Very awkward edition. Does anyone know if Eddie Mair was due to present, or if they brought him in because they felt he was more capable of being objective compared to presenters who frequently work with the staff in question. I must say I didn't think some of his comments were very professional or appropriate.
Carolyn Quinn was presenting PM today and sent out the newsletter at lunchtime as usual, so I think we can assume it was scheduled.
Very awkward edition. Does anyone know if Eddie Mair was due to present, or if they brought him in because they felt he was more capable of being objective compared to presenters who frequently work with the staff in question. I must say I didn't think some of his comments were very professional or appropriate. That said, I suspect tonight was a very difficult edition for anyone and all involved.
I have to agree. By all means, the programme was correct to examine and criticise its own actions tonight, but I think some of the comments and sarcasm were inappropriate, unnecessary and to a certain extent made a mockery of the subject.
Very difficult situation though. And a real shame that a programme that has produced such fine journalism over the years is being dragged through the mud.
Very awkward edition. Does anyone know if Eddie Mair was due to present, or if they brought him in because they felt he was more capable of being objective compared to presenters who frequently work with the staff in question. I must say I didn't think some of his comments were very professional or appropriate.
Carolyn Quinn was presenting PM today and sent out the newsletter at lunchtime as usual, so I think we can assume it was scheduled.
It's logical that he was presenting tonight, as when he has covered before it has been on Friday's and with the US elections that has tied up two presenters - leaving Paul Mason to present part of the programme earlier in the week.
Wondering whether the programme needs to have an Executive Producer Presenter - Editor. The presenters have been in the business for years and should know what's right and what's not. If they are being controlled by relatively junior production teams, that's bound to cause problems.
If Paxman were to be responsible for the output of the programme, the added control is there.
They can't win either way - they pull an investigation and get slammed for it. They air an investigation and get slammed for it.
If the British press had any sense they would now get behind the BBC - but no, on the one hand they'd rather criticise it and allow the government to tear it to shreads while on the other asking for absolute freedom themselves from any truly independent regulator.
Very awkward edition. Does anyone know if Eddie Mair was due to present, or if they brought him in because they felt he was more capable of being objective compared to presenters who frequently work with the staff in question. I must say I didn't think some of his comments were very professional or appropriate. That said, I suspect tonight was a very difficult edition for anyone and all involved.
ETA: Anyone else expecting Peter Rippon to have stepped down by next week?
Eddie Mair was definitely scheduled because Paxman and Maitlis are both in Washington from the Elections.
They can't win either way - they pull an investigation and get slammed for it. They air an investigation and get slammed for it.
If the British press had any sense they would now get behind the BBC - but no, on the one hand they'd rather criticise it and allow the government to tear it to shreads while on the other asking for absolute freedom themselves from any truly independent regulator.
I agree whole heartly. Whats makes it worse the witch hurt is still on the the bbc and not on the still unsolved bad crime.
I think BBC also needs to take a stand for itself, enough of this guilty self-hating self-pity attitude. Yesterday's Newsnight was the best example of it.
They did not name the politician, it was the media/public assumption, the man they interviewed made a mistake, the whole thing is confusing.