« Topics
1234...111112113114115116117
BM11542 posts since 2 Jun 2017
London London
Susanna should have stepped in before it reached that stage, but Susanna is becoming increasingly Piers-like in her delivery.


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.

In some ways that is how Susannah seems to be on twitter now - a bit more partisan and sharing opinions (in the Piers mode) than a couple of years ago.
Last edited by BM11 on 29 November 2018 6:58pm
1
ittrgrey gave kudos
Markymark5,896 posts since 13 Dec 2004
Meridian (North) South Today
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 can see where you're coming from, and I agree the statement was a load of crap. Within the framework LBC Radio operate, a presenter saying what Piers said would have been within the rules. The problem is GMB can't operate like that, and be an opinion lead news programme. There is scope for such a thing though.
1
Steve in Pudsey gave kudos
noggin13,885 posts since 26 Jun 2001
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


That's not quite the case is it :
Quote:
There is no prescribed format that a right of reply should take. For example - if it is fair to do so - we may offer an interview, request a written statement for inclusion fairly in the output or simply telephone the subject of the allegations, note their response and reflect it fairly in the relevant output.


The final element of noting their response and reflecting it fairly in the output means if you ask someone for an interview, they decline, and instead send a written response, you should still reflect that. You can't ask them for an interview and then, if they decline that offer, ignore their written response. You still have an obligation to offer a right of reply and fairly reflect that response.
2
scottishtv and bilky asko gave kudos
ittrgrey306 posts since 30 Sep 2017
Looking forward to seeing the Christmas decorations in the refreshed set this year! Smile
Change back to ITV1, as it's less confusing than calling the channel ITV and calling the company ITV!
2
UBox and HJL gave kudos
Steve in Pudsey9,469 posts since 4 Jan 2003
Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)
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


That's not quite the case is it :
Quote:
There is no prescribed format that a right of reply should take. For example - if it is fair to do so - we may offer an interview, request a written statement for inclusion fairly in the output or simply telephone the subject of the allegations, note their response and reflect it fairly in the relevant output.


The final element of noting their response and reflecting it fairly in the output means if you ask someone for an interview, they decline, and instead send a written response, you should still reflect that. You can't ask them for an interview and then, if they decline that offer, ignore their written response. You still have an obligation to offer a right of reply and fairly reflect that response.


There is nothing in that to say that if they decline an interview they get to choose an alternative means of replying, if they were offered an interview and choose not to make themselves available that seems to be sufficient to me. Nor does it say that any (unsolicited) statement they send in lieu has to be read verbatim, it can be reflected in the interview questions - I have only seen the clip linked above so I don't know if it was.

If the statement is just generic waffle that doesn't address what was discussed, then it isn't really a reply and explaining why you are not going to read it is arguably reflecting its content.

I think there is a distinction when dealing with a body like a council or government department that is supposed to be transparent and accountable and a private business or individual - if the former choose to avoid scrutiny then that needs to be called out.
Write that down in your copybook now.
noggin13,885 posts since 26 Jun 2001
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


That's not quite the case is it :
Quote:
There is no prescribed format that a right of reply should take. For example - if it is fair to do so - we may offer an interview, request a written statement for inclusion fairly in the output or simply telephone the subject of the allegations, note their response and reflect it fairly in the relevant output.


The final element of noting their response and reflecting it fairly in the output means if you ask someone for an interview, they decline, and instead send a written response, you should still reflect that. You can't ask them for an interview and then, if they decline that offer, ignore their written response. You still have an obligation to offer a right of reply and fairly reflect that response.


There is nothing in that to say that if they decline an interview they get to choose an alternative means of replying, if they were offered an interview and choose not to make themselves available that seems to be sufficient to me.


It may seem fair to you - but the rules are clear. if a response to your offer of a right to reply is received - you have an obligation to fairly reflect that response. If someone is offered a studio interview, but declines and submits a written statement instead, you can't ignore that written statement.

You can't compel someone to appear on camera, nor is it fair to ignore their response to that request. You may not agree with it - but that's an accepted way of treating people fairly.
Quote:


Nor does it say that any (unsolicited) statement they send in lieu has to be read verbatim, it can be reflected in the interview questions - I have only seen the clip linked above so I don't know if it was.


No - and it would be incredibly unusual to read a response verbatim (they are usually far too long). However it is required that you don't alter the meaning or intent when you sub, or paraphrase, a response. It is also editorially important to make it clear that you are reading their response to demonstrate you have behaved fairly.

Lots of rights of reply will have been scripted in association with a duty lawyer employed by the broadcaster for this kind of thing, and once agreed and 'legalled' you have to be very careful with any further changes.
Quote:

If the statement is just generic waffle that doesn't address what was discussed, then it isn't really a reply and explaining why you are not going to read it is arguably reflecting its content.

In reality - not really. You have a duty reflect the response fairly. You may be able to editorially reference it after reading it noting that it didn't seem to address the points you made, but you can't just bin it.
1
Whataday gave kudos
Steve in Pudsey9,469 posts since 4 Jan 2003
Yorkshire Look North (Yorkshire)

It may seem fair to you - but the rules are clear.

With respect, the way the rules are written, they are open to interpretation.
Quote:

Lots of rights of reply will have been scripted in association with a duty lawyer employed by the broadcaster for this kind of thing, and once agreed and 'legalled' you have to be very careful with any further changes.


In those cases it's usual to have a pre-prepared full-screen graphic containing the agreed text isn't it?
Write that down in your copybook now.
noggin13,885 posts since 26 Jun 2001

It may seem fair to you - but the rules are clear.

With respect, the way the rules are written, they are open to interpretation.


Anyone who has worked in TV journalism for any length of time will have a clear understanding of how to handle rights of reply. The rules are read from that background.

You have to offer someone the right of reply. You can chose how to offer it based on what you think is appropriate. They can chose to respond in a manner they wish to, or they may chose not to respond. You should reflect their response fairly in your output, and can report their lack of response too.

Quote:

Quote:

Lots of rights of reply will have been scripted in association with a duty lawyer employed by the broadcaster for this kind of thing, and once agreed and 'legalled' you have to be very careful with any further changes.


In those cases it's usual to have a pre-prepared full-screen graphic containing the agreed text isn't it?


No - that's not always the case. Lots of shows will just read out a normal right of reply without a graphic. That's a production decision at the end of the day.
JamesM0984464 posts since 21 Jun 2018
Central (East) East Midlands Today
It's difficult. The right of reply was taken up and they had to read the statement out. Sadly, that statement was very much a load of crap. Like you say, if James O' Brien on LBC had had such a rant (he goes off on one just as much, especially with Brexit) it wouldn't be an issue, but one imagines the TOH news bulletins would have dealt with the right of reply in this case.

Morgan would be a great shout for LBC actually.
Jonwo (previously Jonwo87) 388 posts since 20 Sep 2007
It's difficult. The right of reply was taken up and they had to read the statement out. Sadly, that statement was very much a load of crap. Like you say, if James O' Brien on LBC had had such a rant (he goes off on one just as much, especially with Brexit) it wouldn't be an issue, but one imagines the TOH news bulletins would have dealt with the right of reply in this case.

Morgan would be a great shout for LBC actually.


If TalkRadio wants to make their station a true rival to LBC, I think Piers for the Breakfast show would be a coup or if doesn’t want Breakfast, maybe Drivetime?