GMTV (1993 - 2010)

Having watched that clip, I have to say she really impressed me.

I think anoilyrag is quite right that, unpalatable though his opinions were, he is able to make them publicly because this is Britain - and good on them for having the bottle to invite on a guest so drastically outwith what I considered to be GMTV's comfort zone.

Have to agree with people saying its shown GMTV can move away from what it usually is and be very good at what it does. Perhaps because it does it less frequently, interviews like that have more of an impact.

I also have to compliment them on the relaunch as a whole. At first I was unsure about some of the things. I liked Emma but wasn't so sure what to make of her, but she has settled in nicely. I thought the set got too tired very quickly and when they relit it it looked a lot better and more 'full'. The new music is good too (I'm properly used to it now and really like it). The only thing I don't really like is how Penny has been basically told to shut up. I used to like her little remarks at the end of the news bulletins, it made it all gel together nicer and it felt much friendlier. Now everything is in place I have to say I'm impressed with all of it.

I know you'll get people saying its tabloid, its trash, its 'PMTV' etc but in all honesty, its a light hearted and quite informative way to start in the morning. You find out what you need to know without being depressed for the day and fluffy items are good because noone wants solid news in the morning! All round I find it much more 'feel good' than the BBC equivalent.

I agree with your point of view, Gavin. However, I think what inflamed many people, especially perhaps the 'Daily Mail' brigade was the fact that this spokesman, even though British through birth, kept referring to foreign countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan as "our lands".

I think there is a fundamental expectation of loyalty to a nation when you have citizenship - by whatever method, and clearly this person was demonstrating divided loyalties between his home country and those areas he considered 'home' by virtue of his religion. That's quite an alien concept to most British people: I don't know of any Roman Catholics who refer to the Vatican as a spiritual homeland by virtue of their religion, for example.

Of course, it's the right of all citizens to air their views in this country, within the law; but it's equally legitimate for others to express their dissatisfaction at those same views.

Having just watched the interview on gm.tv I believe they handled a sensitive subject very well. I don't think anyone can doubt their intention to responsibly deal with the topic.

I'm bound to remind you that just because you haven't me such people, that doesn't disprove their existence. And I think you're speaking in absolutes about "loyalty", when its a much more complex issue for migrants.

The difference is whether that has a criminal implication. If it doesn't, you're free to say what you like.

Why do you consider it to have been a "good" interview and a good performance by Kate Garraway? I am rather preplexed by this outpouring of praise.

The job of an interviewer/journalist on a television news programme must be done with the utmost impartiality. Kate allowed the tables to be turned on herself by falling into the trap of answering questions which the interviewee asked her back! In fact, on more than one occasion, she made the remark "you have asked me a question, may I answer it?......will you allow me to answer your question?" This can be perceived as not being impartial and strays very close to airing one's own opinions as opposed to remaining focussed on the specific subject matter.

There were other components of the interiew that were indeed good and where I did admire Kate's line of questioning. However, it was hardly of Doucet, Paxman or Wark proportions.

Just my opinion.

GMTV is hardly Newsnight. You have to pitch your expectation in accordance with the programme style.

Can't agree with your assessment, I'm afraid.

Since when was GMTV a hard hitting news programme? If it was then maybe you could compare it to a Paxman interview.

"Noone wants solid news in the morning"? Just where did you get this obviously fantastically researched and carefully surveyed opinion?

When was the last time there was a proper news programme on in the morning? By that I mean news, no fluff about whats on TV tonight or any other interviews.

This morning, when I watched CNN.

Get your facts right, Mr.

Erm, BBC Breakfast is mostly news until around 8.30, as is Sky Sunrise, BBC World News and CNN Today. The Today programme on Radio 4 and 5 Live Breakfast are also completely news orientated. For all of those outlets to provide solid news at breakfast time, there must be a market!

Exactly, Rob. Well said. But back to the Garraway interview, where everyone was saying how good it was, and bemoaned my comparison of the same against the likes of Doucet and Wark. It appears what people actually meant was that it was a "good interview within the context of GMTV's usual style", and not necessarily a "good interview" per se?

I still stand by my specific comments of Kate falling into the trap of the interviewee turning the tables and asking her a question, which she went on to try and answer, and even insisted on being allowed to give her answer.

Other early morning breakfast presenters on other channels (which someone above remarked that breakfast television is not serious and hard hitting and people don't want heavy news in the mornings) such as Sian Williams / Kate Silverton / Lorna Dunkley / Susanna Reid / even GMTV's own Emma Crosby would not have handled the discussion in this manner by entertaining the questions of the interviewee.