Yes, a voice of reason would have a more nuanced and open attitude to the issues of the day, not a sense of outrage about everything. What sort of reasonable person cares the Greggs sells a vegan sausage roll?
I do find it bizarre that anyone who demonstrates any sort of social conscience or defends the interests of a persecuted minority is decried by him as a ‘snowflake’, but getting all upset about a sausage roll is okay.
I hate all that. Editorial comments and emojis have no place in the tweets of a news programme.
Also worth noting - Kate Garraway presents a live radio show at 10am. Presumably if GMB were to run until 9am, this would have a negative effect on her radio show? (Unless the studios are VERY close together.)
Television Centre to Global is about 30-40 minutes driving although I think it can be done by tube and walk in about the same time although I believe Kate and other presenters use limo bikes
To be fair to him, did he 'fail' as a talent show judge? Seems he had a fairly good run at it to me
Dunno. I’m just trying to spice things up. Haha. Well, he wasn’t asked back, was he? Or did he resign. Either way, love Susan for silencing him.
He did 4 series here and 6 in the US, quitting both when he got his CNN show.
Agree it isn't great if Piers' views are seemingly becoming the editorial policy of the show. Though controversial and sometimes crossing the line I do think it is fine for GMB to allow viewers to see their hosts have opinions, but they should always be framed as the opinion of the host and not the show - and the same with guests too. Fine to share that Boycott clip but the accompanying tweet is way off the mark.
A lot of it is false anger and opinion, he has a persona and ego to maintain and keep in the public eye. Or in some cases his opinions are commercially driven, in the above case it was suggested that Morgans's PR also did the PR for Greggs
That does of course rely upon Morgan having a level of wit and self-awareness he has failed to demonstrate anywhere else.
They're really going for today's interview with Jennifer Arcuri. They're branding it as a 'world exclusive' (with not one but two graphics declaring this on screen throughout the interview). It began at 7:10am and they're still talking to her at the time of writing (8:10am) with only a couple of breaks (no headlines, weather, competitions, etc) splitting this up. I would question whether this is overkill since I'd never even heard of this woman before I saw Piers' tweet about her appearing on the show yesterday, and I wouldn't expect an interview with even the most important figures, e.g. Prime Minister, member of the royal family, etc to last for an hour plus. The whole shape of the show has been moulded around her appearance. Seems a bit excessive.
They're really going for today's interview with Jennifer Arcuri. They're branding it as a 'world exclusive' (with not one but two graphics declaring this on screen throughout the interview). It began at 7:10am and they're still talking to her at the time of writing (8:10am) with only a couple of breaks (no headlines, weather, competitions, etc) splitting this up. I would question whether this is overkill since I'd never even heard of this woman before I saw Piers' tweet about her appearing on the show yesterday, and I wouldn't expect an interview with even the most important figures, e.g. Prime Minister, member of the royal family, etc to last for an hour plus. The whole shape of the show has been moulded around her appearance. Seems a bit excessive.
They're really going for today's interview with Jennifer Arcuri. They're branding it as a 'world exclusive' (with not one but two graphics declaring this on screen throughout the interview). It began at 7:10am and they're still talking to her at the time of writing (8:10am) with only a couple of breaks (no headlines, weather, competitions, etc) splitting this up. I would question whether this is overkill since I'd never even heard of this woman before I saw Piers' tweet about her appearing on the show yesterday, and I wouldn't expect an interview with even the most important figures, e.g. Prime Minister, member of the royal family, etc to last for an hour plus. The whole shape of the show has been moulded around her appearance. Seems a bit excessive.
Are you joking? It is brilliant.
Is it? There was only one question they
really
wanted to know the answer to (did she have a relationship with Boris), and she flatly refused to answer, so, no, I'm not joking.
I would expect Ms Arcuri to have been paid handsomely for this interview (which is something Breakfast wouldn't be able to do) so they want to maximise their investment...
Presumably she knows that if she confirms or denies a relationship, that will reduce her value to other news outlets who will buy stories. She's going to maximise her income and her time in the public eye I suspect - and is no doubt waiting for a decent sum from a tabloid still?
I doubt that many of GMB's viewers outside the Westminster bubble care enough to invest in an interview like that. It's kinda like when Loose Women pissed their knickers over Stormy Daniels. Sometimes programmes completely forget their core audience for the sake of flashing up an Exclusive banner.
I doubt that many of GMB's viewers outside the Westminster bubble care enough to invest in an interview like that. It's kinda like when Loose Women pissed their knickers over Stormy Daniels. Sometimes programmes completely forget their core audience for the sake of flashing up an Exclusive banner.
It was a good get, but it was on for way too long. It didn’t help that she wasn’t the best interviewee, often making little sense. A pre-record may have been a better option.
