HO
Given that this affects both ITV News and BBC programmes, I felt it was worth giving this a new thread.
According to newspaper reports from the Guardian and Times yesterday, the BBC is proposing new roles for Robert Peston in a bid to stop him defecting to ITV News. This apparently includes presenting 50 editions of Newsnight a year (Laura Kuenssberg's previous slots), and possibly "his own show" (says the Mail) and a pay rise (disputed by the Mail).
Robert Peston isn't a good choice for Newsnight when Evan Davis is still the main presenter, I don't think. Robert has a slow, rambling-question style of his own, similar to Evan, which can make the programme unwatchable at times. Wark and Maitlis don't suffer this, and I would be really disappointed if James O'Brien wasn't given more regular slots, and a bit surprised Allegra Stratton hasn't been offered a few either.
But the bit I just don't get is the notion Robert Peston could be offered Question Time as David Dimbleby's contract apparently ends soon. Kirsty Wark, Eddie Mair, Emily Maitlis, Nick Robinson, Andrew Neil, Jo Coburn or a number of other presenters would all be great in the role (though David Dimbleby is still the ideal person, IMO) because, like Dimbleby, they are able to be sharp and focussed, but also not dominate the discussion or 'make it about them'. I think there's something too distracting (and slow) about Robert's style, and he isn't nearly as quick/sharp at responding to guests or panels. I just don't understand why anyone would like Robert and Question Time.
Which leads me to my question: how important is it that the BBC keeps Robert Peston? I haven't seen anywhere a suggestion he would continue as economics editor, so there's a chance the BBC would need to recruit another high-profile (and highly-salaried) editor. But I wonder if this is one of those times where the BBC doesn't think enough like a commercial broadcaster - weighing up the value someone brings, vs. the increased expense needed to keep them. Robert is undoubtedly a talented broadcaster, and I suspect would be well suited to being political editor, but I'm not sure outside of an editor role he's worth 'throwing everything you've got' to keep him. Thoughts?
According to newspaper reports from the Guardian and Times yesterday, the BBC is proposing new roles for Robert Peston in a bid to stop him defecting to ITV News. This apparently includes presenting 50 editions of Newsnight a year (Laura Kuenssberg's previous slots), and possibly "his own show" (says the Mail) and a pay rise (disputed by the Mail).
Robert Peston isn't a good choice for Newsnight when Evan Davis is still the main presenter, I don't think. Robert has a slow, rambling-question style of his own, similar to Evan, which can make the programme unwatchable at times. Wark and Maitlis don't suffer this, and I would be really disappointed if James O'Brien wasn't given more regular slots, and a bit surprised Allegra Stratton hasn't been offered a few either.
But the bit I just don't get is the notion Robert Peston could be offered Question Time as David Dimbleby's contract apparently ends soon. Kirsty Wark, Eddie Mair, Emily Maitlis, Nick Robinson, Andrew Neil, Jo Coburn or a number of other presenters would all be great in the role (though David Dimbleby is still the ideal person, IMO) because, like Dimbleby, they are able to be sharp and focussed, but also not dominate the discussion or 'make it about them'. I think there's something too distracting (and slow) about Robert's style, and he isn't nearly as quick/sharp at responding to guests or panels. I just don't understand why anyone would like Robert and Question Time.
Which leads me to my question: how important is it that the BBC keeps Robert Peston? I haven't seen anywhere a suggestion he would continue as economics editor, so there's a chance the BBC would need to recruit another high-profile (and highly-salaried) editor. But I wonder if this is one of those times where the BBC doesn't think enough like a commercial broadcaster - weighing up the value someone brings, vs. the increased expense needed to keep them. Robert is undoubtedly a talented broadcaster, and I suspect would be well suited to being political editor, but I'm not sure outside of an editor role he's worth 'throwing everything you've got' to keep him. Thoughts?