Naga Munchetty | BBC DG Overturns Ruling

The complaint should have been politley ignored, or do they pursue every single complaint made as a matter of course? If so it's tempting to have some fun!

For all we know, the editor could have had a quiet word with Naga after the show anyway

So many people posting when they haven't a clue about the process.... I'll stop wasting my time

I agree with Alastair. Analysis fine, hard questions essential, but our views? Not wanted on voyage https://t.co/Ki4ZaMWuTJ

— Andrew Marr (@AndrewMarr9) September 27, 2019

Becuase "the process" is flawed! (sorry for sounding pandemic but it is!)

It's not like the presenters on Breakfast never give their opinion about anything . If a story came up about, I don't know, rubbish collection, no-one would bat an eye if Dan said he was annoyed about overflowing bins on his street. But it then crosses a rather fuzzily-defined line, I feel, if he was to then say "Such-and-such council aren't doing their job properly." I think Naga's comments were somewhere inbetween the two.

I use rubbish collection as an example but the same would still apply to a more serious topic.

So I think it's pretty reductive for Andrew Marr and Alistair Stewart simply to say "No views!"

What I will say is I'm surprised Naga seems to have been repremanded here for largely talking about her experiences and calling a spade a spade whereas some news channel journalists on Twitter are rather opinionated and aren't exactly subtle in expressing their views but aren't called out over it. Lewis Goodall springs to mind here - I agree with him much of the time but it's often clear what his take is on what he covers.

Have to say too that whenever I read her work/see her on news programmes these days it does seem odd that even a few years ago Afua Hirsch was a Sky News correspondent.

Have to say it’s not a good look too for the Beeb hauling Naga over hot coals but continuing to allow the likes of Isabel Oakshott and Brendan O’Neill to appear time and time again whose contributions to the Brexit debate are far from insightful or helpful. The optics of it are terrible.
That said goodness knows why Sky continue to book both as well.

Notably, Naga is maintaining a very dignified silence. Brava! Good on her.

Indeed the Beeb could do with more people like Naga.

Exactly. I am proud of the fact our news channels are impartial. But this only works if people are within a certain sphere of debate.

We already know there are news channels elsewhere in the world which report things with a huge slant, newspapers in our own country (something Andrew Marr admits right there), websites and social media accounts. And notice I said, slant, some outright lie.

Many people are using these as sources of information.

But these sources don't care about impartiality standards, and will force people in a political direction which means in the process of impartiality, the BBC must now listen to them.

You can't treat an outlier as normal when they move to the fore or else you become part of the problem.

If someone is being racist, a BBC presenter should call it out. Not "some people say that Trump critics are wrong".

If peer-reviewed science says that vaccines are safe, or that climate change is happening, or that smoking causes cancer, then don't bring on people who believe the opposite - Those are facts and all you're doing is saying to the audience "there is a debate to be had here, so choose either side, it's fine".

I do find it odd that on Twitter it's easy to gauge the political allegiance of some presenters and reporters. That does rather colour my opinion when I see them on TV reporting on something I'm afraid, I can't 'un remember' what they think. Sorry; but the disclaimer; 'Opinions are my own' on their profile page is utterly pointless. If they are in a public facing day job working for a broadcaster who claims to be 'un biased' then they shouldn't be presenting their own views in another public domain

It depends on the nature of the topic they're talking about I feel. If it's sport or entertainment or similar I don't see a huge problem with a presenter giving their personal view on social media. If presenter X thinks a certain film should win Best Picture at the Oscars there's no harm in them sharing that view. But obviously when it's a more sensitive subject like politics I agree that presenters should try to be careful what they post online.

It's a difficult one. I find the views of the hard right repugnant, but those views do represent a percentage of licence payers who'd expect to be represented. However, there's a fine line and Brendan on Politics Live today went past that.