Good Morning Britain

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7845723/piers-morgan-gmb-rotherham-grooming-council-statement-video/

Video in the link above.

Clearly the gallery cut to Charlotte and forced her to read the statement out because it’s a legal requirement. OFCOM ruled against GMB and Piers Morgan fairly recently for not offering a right of reply, so I’m not surprised they insisted it was read this time.

Piers Morgan is not above the rules of broadcasting, no matter what the story happens to be. I thought his attitude towards Susanna, Charlotte and the gallery was bordering on out of line, even if he was annoyed about the story.

I can understand Pier's argument but GMB has to be fair and balanceg to coin a phrase from Fox News

They should just give it to the third presenter rather than even attempt to get Piers to do it.

Oddly Piers mentioned on Monday when Mel B was on that they have to do Right to Reply so it's odd he refused to not to do one.



If he's not careful, he will be forced to leave the show

That was so unprofessional. I understand it was an emotive subject but Piers is not above the show and he is not above the law. A presenter should not take the call 'just sue us', that's a decision for the editor to take (not that they ever would).

Having the presenter rip out his earpiece then cutting away to a different presenter and cutting his mic is not something the show should be forced to do by one of its lead presenters. It also put Charlotte in an uncomfortable position too given the ruckus happening in the gallery.

I'm also not sure crap is allowed on morning television (the word, I mean. I know there's plenty of crap on in the morning.)

The way he waved his hand in front of Charlotte whilst she was reading it was just odd behaviour.

I get why they have him on it but hopefully people will stop watching it and he can go away. Glad I don't watch morning tv.

I think Piers has a point, the statement offered was a totally inadequate response to the points raised, was provided in lieu of putting somebody up for interview and told us very little.

The way the BBC's guidelines are phrased implies that if they offer an interview they have fulfilled their responsibility - there is nothing in there to say that if they refuse and interview any statement they provide in lieu has to be read out https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/right-of-reply

I get the impression that Charlotte is getting more and more uncomfortable with Piers. Could imagine her getting swapped out with one of the Lunchtime or Evening News relief presenters. She was great on early GMB but I think it’s changed too much.

The statement wasn’t adequate, the council are clearly in the wrong and emotions were running high. However, it’s not an excuse to defy broadcasting regulations and treat co-presenters/crew poorly. OFCOM ruled against GMB just a couple of months ago for exactly the same situation, which is why the gallery cut to Charlotte and forced her to read it out.

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/good-morning-britain-breaches-ofcom-code-after-piers-morgan-cant-be-bothered-to-read-out-council-statement-about-homeless-sas-veteran/

Piers would have been aware that he was breaching regulations, which is why Charlotte had to read it out. Piers then sighs and waves his arms in front of the camera shot. Susanna should have stepped in before it reached that stage, but Susanna is becoming increasingly Piers-like in her delivery. I’m usually a fan of Piers, but his behaviour today was totally unprofessional. Eventually it’ll all go wrong and GMB will be needing a new main presenter.

There has to be a limit though - to refuse to put somebody up for interview and then expect a statement of waffle that doesn't really address the issues being discussed to be read out verbatim isn't really playing the game. Broadcasters would do better to just empty chair them - "we invited Rotherham council to take part in this programme but they declined/nobody was available" etc

I'm glad someone else has noticed this. Whereas Susanna would be more diplomatic previously, now some debates seem like they're chaired by a two headed monster.