Good Morning Britain - the launch

I've tried to give this programme a chance. The set is great and very newsy and the hosts are likeable, certainly in comparison to Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley, the issue for me is the stories don't seem to have as much depth as I'd like and are rushed through.

Back to BBC Breakfast for me.

How long does a paper review have to be to not be pointless due to the lack of actual analysis, and not make the guest seem like a fifth wheel? Also, how many guests would be willing to do a paper review? Instead of faffing around with all this, you might as well give in and extend the interview if it's that much of a problem.

I don't want them to do a paper review. There are too many of them now as it is, and I'm not really interested in what some z-lister thinks of what someone has written in The Guardian.

I would say a guest booked would be appropriate to the GMB format and therefore would be appropriate to take part in a paper review. Certainly the majority of the guests I've seen so far would have contributed something worthy to one.

For me it just seems so throwaway to have guests like Jay Leno, Jonathan Ross, Paul O'Grady and even political leaders without getting any more out of them than a couple of minutes on screen.

I wasn't aware Breakfast and Sunrise conducted a paper review with the guest present? I'm fairly sure they only get a 'couple of minutes on screen' when they appear on those respective programmes, with no-one complaining, so why is it a problem here? I don't understand what you think Jonathan Ross and Paul O'Grady would add to the programme by commenting on stories?

Actually, we on Sky do three lots of ten minutes across three hours (the third of which looks forward to the day's coming events), and it's not just done with whoever's going to be on the sofa that morning (which would be a ridiculously scattershot and impractical approach as others have said), but with a handpicked group of people who rotate, and new faces introduced to the lineup on a regular basis.

How many domestic issues would Jay Leno be able to comment on in any depth? How many political issues would Paul O'Grady be able to comment on in any depth? How many issues could Jonathan Ross comment upon without being vacuous? How many of those guests would feel comfortable doing a paper review?

Maybe the three of them would be excellent at it, but there's certainly no guarantee - it would most likely end up being an awkward 10 minutes.

I didn't realise the format had to be so rigid. GMB currently has a blend of lightweight and serious stories, and there is plenty of scope for guests to make comment on various news/features. It's something they certainly did in the TV-am days so I don't see why I'm getting comments as if I've suggested they should have Rose West doing the travel.

At present it seems too rigid a format and the guest at the end seems very "Insert Guest X here". It's quite throwaway even though they have had some notable people on the sofa.

I'm not suggesting have Mr Bean comment on a massacre but there is so much more scope to be flexible with guests.

How much insight would you get from any of those guests? You'd get the occasional "tut-tut" and "it's a shame", but they're unlikely to have much interesting to say on even the fluffy news - Jay Leno is an exception in terms of US celebrities, but he would struggle with commenting on TOWIE star.

In essence, you'd lose the variety of stories and end up with 10 minutes of no insight on fluff.

I saw a very dimly lit, vaguely PSA style scare trail last night - "do you know who your child is speaking to online, Good Morning Britain investigates".

It was so mid-2000s GMTV it hurt. And hardly an enticing proposition for a breakfast show.

I have no problem with a paper review, but not with each day's guest. They're still going to have to have guests such as Paul O'Grady or Johnathan Ross which is fine... but why is such people talking about whatever's in the news important? I don't care what they think about today's news (although Paul O'Grady's socialist rants are great and I agree with him on lots of things ).


If they're going to have a paper review, have someone who knows what the hell they are talking about - Breakfast always have people like Simon Calder doing the papers. No reason why GMB can't do that. But it's morning television not the One Show, so some celebrity talking about current affairs in the morning is pointless, stupid and ridiculous. Who gives a damn what they think? If the Guardian (my chosen newspaper) have a really interesting feature (which they normally do) I don't mind that being brought up by someone who knows what they are talking about so that I would buy it that day.

I cannot tell you how ridiculous hearing some comedian, actor, singer or TV presenter giving their perspective on the news is. Not exactly essential for the morning is it? And it's terrible for a news program. It will be so awkward. And I don't want a morning version of the One Show.

I am not sure that is the best example. As The Independent's senior travel editor, I doubt Simon Calder is going to give a very honest 'review' of the papers. He probably just talks about the content rather than give an actual review of the papers. It gives the BBC an excuse to cover gossip without actually covering gossip. Not that I am singling out Simon Calder or the BBC when it comes to this tactic, I am not sure any channel actually reviews the papers.