the reporter at the best of times but at least the others are excellent at what they do. Brown just popped up everywhere, producing reports that told us nothing except for the fact that he was there at the latest story. Then a couple of days later he'd be the other side of the world, producing another undistinguished report. Baffling!
I have to agree, to an extent, with both of you. I was surprised to see Ben Brown land such a position, I mean, it's Ben Brown!! He'd been presenting on BBC World for years and was, to be frank, crap. I think it was one of those moments where you had to do a name check and really consider if you'd just heard that Ben Brown, practially unknown in terms of presenting and profile (before he landed the position), had been handed a position on News 24.
I do however think it was a daring and new move, something I'll heap praise on. Emily looks set to become a household name and I believe the rationale behind Ben's move is much the same, alas without the desired results.
I think there are a few, shall be say, better placed people at the BBC who could have far better handled the role. I mean, he's ok but he's by no means the standard of say Chris Eakin or Jon Sopel. I personally, think someone like Patrick O'Connell, abeit would that signal the end of News 24?, would have found settling into the role more easily.
I hope Ben can improve but hey, there's always Tim to fill and that's always a welcome presenter!
themagicmonkey posted:
Bob Paisley posted:
Honest to god, has there ever been a less charismatic presenter than Ben-bloody-Brown. I find his continued success unbelievable. He was a workmanlike, if unremarkable, reporter. He's an awful newsreader - dull, lifeless, absolutely no chemistry with his co-presenters.
I can sort of see why Kate Silverton or Emily Maitlis are flavour-of-the-month, even if I'm not a huge fan of either, but Ben Brown's soaring ascent is bizarre. Can someone explain to me what I'm missing?
I can't explain what you're missing but I do agree with you 100%. I don't understand the cult of the reporter at the best of times but at least the others are excellent at what they do. Brown just popped up everywhere, producing reports that told us nothing except for the fact that he was there at the latest story. Then a couple of days later he'd be the other side of the world, producing another undistinguished report. Baffling!
I have to agree, to an extent, with both of you. I was surprised to see Ben Brown land such a position, I mean, it's Ben Brown!! He'd been presenting on BBC World for years and was, to be frank, crap. I think it was one of those moments where you had to do a name check and really consider if you'd just heard that Ben Brown, practially unknown in terms of presenting and profile (before he landed the position), had been handed a position on News 24.
I do however think it was a daring and new move, something I'll heap praise on. Emily looks set to become a household name and I believe the rationale behind Ben's move is much the same, alas without the desired results.
I think there are a few, shall be say, better placed people at the BBC who could have far better handled the role. I mean, he's ok but he's by no means the standard of say Chris Eakin or Jon Sopel. I personally, think someone like Patrick O'Connell, abeit would that signal the end of News 24?, would have found settling into the role more easily.
I hope Ben can improve but hey, there's always Tim to fill and that's always a welcome presenter!
JA
Something for all you BBC Pres fans out there - The BBC World Service is to launch a Farsi language news channel to compliment the soon to be launched Arabic language counterpart. I'm not an expert on these things, so I was wondering whether or not a £15million budget was sufficient for this sort of thing or not? Or is it a case of economies of scale from the rest of BBC News and the new Arabic channel are allowing it to be done on the cheap?
BR
The BBC are getting worse than America in thinking they should rule the world. Why should the British taxpayer (through the Government, not the licence fee in this case) fork out for a channel they can't watch?
As much as they claim it's independent from the Government, it's all about propaganda at the end of the day!
Jakarta posted:
Something for all you BBC Pres fans out there - The BBC World Service is to launch a Farsi language news channel to compliment the soon to be launched Arabic language counterpart. I'm not an expert on these things, so I was wondering whether or not a £15million budget was sufficient for this sort of thing or not? Or is it a case of economies of scale from the rest of BBC News and the new Arabic channel are allowing it to be done on the cheap?
The BBC are getting worse than America in thinking they should rule the world. Why should the British taxpayer (through the Government, not the licence fee in this case) fork out for a channel they can't watch?
As much as they claim it's independent from the Government, it's all about propaganda at the end of the day!
MA
The BBC are getting worse than America in thinking they should rule the world. Why should the British taxpayer (through the Government, not the licence fee in this case) fork out for a channel they can't watch?
As much as they claim it's independent from the Government, it's all about propaganda at the end of the day!
It could be argued that promoting understanding may save money in the long run. And let's face it, £15m isn't much in terms of annual government spending. How much are the current military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan costing?
Brekkie Boy posted:
Jakarta posted:
Something for all you BBC Pres fans out there - The BBC World Service is to launch a Farsi language news channel to compliment the soon to be launched Arabic language counterpart. I'm not an expert on these things, so I was wondering whether or not a £15million budget was sufficient for this sort of thing or not? Or is it a case of economies of scale from the rest of BBC News and the new Arabic channel are allowing it to be done on the cheap?
The BBC are getting worse than America in thinking they should rule the world. Why should the British taxpayer (through the Government, not the licence fee in this case) fork out for a channel they can't watch?
As much as they claim it's independent from the Government, it's all about propaganda at the end of the day!
It could be argued that promoting understanding may save money in the long run. And let's face it, £15m isn't much in terms of annual government spending. How much are the current military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan costing?
MO
The BBC are getting worse than America in thinking they should rule the world. Why should the British taxpayer (through the Government, not the licence fee in this case) fork out for a channel they can't watch?
As much as they claim it's independent from the Government, it's all about propaganda at the end of the day!
So you don't think that the people of Iran are entitled to hear unbiaised news then. Just us in the West. Idiot!
Brekkie Boy posted:
Jakarta posted:
Something for all you BBC Pres fans out there - The BBC World Service is to launch a Farsi language news channel to compliment the soon to be launched Arabic language counterpart. I'm not an expert on these things, so I was wondering whether or not a £15million budget was sufficient for this sort of thing or not? Or is it a case of economies of scale from the rest of BBC News and the new Arabic channel are allowing it to be done on the cheap?
The BBC are getting worse than America in thinking they should rule the world. Why should the British taxpayer (through the Government, not the licence fee in this case) fork out for a channel they can't watch?
As much as they claim it's independent from the Government, it's all about propaganda at the end of the day!
So you don't think that the people of Iran are entitled to hear unbiaised news then. Just us in the West. Idiot!