« Topics
1234...299300301302303304305
London Lite10,873 posts since 4 Jan 2003
London London
Jayne has posted this on Twitter

Clearly yesterday I got the tone and content of an interview wrong and it has upset many people. I am sure many of us will have made a mistake at work - unfortunate for me mine is a lot more public than most. Please be assured I have taken the many comments on board. Mea culpa.

I don't think that response does her any favours either

I think that's a pretty decent response to be fair. Short of "I resign" what more did you expect?


Something as simple as I'm sorry to "insert persons twitter handle here"


Sorry is the big word here, along with a private apology to the interviewee is the least she could do.

It's also worth noting that the tenant wasn't informed by the producer of Sky News Today that the interviewer is a landlord.

Going back to Jamespoo's comment about my financial comment. While Secker isn't her landlord, being able treat tenants poorly will leave landlords like her without the power for example to evict tenants on a whim, that's where the incentive is currently.

I'm sorry, but she came over as a hypocritical middle class landlord who has no sense of reality when it comes to renting from a tenants side. Whinging about tenants wanting light bulbs changed is systemic with the attitude of some landlords who will kick out tenants if they dare to complain about repairs in their premises, despite paying the rent on time.

Yesterday's 'interview' was from the basis of landlord first, journalist second and a clear conflict of interest.
Steve in Pudsey10,420 posts since 4 Jan 2003
Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)
It's always going to be an awkward one as long as journalists are people they are going to have a vested interest in certain things they report on. The question is where do you draw the line?

A journalist who commutes by train can't report on fare increases? Somebody who took part in an NUJ strike can't do interviews about strikes elsewhere? BBC journalists can't report on public sector pay? Nobody who has ever voted can report on politics?

Yes I'm taking things to extremes but that is the logical extension of what some elsewhere are proposing.

At least in this case - which was a lapse of judgement - Jayne Secker declared her interest and didn't try to pass off that line of questioning as playing devil's advocate.
Last edited by Steve in Pudsey on 16 April 2019 7:46pm
Write that down in your copybook now.
2
Ratflump and Jamesypoo gave kudos
Cando1,500 posts since 8 Mar 2012
London London

However I still stand that a broadcaster whose job is to be impartial shouldn't have been anywhere near that interviewee.


This make zero sense in the real world as pretty much every broadcaster has some kind of conflict of interest. Can Nick Robinson interview a Labour politician anymore because he was in the young Tories and likewise with Lewis Goodall at Sky who was a Labour activist.

The problem here was a presenter who was clearly having a bad day and her lack of professionalism shown threw.
1
Jon gave kudos
London Lite10,873 posts since 4 Jan 2003
London London

However I still stand that a broadcaster whose job is to be impartial shouldn't have been anywhere near that interviewee.


This make zero sense in the real world as pretty much every broadcaster has some kind of conflict of interest. Can Nick Robinson interview a Labour politician anymore because he was in the young Tories and likewise with Lewis Goodall at Sky who was a Labour activist.

The problem here was a presenter who was clearly having a bad day and her lack of professionalism shown threw.


The point is they WERE activists who can bring their expertise to their journalism. Secker IS a landlord who has a conflict of interest interviewing that tenant. It's that simple.
Worzel4,793 posts since 8 Jan 2008
Anglia (West) Look East (West sub-opt)
She has 'made a statement' - as journalists would call it!



Live at five with Jeremy1,113 posts since 7 Mar 2009
UTV Newsline
I just hope she has personally apologised to the interviewee. I would question if the interviewee should have been put on television in the first place given how anxious she seemed.

If Jayne has personally apologised to the interviewee good on her. She made a big mistake, admitted it and can move on.
Markymark7,301 posts since 13 Dec 2004
Meridian (North) South Today

However I still stand that a broadcaster whose job is to be impartial shouldn't have been anywhere near that interviewee.


This make zero sense in the real world as pretty much every broadcaster has some kind of conflict of interest. Can Nick Robinson interview a Labour politician anymore because he was in the young Tories and likewise with Lewis Goodall at Sky who was a Labour activist.

The problem here was a presenter who was clearly having a bad day and her lack of professionalism shown threw.


The point is they WERE activists who can bring their expertise to their journalism. Secker IS a landlord who has a conflict of interest interviewing that tenant. It's that simple.


For all any of us know Nick Robinson still holds ‘right of centre’ views and still votes Tory in elections, and why on Earth shouldn’t he ? There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with Jane Secker being a landlord, what was wrong is her impartiality vanished in that interview, that’s all
1
Jon gave kudos
Luke2,662 posts since 6 Oct 2003
was her partiality really a problem in that interview? no, that's a total red herring. It was more her awful tone and the fact the comments were utterly irrelevant. Irritating queries from tenants has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to evict them at short notice.
Bad day at the office - makes a change from Kay being a target of the Twitter mob though.
1
globaltraffic24 gave kudos
London Lite10,873 posts since 4 Jan 2003
London London
I just hope she has personally apologised to the interviewee. I would question if the interviewee should have been put on television in the first place given how anxious she seemed.

If Jayne has personally apologised to the interviewee good on her. She made a big mistake, admitted it and can move on.


She has since apologised to the tenant, however the tenant has written a piece for The Guardian on the ignorance of the mainstream media towards private tenants.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/16/why-went-viral-after-talking-about-evicted-sky-news

[There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with Jane Secker being a landlord, what was wrong is her impartiality vanished in that interview, that’s all


The fact you mention that you consider it to be "that's all" is what is intrinsically wrong with this industry.

I'm pleased Secker has since apologised, but as far as I'm concerned, this incident has tarnished her reputation as a journalist and that of Sky News of being a responsible broadcaster not just to the interviewee who wasn't given a heads-up over Secker's background, which is a duty of care issue, but the cheap way of chasing for a story which allowed her to go all 'shock-jock' over what is an important issue for renters on a supposedly impartial news channel.
Last edited by London Lite on 17 April 2019 12:43am
Markymark7,301 posts since 13 Dec 2004
Meridian (North) South Today

[There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with Jane Secker being a landlord, what was wrong is her impartiality vanished in that interview, that’s all


The fact you mention that you consider it to be "that's all" is what is intrinsically wrong with this industry.


It was a very poor quality interview, because Secker veered off topic and forgot she was (at that moment) an interviewer and journalist. If she had remained impartial, it wouldn't have gone off topic, and turned into a personal rant by her.

It's not the first poor quality interview I've seen on a news channel, and certainly won't be the last,

Let's be glad none of us are her tenants eh ?
1
Jon gave kudos