MA
Mike Sergeant is the current. Jim Muir is the former.
I was thinking of Andrew North. Didn't Jim Muir go from Tehran to Beirut? Hadn't realised he was based in Baghdad, and I keep a fairly close eye on news from that region.
BBC WORLD posted:
themagicmonkey posted:
Who is the BBC's Baghdad correspondent now? I noticed the last guy (can't remember his name sorry!) was back reporting in the UK for Newsnight.
Mike Sergeant is the current. Jim Muir is the former.
I was thinking of Andrew North. Didn't Jim Muir go from Tehran to Beirut? Hadn't realised he was based in Baghdad, and I keep a fairly close eye on news from that region.
DV
Lloyds TSB HBOS .....
Why are they putting viewers leading questions such as
"Should I sell/buy HBOS shares?" to their correspondents when they should know that such a question cannot be answered by these individuals.
In addition why are they not dealing more appropriately with specific related matters that they can deal with such as continuing payments, do I need to do anything with a HBOS insurance policy etc.
It's an issue that really does worry me about business editorial control. I've expressed concerns with this in the past, and feel that their avowed intent to improve this has been neglected.
Why are they putting viewers leading questions such as
"Should I sell/buy HBOS shares?" to their correspondents when they should know that such a question cannot be answered by these individuals.
In addition why are they not dealing more appropriately with specific related matters that they can deal with such as continuing payments, do I need to do anything with a HBOS insurance policy etc.
It's an issue that really does worry me about business editorial control. I've expressed concerns with this in the past, and feel that their avowed intent to improve this has been neglected.
MI
I was getting annoyed at the fact that they described the deal as a takeover today, but on their straps called it a merger. They are rather different, one is far more one-sided than the other.
DVB Cornwall posted:
Lloyds TSB HBOS .....
Why are they putting viewers leading questions such as
"Should I sell/buy HBOS shares?" to their correspondents when they should know that such a question cannot be answered by these individuals.
In addition why are they not dealing more appropriately with specific related matters that they can deal with such as continuing payments, do I need to do anything with a HBOS insurance policy etc.
It's an issue that really does worry me about business editorial control. I've expressed concerns with this in the past, and feel that their avowed intent to improve this has been neglected.
Why are they putting viewers leading questions such as
"Should I sell/buy HBOS shares?" to their correspondents when they should know that such a question cannot be answered by these individuals.
In addition why are they not dealing more appropriately with specific related matters that they can deal with such as continuing payments, do I need to do anything with a HBOS insurance policy etc.
It's an issue that really does worry me about business editorial control. I've expressed concerns with this in the past, and feel that their avowed intent to improve this has been neglected.
I was getting annoyed at the fact that they described the deal as a takeover today, but on their straps called it a merger. They are rather different, one is far more one-sided than the other.
MQ
I was getting annoyed at the fact that they described the deal as a takeover today, but on their straps called it a merger. They are rather different, one is far more one-sided than the other.
It's actually much the same thing. In pretty much any merger there is one side that will be more 'powerful' than the other in the transaction. Here, Lloyds TSB seems to be the dominant party. Whether you call it a takeover or a merger depends very much on which side of the transaction you tend to side with and how you view it. HBOS, no doubt, would prefer the term "merger" be used since they're the weaker party - it saves face. Lloyds, by contrast, would probably have few concerns about calling it a "takeover", since they're the ones making the acquisition.
m_in_m posted:
DVB Cornwall posted:
Lloyds TSB HBOS .....
Why are they putting viewers leading questions such as
"Should I sell/buy HBOS shares?" to their correspondents when they should know that such a question cannot be answered by these individuals.
In addition why are they not dealing more appropriately with specific related matters that they can deal with such as continuing payments, do I need to do anything with a HBOS insurance policy etc.
It's an issue that really does worry me about business editorial control. I've expressed concerns with this in the past, and feel that their avowed intent to improve this has been neglected.
Why are they putting viewers leading questions such as
"Should I sell/buy HBOS shares?" to their correspondents when they should know that such a question cannot be answered by these individuals.
In addition why are they not dealing more appropriately with specific related matters that they can deal with such as continuing payments, do I need to do anything with a HBOS insurance policy etc.
It's an issue that really does worry me about business editorial control. I've expressed concerns with this in the past, and feel that their avowed intent to improve this has been neglected.
I was getting annoyed at the fact that they described the deal as a takeover today, but on their straps called it a merger. They are rather different, one is far more one-sided than the other.
It's actually much the same thing. In pretty much any merger there is one side that will be more 'powerful' than the other in the transaction. Here, Lloyds TSB seems to be the dominant party. Whether you call it a takeover or a merger depends very much on which side of the transaction you tend to side with and how you view it. HBOS, no doubt, would prefer the term "merger" be used since they're the weaker party - it saves face. Lloyds, by contrast, would probably have few concerns about calling it a "takeover", since they're the ones making the acquisition.
MA
It's an issue that really does worry me about business editorial control. I've expressed concerns with this in the past, and feel that their avowed intent to improve this has been neglected.
I still wonder if the BBC hadn't splashed the initial problems at Northern Rock all over the BBC News at 10, with Robert Peston in his highly irritating 'panic stations' style of delivery, whether things would have turned out differently ?
IIRC next morning there was near hysteria as queues formed outside NR branches to remove savings, in effect creating a self fulfilling prophecy.
DVB Cornwall posted:
It's an issue that really does worry me about business editorial control. I've expressed concerns with this in the past, and feel that their avowed intent to improve this has been neglected.
I still wonder if the BBC hadn't splashed the initial problems at Northern Rock all over the BBC News at 10, with Robert Peston in his highly irritating 'panic stations' style of delivery, whether things would have turned out differently ?
IIRC next morning there was near hysteria as queues formed outside NR branches to remove savings, in effect creating a self fulfilling prophecy.
SP
Yes, Robert Peston is an awful broadcaster, sounding at best like a hesitant Zippy.
However, he clearly knows his stuff, and is extremely well connected. Whilst I find him very irritating, I've got to take my hat off to him for breaking the two biggest financial stories of the past 12 months.
However, he clearly knows his stuff, and is extremely well connected. Whilst I find him very irritating, I've got to take my hat off to him for breaking the two biggest financial stories of the past 12 months.
SA
On some news reports and interviews, months ago, people were making the point that we shouldn't talk ourselves into recession. I too feel that certain broadcasters need to look at what and how they say things. It seems that a lot of the current state of things is a 'confidence' thing and the news chanel(s) need to be careful to be reporting fact and what HAS happened, and not adding fuel to what COULD happen.