The Newsroom

Nicholas Witchell

behind-the -scenes rumpus (August 2005)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
DV
DVB Cornwall
Media Guardian - have the following

Quote:
It should have been a straightforward rehearsal for the BBC's coverage of the VJ Day 60th anniversary commemorations. But preparations for a so-called "two way" between Nicholas Witchell and Radio 5 presenter Richard Evans descended into eight minutes of bickering after the BBC's royal correspondent apparently took issue with the line of questioning.
Embarrassingly for the pair, the entire conversation was recorded - complete with interjections from nervous production staff trying to defuse the situation. The recording has been making its way around the BBC's email system in recent days giving staff an unintentionally hilarious insight into what happens when presenters and correspondents disagree.

The trouble appeared to begin when Evans introduced Witchell with the apparently innocuous phrase, "Here's our royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell to tell us what happened today".

Witchell sounded stumped by the introduction, insisting that the lead-in to the interview should explain the day's events at the Cenotaph. But asked by Evans what question he wanted to be asked, Witchell replied: "I don't want you to ask any, my dear chap."

"Don't take it out on me," responded Evans. "I'm just trying to do my bloody job as well. I'm the monkey, not the organ grinder, right?"


See Media Guardian (subscription-free registration) for the rest and an hilarious mp3 copy 'leaked' to the Newspaper.

HRH The Prince of Wales must be smiling from Ear-to-ear!
BR
brak
The BBC news department seems to be falling apart, first Micheal Burkes comments and now this! I think that since the huge expansion of the news department egos have started to arise.
MA
Marcus Founding member
brak posted:
The BBC news department seems to be falling apart, first Micheal Burkes comments and now this! I think that since the huge expansion of the news department egos have started to arise.


Two famously grumpy personalities, both annoyed at being asked to do an interview that neither of them though was worthwhile. To give them both credit they got a reasonable two way out of it in the end.

Thinks like this happen all the time, they just don't all make the public domain. There is a fabulous one of John Prescott blowing his top during a pre recoded Today interview, and of course the famous Kinnock explosion at James Naughtie.
CS
Cerulean Sunrise
Lesson for fellow proto-journos like me - you are never bigger than the story. No matter if you're Peter Jennings, Stephen Cole or Matthew Roly-Poly, you are never above your material. Nick Witchell here throws his toys out of the pram just because he cannot adapt to the situation and do a harmless two-way about a war which left several million dead. Wanker.
JA
jamesmd
Cerulean Sunrise posted:
Lesson for fellow proto-journos like me - you are never bigger than the story. No matter if you're Peter Jennings, Stephen Cole or Matthew Roly-Poly, you are never above your material. Nick Witchell here throws his toys out of the pram just because he cannot adapt to the situation and do a harmless two-way about a war which left several million dead. ****er.


I'm sorry, but the fact that the war left several million dead had nothing to do with anything. It's a story, like any other. I think yes, the two-way was pointless, but to go around calling Nick Witchell a w.anker is quite absurd, Semolina.

Heaven help us if you ever become a journalist, you will of course be doing any OB or interview everybody asks you, will you? Of course not. And if when you get old, something like this happens, there will no doubt be someone else calling you a w.anker.
BB
BBC LDN
James Hall posted:
And if when you get old, something like this happens, there will no doubt be someone else calling you a w.anker.


Why wait until he gets old?
MO
Moz
What a plank Richard Evans sounds from this!

Everyone else is trying to make something of it, he's just acting like an old fashioned news reader who thinks he should have no input apart from reading what he's told parrot fashion.

Nicholas Witchell has a point, you can't just ask, "Tell us what happened", there needs to be a point of why he's there being interviewed.
CS
Cerulean Sunrise
James Hall posted:
Cerulean Sunrise posted:
Lesson for fellow proto-journos like me - you are never bigger than the story. No matter if you're Peter Jennings, Stephen Cole or Matthew Roly-Poly, you are never above your material. Nick Witchell here throws his toys out of the pram just because he cannot adapt to the situation and do a harmless two-way about a war which left several million dead. ****er.


I'm sorry, but the fact that the war left several million dead had nothing to do with anything. It's a story, like any other. I think yes, the two-way was pointless, but to go around calling Nick Witchell a w.anker is quite absurd, Semolina.

Heaven help us if you ever become a journalist, you will of course be doing any OB or interview everybody asks you, will you? Of course not. And if when you get old, something like this happens, there will no doubt be someone else calling you a w.anker.



And I'll continue to ignore pathetic immature little people like you.
GE
thegeek Founding member
For the lazy, here's a link direct to the story:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,7521,1555532,00.html
(although you'll need to register)
LY
lytefunkie1
Laughing
GE
thegeek Founding member
Interesting too that Witchell seems to be quite exhasperated at having to do the two-way; he'd rather use the "actuality" of the event. And I can see his point, in a way; if you can let events speak for themselves, do it, and just use the reporter to explain what's not obvious.
NG
noggin Founding member
Having read it and heard it - I have to agree that although they both come out of it less than brilliantly - Nicholas Witchell had obviously come to the end of a long day, and the guy interviewing him didn't sound as if he wanted to really think about his interview.

Rather than suggest some questions he took the lazy way out and asked to be told what to ask. In some situations this can go down well - if the situation is one where the reporter can only talk on part of a subject, or there has been some breaking news. However this wasn't that kind of situation...

IMHO Witchell was right - the two-way was a lazy production decision - actuality or a package with someone who took part would have told the story better.

Newer posts