Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

BBC 5 Live General Chit Chat


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17-03-2013, 00:21
spanners
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 537
The one thing I would compliment them on, was Nolans' interviews with the South African Cardinal over the last two nights, which showed a complete lack of empathy with the victims, at least in the first interview last night.
I tuned in tonight to listen to the Cardinal and I was quite disturbed not necessarily by what he said but by the way the BBC and in particular Nolan has spun it. Napier said that he thought that he was asked onto the show yesterday to comment on the election of pope Francis but when the interview got underway the questions came thick and fast about abuse.
Aside from what Napier said - (which in my humble view could have some credence i.e. people who have been abused and go on to abuse need far more attention paid to them than just a prison sentence) Why did the BBC pick on Napier out of all the Cardinals in Rome? Why did they not tell him the manner of the interview before hand so that he could at least decide if he wanted to answer any questions that might be put?
You make the point that he showed a lack of empathy last night - he admitted he did, he was highjacked and unfortunately he signed off tonight stating that his experience with the BBC and Nolan means that he will no longer give radio or television interviews.
Perhaps Fatman can now explain to us how his highjacking technique aids honest public discussion about sensitive subjects in the future if he alienates those with influence in such matters? Prize pratt.
spanners is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 17-03-2013, 02:22
FrankBT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: N London
Posts: 814
Perhaps Fatman can now explain to us how his highjacking technique aids honest public discussion about sensitive subjects in the future if he alienates those with influence in such matters? Prize pratt.
FFS, it's recently been headline news about Cardinal Keith O'Brien admitting he had been guilty of sexual misconduct, and you think Nolan shouldn't have mentioned sexual perversion having reached this level among members of the Catholic church? Are you for real? Furthermore you find the need to resort to abuse about Nolan's physical appearance. Says a lot more about you than it ever will say about Nolan. Er, how do you hijack your own interview anyway.?
FrankBT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 05:55
radiotuner
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 74
It is clear the Cardinal did not expect to be interviewed on child abuse. When he did get asked the questions he very poor in expressing himself. On the second interview, which was clearly driven by the amazement of the Cardinal at the reaction that has been largely orchestrated by Nolan, again he struggled to understand why each word he used was forensically scrutinesed and why Nolan was doing hsi damndest to to get big headlines out of a man expressing (badly) a postion that many would agree with.

The truth is the cardinal was on dodgy ground, but his intentions of protection and treatment were very clear.

As someone who heard both interviews, I thought Nolan should have been ashamed of the way he badgered the interviewee and I think the litmus test is whether such an interview would be used to show prospective broadcast journalists that this is the way to do the job.

It was rambling, went over the same ground time and time again and got little further. It did however achieve its aims...it fed Nolan's ego, it filled acres of airspace when there was nothing else to do and in doing so it completely took out of context what the cardinal said.

It left the cardinal perplexed, shocked and clearly expecting a lot better of the BBC. It was Nolan doing what Nolan does...he was man trying to find a headline and an award, preferably in the same interview...even if it means running roughsod over normal journalistic practice.

Nolan always talks about the "breaking news" and there being a lot of news about...how many of the morning papers troubled to even run his cardinal story? Like a lot that Nolan does, his so called headlines are in his head where often they take the place of his own reasoned thinking.
radiotuner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 09:59
radiotuner
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 74
If I could take a leaf out of the Cardinal's book...I have read what I posted earlier today feel I could express myself better...so this is what I meant to say.....

As someone who heard both interviews, I thought Nolan should have been ashamed of the way he badgered the interviewee.

I think the litmus test is whether such an interview would be used to show prospective broadcast journalists that this is the way to do the job.

I suspect most would not underline this as the BBC's finest hour...and it was nearly an hour!

It was rambling, went over the same ground time and time again and got little further. It did however achieve its aims...it fed Nolan's ego and it filled acres of airspace when there was nothing else to do.

But in doing so, it completely took out of context what the Cardinal said.

It left the cardinal perplexed, shocked and clearly expecting a lot better of the BBC. It was Nolan doing what Nolan does...he was man trying to find a headline and an award, preferably in the same interview.

At the end of the second interview the Cardinal said he would never do a radio interview again and that he had been badly treated and misrepresented. Several callers followed the cardinal and expressed the same feeling.

It has to be said the Cardinal did not express himself well, clearly had views many would find wrong and didn't seem overly at ease with the modern day media. But his overall message was in line with the Catholic's churches practices and he was advocating criminal proceedings for abusers.

Whether or not he had been badly treated on the programme is up for discussion. I suspect your point of view about how to treat abusers will inform your thinking about Nolan's performance.

But, the fact that the cardinal felt his every expression was analysed to the point of distortion is not uncommon to many of Nolan's interviews and seems to be a hallmark unique to Nolan.

Stephen Nolan is a fine broadcaster, but his search for the sensational at times leaves him open to accusations of him being a parody of good practice.

I'm sure Nolan left the studio last night congratulating himself on a job well done. And it was, because we are talking long and hard, not about the subject, but about Nolan...and that's what Nolan is all about.
radiotuner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 11:03
Mapperley Ridge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,546
That last sentence is totally untrue, judging by the death of the last Pope. (John Paul?) The Sky News and BBC TV News channels spent days showing the public display of the coffin for virtually all of their news time for about 3 days. I had to resort to watching China TV news on Sky and listening to Talk Sport to get away from it..
The previous poster was talking about suspended all regular programmes on all channels, which is what would happen when the Queen dies. News channels frequently show long drawn out shots of big stories in this way.
Mapperley Ridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 11:05
Mapperley Ridge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,546
By the way, if the Cardinal felt "hijacked" by Stephen Nolan, he'll no doubt be making an official complaint to the BBC.

Or perhaps the only outraged people were a handful of DS posters who dislike the idea of a journalist asking robust, topical questions.
Mapperley Ridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 11:07
Mapperley Ridge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,546

Nolan always talks a[bout the "breaking news" and there being a lot of news about...how many of the morning papers troubled to even run his cardinal story? Likea lot that Nolan does, his so called headlines are in his head where often they take the place of his own reasoned thinking.
Surely the morning papers would have already gone to press by the time Nolan went on air?
Mapperley Ridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 11:33
Station ID
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,163
I didn't hear the original interview and only caught the last few minutes of last nights but towards the end it did seem like Nolan went a bit over the top.

Usually I find him to be a superb broadcaster but it got to the point where everyone had made their point and it was obvious that the interview really wasn't going to go anywhere and I think the Cardinal was right when he said Nolan was taking his words out of context or picking up on individual words and perhaps not understanding the meaning correctly. It sounded to me like the Cardinal didn't have English as his first language.

As to the Cadinal feeling hijacked after expecting to be interviewed on a different subject that's not down to Nolan. That will be down to whoever briefed him about the interview subject and how that was actually done. The broad subject of the interview no doubt would have been discussed by Nolan and his producer before the show.
Station ID is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 12:21
p_c_u_k
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,044
BBC in 'can't win' shock.

They cover the Pope's election in a straight way and people come on here complaining that the abuse claims weren't tackled.

They then have a Cardinal on, robustly ask him about these issues and are criticised on here.
p_c_u_k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 12:23
p_c_u_k
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,044
That last sentence is totally untrue, judging by the death of the last Pope. (John Paul?) The Sky News and BBC TV News channels spent days showing the public display of the coffin for virtually all of their news time for about 3 days. I had to resort to watching China TV news on Sky and listening to Talk Sport to get away from it..
If the Queen died tomorrow all regular programming on the normal TV and radio channels would be suspended immediately and it's all we would hear about for hours and days ahead.

On the day of the Queen's funeral, you would have the same treatment.

It would be of a different scale to the death of the Pope. It would be near the death of Diana (albeit nothing will ever reach that scale of hysteria).
p_c_u_k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 13:27
FrankBT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: N London
Posts: 814
It is clear the Cardinal did not expect to be interviewed on child abuse. When he did get asked the questions he very poor in expressing himself. On the second interview, which was clearly driven by the amazement of the Cardinal at the reaction that has been largely orchestrated by Nolan, again he struggled to understand why each word he used was forensically scrutinesed and why Nolan was doing hsi damndest to to get big headlines out of a man expressing (badly) a postion that many would agree with
What? With all the recent revelations he wasn't expecting any questions on child abuse? If he 's that naive or bad at expressing himself, then he had 2 choices,. Either he could have refused the interview in the first place, or when Nolan became persistent he could have refused to continue with the interview. Nolan's only doing what Paxman and Robin Day have done for years, ie asked the unpalatable or awkward questions. If the interviewee puts their foot in it then too bad. So you think many people believe that paedophilia should be treated as a disease and not a crime?? Would you say that's the majority?
FrankBT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 16:35
radiotuner
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 74
So you think many people believe that paedophilia should be treated as a disease and not a crime?? Would you say that's the majority?
Today 12:23

FrankBT...You are doing exactly what Nolan did...taking words and magnifying them. What the cardinal said was, quite clearly in the second interview less so in the first, that he was in favour of strong and quick criminal action against abusers but that they should also get treatment for what he called a disease.

What I said in my post was that many would agree with that. That is based on the fact that they came on to Nolan and did just that. Many also disagreed.

But my post was not about the issue, My understanding is this forum is about radio and the related practices.

Therefore, my post was about Nolan's treatment of a person with those views.

The interview was not in the fine traditions of Day or Paxman. It may have started that way, but as others have said, it lost its way big time.

Paxman and Day, Dimbleby, Vine or even Campbell would have done a far better interview in a tenth of time and got clearer answers from the cardinal.
radiotuner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 17:17
FrankBT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: N London
Posts: 814
FrankBT...You are doing exactly what Nolan did...taking words and magnifying them. What the cardinal said was, quite clearly in the second interview less so in the first, that he was in favour of strong and quick criminal action against abusers but that they should also get treatment for what he called a disease.
Well, words are what are uttered by people and one tends to take them at face value from someone in a serious public position such as this priest . I only heard one interview where the sentence uttered by Cardinal Napier was "From my experience, paedophilia is actually an illness, it is not a criminal condition, it is an illness" There's nothing to add or take away from it or magnify. That's what he said at the time..You cannot blame Nolan for not letting that remark pass and deciding to force the Cardinal into some kind of explanation.
FrankBT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 17:59
Station ID
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,163
"From my experience, paedophilia is actually an illness, it is not a criminal condition, it is an illness"
Ignoring the radio side of things for a second I could imagine there's a lot ov evidence to support the fact that it's an illness. One that is dangerous to other people and clearly in some circumstances can lead to criminal behaviour but an illness none the less. I'm sure Psychologists could spend hours arguing that one.

Note that I said in some circumstances can lead to criminal behaviour because I'm willing to bet that there are some people who have the urge but never ever act upon it. They will sometimes seek help for it and if they never act on it they've not done anything criminal.
Station ID is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 19:02
radiotuner
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 74
Frank BT...I agree three hundred percent that Nolan can not let that remark, and many others that were made, go unchallenged. He is very good at doing just that, and if that is all he did, that would have been brilliant. But it wasn't...he went on endlessly at the same points time and time again...even when he was getting the same clarification and explanation from a man who was condemning abuse, telling Nolan it was something the authorities should deal with immediately and the catholic church had no truck with it.

The point I am making is that after about fifteen minutes one night, and around forty five the next, Nolan kept on. I would suggest this was not just out of clarification but because Nolan wanted a headline out of it.

Nolan needs a strong producer who knows when it is time to say enough.

The others you have mentioned like Robin Day, Paxman etc...they know when they have done enough and then they leave it for us the listeners to make up our minds. That is why they are held in the esteem they are.
radiotuner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 19:07
Obadia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,477
You are joking aren't you? Yes you are.




Which Church is "Our Own"?
As a I said she is a devout catholic. Deal with it.

If you are unaware of the Anglican church, more fool you.
Obadia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 19:11
Mapperley Ridge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,546

The others you have mentioned like Robin Day, Paxman etc...they know when they have done enough and then they leave it for us the listeners to make up our minds. That is why they are held in the esteem they are.
So Paxman didn't overdo it in his famous interview with Michael Howard on the prison service, in asking the same question 20 times? And nobody ever considered Robin Day to be rude at times?

Rose tinted specs. And nonsense.
Mapperley Ridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 19:13
Mapperley Ridge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,546
BBC in 'can't win' shock.

They cover the Pope's election in a straight way and people come on here complaining that the abuse claims weren't tackled.

They then have a Cardinal on, robustly ask him about these issues and are criticised on here.
The reality is that certain posters dislike Nolan and some other presenters to such a degree that they will never concede that Five Live broadly does a very good job.
Mapperley Ridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 19:14
Obadia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,477
What in the name of God (all puns intended) are you on about?

You're seriously comparing the leader of the Church of England doing a glorified prayer roadshow to the election of the worldwide leader of a church with hundreds of millions of followers?

Snip.
I gave my opinionthe coverage was over the top. I believe that other areas such as PM and so forth were curtailed to allow two 5 live presenters to wallow in the issue bearing in mind the BBC has at least two Italy correspondents. My only view is thankfully it was a short wait.
Obadia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 19:17
Station ID
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,163
So Paxman didn't overdo it in his famous interview with Michael Howard on the prison service, in asking the same question 20 times? .
A key motivation for Paxman I believe was that it was the final item on the show and they had nothing else to go to so he had to keep going.

I do think that there's a key difference between that incident and Nolan's interview. Michael Howard was a very well media trained politician who was clearly avoiding a closed question by giving an open answer when 1 word would have done. Nolan's question had been answered and it was clear to anyone listening that he wasn't going to get anymore from the interview, the question had been asked, answered, asked again, answered again and should have been ended there. he wasn't filling as he was late for the news and the extra couple of minutes added nothing to the interview other than to tirn elements of the audience against Nolan when up to that point they were probably on his side.
Station ID is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 19:21
radiotuner
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 74
Rose tinted specs? probably, you may have a point there.

Paxo may have asked 14 times of Michael Howard the same question...and yes Robin Day was at times acerbic.

But this was well beyond anything they have achieved. I don't think at anytime that Nolan was rude to the cardinal...in fact quite the opposite...he achieved the impossible of making the word sir sound patronising. Every question was politely and firmly put...it was the way he clearly would not go until he had got a headline out of a man who was essentially agreeing with him.

I come back to one of my first points. Would those interviews be held up by the BBC College of Journalism as good practice? I think that is very unlikely. And if not, why would the BBC spend near on an hour over two nights allowing Nolan's ego to do it.
radiotuner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 20:15
FrankBT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: N London
Posts: 814
So Paxman didn't overdo it in his famous interview with Michael Howard on the prison service, in asking the same question 20 times? And nobody ever considered Robin Day to be rude at times?

Rose tinted specs. And nonsense.
Agreed. Not to mention Paxman's stupid and pointless interview with George Galloway on election night in May 2005 when GG won the Bethnal Green seat. All Paxman was interested in doing was to verbally attack GG persisting that he had driven out one of the few black women in Parliament which he repeated several times. But hey, that's ok. It's 'Paxo' being OTT and tedious but 'we' don't mind that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...og/4519553.stm
FrankBT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 20:31
Mapperley Ridge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,546

I come back to one of my first points. Would those interviews be held up by the BBC College of Journalism as good practice? I think that is very unlikely. And if not, why would the BBC spend near on an hour over two nights allowing Nolan's ego to do it.
Agreed. I'm not suggesting it was the finest example of interviewing ever broadcast. But should every BBC presenter play to a set of safe rules? As I've said, if the Cardinal felt ambushed he should complain, and we'll see the results in due course.

Is it all about Nolan's ego? Well, parltly, yes - it probably is. Again, the critics are out because the BBC dares to employ a personality presenter. Would the same people be criticising an LBC presenter? Are Ferrari, O Brien et al not about their own egos too?

And occasionally, guests with extreme views deserve to be treated with an extreme grilling.
Mapperley Ridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 20:37
radio4extracrap
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,466
Agreed. I'm not suggesting it was the finest example of interviewing ever broadcast. But should every BBC presenter play to a set of safe rules? As I've said, if the Cardinal felt ambushed he should complain, and we'll see the results in due course.

Is it all about Nolan's ego? Well, parltly, yes - it probably is. Again, the critics are out because the BBC dares to employ a personality presenter. Would the same people be criticising an LBC presenter? Are Ferrari, O Brien et al not about their own egos too?

And occasionally, guests with extreme views deserve to be treated with an extreme grilling.
Agree re grilling however not occasionally but always.
radio4extracrap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2013, 21:11
spanners
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 537
FFS, it's recently been headline news about Cardinal Keith O'Brien admitting he had been guilty of sexual misconduct, and you think Nolan shouldn't have mentioned sexual perversion having reached this level among members of the Catholic church?
Nolan is entitled to ask whatever questions he wants, no-one disputes that but the Cardinal clearly thought that he was going to be interviewed about the conclave. What and who gave him that impression? A south African Cardinal that no-one had ever heard about being interviewed on the BBC. Do you really think that he thought he was going to be asked questions about abuse? He said in the second interview that he was completely caught off guard and explained himself further. He finished by saying that he wouldn't give any more interviews for radio or television. Now how does help the situation?
The questions were about pedophilia so where in your mind does Cardinal Keith O'Brien come into it? Even if a question about O'Brien was asked why on earth would you be asking a South African?

As for abuse, perversion and sexual misconduct I would have thought that Nolan's time would have been better spent interviewing some of his BBC colleagues.


Are you for real?
Yes. You?


Furthermore you find the need to resort to abuse about Nolan's physical appearance. Says a lot more about you than it ever will say about Nolan. Er, how do you hijack your own interview anyway.?
Before you start commenting on my need to resort to abuse I suggest you re-read your own post. I maintain that the interviewee was hijacked a point you clearly missed.
spanners is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:47.