Talking of elephants in the room... Sugar himself is a bit of a problem because his current business ventures have little relevance to the average viewer. We've famously had interview rounds where candidates didn't know what companies Sugar actually owns but I'd be surprised if many of the audience knew either. I had to look it up on Wikipedia.

One way to revitalise the series would be to replace LS with an entrepreneur that the audience can relate to as a businessman. Some posters have complained that this series was too like Dragons' Den, but I suspect the audience would know more about, and have more respect for, any of the "dragons" than they do Lord Sugar.

Does that really make much of a difference now that its an investment rather than a job?

We know that a lot of his fortune is investing in property and that's little more than a stone-throw from investing in an apprentice.

I think it would make the show more enjoyable if the investor/employer were someone the audience could relate to. Most people don't have a lot of empathy for property tycoons, do they? Also the switch from apprenticeship to investment hasn't been a runaway success. We haven't seen any really great proposals from the candidates yet.

The filming is done over a couple of months in Autumn, ending around November. Between then and the broadcast in March is about 3 months. I don't see any reason to start the edit before filming has ended. So they probably know at least who the final four are, and probably the final two. They won't know the actual winner until a day or two before the final You're Fired is recorded.

Although there's opportunity for bias, I don't see much evidence of it, nor any need really. In practice candidates who get fired early, get more screen time early, because the editors know that's the only chance we have to get to know them. They're shown making mistakes to help explain why they are fired. Is the suggestion that the eventual winner gets positive bias? Wouldn't they be likely to get negative bias so they have more of an arc?

The only reason for biased editing in a reality show is if there's an audience vote to manipulate, as with Big Brother or X Factor. The Apprentice editing is done and dusted before the first episode is shown. As there's no audience vote to worry about the editing is focused on making an entertaining programme and telling a coherent story, not supporting a favoured candidate.

That was what I thought, but there have been a lot of comments here saying that the edit gives a false picture of what really happened.

We know that for a fact on at least one instance (Katie dressed as a pizza didn´t do any selling on camera, but Scottish people who she sold to actually placed comments on different forums, which is why I knew she was still in it until at least that task).

Yes, those were the two highlights for me in past years. Bring them back!

Unless the commentary said she didn't sell any when she actually did then no misrepresentation is going on.

I don't see how it's possible to give a 100% accurate and balanced view of a task which takes place over two or three days in around 25 minutes of the programme. They show the key moments in the task and those which involve subjects raised in the eventual boardroom discussions. And of course anything which will be entertaining. Katie in her pizza costume (selling meatballs) was certainly that.