The Sunday morning TV politics shows were a lively affair this week.
👉 Read Alison Rowat's review here
Today one of our readers, a former MP, expresses his alarm at the way politicians were treated.
Sir Tom Clarke of Coatbridge writes:
"Watching Sky and the BBC's Sunday morning political programmes and observing the style of three different presenters, with no wish to make any comment on the differing responses, I was struck by an ongoing practice on the part of the interviewers.
Hardly had the politicians begun their replies (which I and others wanted to hear) when they were interrupted by two to three other questions. When the panels observing the exchanges gave their views, no such thing happened.
Indeed on the main BBC programme, when a new film featuring Cate Blanchett was discussed, as the leading actress and the producer were questioned in front of the camera, no such interruptions took place. Treated as they were entitled to be with respect, the result was a much better understanding of an interesting subject.
But the real question is: why the difference?
We are constantly reminded that politicians rate somewhere below estate agents and tax collectors in public esteem. Given this trajectory is that any wonder? In my time in politics, I can only recall such an approach - as well as bad manners watched by youngsters who may have been viewing - being challenged on air. One was by the late Sir John Nott when he walked out of the studio following an arrogantly posed question by Sir Robin Day, and another from John Reid in response to a provocative and patronising introduction from Jeremy Paxton.
Reputations are bound to be low when the widespread tone of cynicism is displayed before a word is spoken.
To be fair, at least on this occasion, The Sunday Show which followed was an excellent example of how broadcasters should behave. Given the much more dangerous world since my time in politics - Jo Cox, Sir David Amess and more - it seems to me that it is time for broadcasters to have a look at themselves and for politicians to expect a fairer approach."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel