Isn't life grand?
I always buy the Daily Mail to read on the Tube on the way to work, and it seems our colleagues at the Mail always watch Newsnight too. This appears to be primarily so the Ephraim Hardcastle column can write unkind things about us.
Yesterday they complained that we'd been off the air over the Christmas break. "How pathetic" was the verdict. Today they're upset that we've sent our correspondent David Grossman to cover probably the most important story of the year - the US Presidential election. And they don't like his jacket.
I'm sure the Mail would be happier if Newsnight - or indeed the ±«Óãtv - didn't exist. But what would they write about then, and what would we read?
Comments
I happen to agree with Hardcastle Newsnight brags a huge web-site and many links to friends and family- but not one mention that the programme was going off air for nearly two weeks !
Public Service Broadcasting means exactly that emphasis being on SERVICE...
I think Grossman was labouring the point (unlike Ms Flanders on Thanksgiving Day) that he was aware what was happening in the States and a good puff for Northface at the same time
Peter,
"I'm sure the Mail would be happier if Newsnight - or indeed the ±«Óãtv - didn't exist."
No, you're not!
"But what would they write about then, and what would we read?"
Indeed. I enjoyed last night as usual. Keep up the good work.
Slainte
ed
Havn't you got better things to do with your time than come on here and make snide comments about the Daily Mail?
I thought it was just middle age when I moved from Radio 1 to Radio 2, but mainly it was when the 'new yoof' celeb DJs like Chris Moyles decided the listeners needed less music and more on them and their dissin' spats with equally uninteresting nobodies of but minor relevance through 'working' for other iconic media brands.
I could care less what you lot and anyone else from any ratings obsessed, agenda-driven media extreme think of each other, but as a licence fee payer (I can at least opt not to pay for the Daily Mail) I do care a lot about what you are paid to provide: relevant, objective, intelligent, accurate news.
Hard to see any hint of that here. As no link was provided to the piece in question I have no clue as to what was or was not in it, so the only purpose seems to expose a degree of unhealthy self-obsession and importance at the expense of relevant journalism.
Well I read the blogs. Its the only way to get some truly interesting views and thinking. The ±«Óãtv is too interested in keeping its political masters happy and the Daily Mail panders to its right-leaning publishers. (And presumably right-leaning readers too).
Newsnight should not be so bothered with the Daily Mail. The news are the news. You do not need to look over your shoulder to check who's breathing down your neck. But sometimes the ±«Óãtv tries too hard to have an editorial complex. Life should be easier. Just invite people from different backgrounds as you do already and let them get on with it. But it so happens that the Daily Mail only wants opinions and people form the right of the political spectrum. The only problem is that the ±«Óãtv regularly censors people from some backgrounds. For example, when was the last time you heard something political from Harold Pinter or anybody who thinks Britian should be a republic? But, on the other hand, Kelvin McKenzie manages to upset the Scots and Boris Johnson the Liverpudlians. Why ca't somebody upset the monachists? P.