AN
I saw Kay interview somebody a few weeks back, and they accused her of bias in her questioning. "Not biased, just playing devil's advocate," was her response - I think that this is her technique. I don't want to excuse some of her previous controversies, but I think that one thing she isn't is biased, and the problem is more with tact than anything else.
She is a fantastically natural presenter, however, and I'm getting a bid fed up of the vendetta some people have towards her.
She is a fantastically natural presenter, however, and I'm getting a bid fed up of the vendetta some people have towards her.
NG
Not all of us are. She's perfectly competent as an Autocue reader, however her interviewing skills are surprisingly limited for someone who has been doing it so long. I've thought so for many years - and have always been mystified as to why Sky think she's a "star" presenter... Her very poor performances recently, either side of the middle Prime Ministerial debate, and during the election period in general have done nothin to make me revise that opinion.
It's as though she's trying to be a Paxman or a Humphrys, but doesn't have the intellect to realise that there is more to what they do than hectoring.
(And anyone who asked the question she did of the wife of the Ipswich murderer will never have any respect from me. I don't care whether it was her question or one she was told to ask - it was just plainly an unacceptable question, and her delivery of it was nauseating)
noggin
Founding member
agreed. people are confusing their dislike of her with the fact she is actually very good at the fundamentals of her job.
Not all of us are. She's perfectly competent as an Autocue reader, however her interviewing skills are surprisingly limited for someone who has been doing it so long. I've thought so for many years - and have always been mystified as to why Sky think she's a "star" presenter... Her very poor performances recently, either side of the middle Prime Ministerial debate, and during the election period in general have done nothin to make me revise that opinion.
It's as though she's trying to be a Paxman or a Humphrys, but doesn't have the intellect to realise that there is more to what they do than hectoring.
(And anyone who asked the question she did of the wife of the Ipswich murderer will never have any respect from me. I don't care whether it was her question or one she was told to ask - it was just plainly an unacceptable question, and her delivery of it was nauseating)
NG
The problem is that Kay's form of devils advocating makes you think SHE believes the alternative view - rather than putting it as someone else's. That's a big issue for a news broadcaster. Watching a good interviewer you should have no idea what their personal views are - the questions should appear to challenge the interviewee to deliver more and new information, not to attack them.
Kay's handling of some interviews recently have left many with the feeling she's biased. Whether she is or isn't - it is a failure on her part that she leaves people with that feeling as a result of her "style".
She is a fantastically natural presenter, however, and I'm getting a bid fed up of the vendetta some people have towards her.
You see I've never thought of her as natural at all. She's always come across as quite affected to me - at times as if she's acting rather than interviewing.
She has always struck me as someone who is entirely different on-screen and off (which is not the sign of a natural presenter). All the people I know who have worked with her have re-inforced that view (and few have a good word to say about her)
noggin
Founding member
I saw Kay interview somebody a few weeks back, and they accused her of bias in her questioning. "Not biased, just playing devil's advocate," was her response - I think that this is her technique. I don't want to excuse some of her previous controversies, but I think that one thing she isn't is biased, and the problem is more with tact than anything else.
The problem is that Kay's form of devils advocating makes you think SHE believes the alternative view - rather than putting it as someone else's. That's a big issue for a news broadcaster. Watching a good interviewer you should have no idea what their personal views are - the questions should appear to challenge the interviewee to deliver more and new information, not to attack them.
Kay's handling of some interviews recently have left many with the feeling she's biased. Whether she is or isn't - it is a failure on her part that she leaves people with that feeling as a result of her "style".
Quote:
She is a fantastically natural presenter, however, and I'm getting a bid fed up of the vendetta some people have towards her.
You see I've never thought of her as natural at all. She's always come across as quite affected to me - at times as if she's acting rather than interviewing.
She has always struck me as someone who is entirely different on-screen and off (which is not the sign of a natural presenter). All the people I know who have worked with her have re-inforced that view (and few have a good word to say about her)
SN
You see I've never thought of her as natural at all. She's always come across as quite affected to me - at times as if she's acting rather than interviewing.
Talking of affected, sometimes Dermot Murnaghan really gets on my nerves, especially when his ad libbing or filling for time. His enunciation can become very drawn out and needlessly dramatic. I really don't believe anybody talks like that normally.
You see I've never thought of her as natural at all. She's always come across as quite affected to me - at times as if she's acting rather than interviewing.
Talking of affected, sometimes Dermot Murnaghan really gets on my nerves, especially when his ad libbing or filling for time. His enunciation can become very drawn out and needlessly dramatic. I really don't believe anybody talks like that normally.
JP
[quote="derek500" pid="663231"]
Yes questions have been asked about the impartiality, but that is just a handful of presenters who are bias, although sadly they are big-personality anchors, such as Burley, Boulton and Randall.
No doubt, when Ofcom deliver their verdicts on Boulton and Burley they will be vindicated. As for Randall, have there been any official complaints?
Randall and bias were two words always linked together when he served as Business Editor for the BBC for four years. He said this in 2006.
I agree I fully expect the complaints against Adam and Kay to be rejected. However had there been any complaints about Randall, which I don't believe there have been, it may well have stood more of a chance of being upheld.
Yes questions have been asked about the impartiality, but that is just a handful of presenters who are bias, although sadly they are big-personality anchors, such as Burley, Boulton and Randall.
No doubt, when Ofcom deliver their verdicts on Boulton and Burley they will be vindicated. As for Randall, have there been any official complaints?
Randall and bias were two words always linked together when he served as Business Editor for the BBC for four years. He said this in 2006.
Quote:
"They discuss issues from the point of view that the earth is flat. If someone says the earth is round, they think this person is an extremist. That's what it's like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC."
I agree I fully expect the complaints against Adam and Kay to be rejected. However had there been any complaints about Randall, which I don't believe there have been, it may well have stood more of a chance of being upheld.
DE
Kay's handling of some interviews recently have left many with the feeling she's biased. Whether she is or isn't - it is a failure on her part that she leaves people with that feeling as a result of her "style".
I assume on the occasion in question, she knew she was interviewing a 'professional' activist who should expect a hard time.
The same day she interviewed a couple of teenage girls who were totally clueless as to why they were demonstrating. Kay was as good as gold with them.
Kay's handling of some interviews recently have left many with the feeling she's biased. Whether she is or isn't - it is a failure on her part that she leaves people with that feeling as a result of her "style".
I assume on the occasion in question, she knew she was interviewing a 'professional' activist who should expect a hard time.
The same day she interviewed a couple of teenage girls who were totally clueless as to why they were demonstrating. Kay was as good as gold with them.
DE
Interesting article about Adam and last week's events in the Indie today.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/adam-boulton-just-dont-tell-him-what-he-thinks-1973987.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/adam-boulton-just-dont-tell-him-what-he-thinks-1973987.html
BR
It's not like OFCOM have the power to void the election result should Sky be found guilty of not being impartial anyway. It's like when the ASA ban adverts months after that advertising campaign has ended - pointless.
In that piece on Adam Boulton interesting how he is portrayed as so neutral he doesn't even vote - perhaps where is frustration comes from then. I remembber Jon Snow saying I think during the last election campaign that as a journalist you can't be expected to have such a knowledge of a subject and then have no opinion on it.
In that piece on Adam Boulton interesting how he is portrayed as so neutral he doesn't even vote - perhaps where is frustration comes from then. I remembber Jon Snow saying I think during the last election campaign that as a journalist you can't be expected to have such a knowledge of a subject and then have no opinion on it.
