Just tell us...Garry Richardson
Alec Gallagher
habit of pressing people in the sporting world to declare their interest (or
otherwise) in a particular job? His persistent questioning on this
morning's Today programme, of two people who might be in the frame for the
newly vacant Chief Executive position at the FA, bordered on downright
rudeness. One of his interviewees, who was being coy about his intentions,
was asked, "why are you reluctant to tell us?" A less diplomatic
interviewee might have given the truthful answer - 'because it's none of
your b****y business'!
Alec
john bennett
Agree, although the second interviewee, David Davies? someone who'd been in
journalism anyway, held up well. But I'd guess that anyone, not just
politicians, can safely assume that BBC interviewers are now irreversably
malign, and respond or react appropriately.
Having met some really nice (but depressed) BBC technical staff recently, I just
wonder how an organisation with such a divided culture can survive.
John Bennett
Bob W
<URL:mailto:al...@colindal.globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Is anyone else getting ever so slightly irritated with Garry Richardson's
> habit of pressing people in the sporting world to declare their interest (or
> otherwise) in a particular job? His persistent questioning on this
> morning's Today programme, of two people who might be in the frame for the
> newly vacant Chief Executive position at the FA, bordered on downright
> rudeness. One of his interviewees, who was being coy about his intentions,
> was asked, "why are you reluctant to tell us?" A less diplomatic
> interviewee might have given the truthful answer - 'because it's none of
> your b****y business'!
>
No response however...
>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:11:42 +0000 (GMT)
From: Bob W <bo...@argonet.co.uk>
Subject: Sport
To: Today Programme R4 <To...@bbc.co.uk>
The overall quality of the Today programme is regularly marred by the
contributions of Gary Richardson, one of your sport correspondents. This
morning's interview with Lord McLauran is a case in point. To expect a
meaningful answer to a question so banal as 'Why did we play so badly?', and
to ask it twice is very stupid. To then go on and ask if the England coach
is to be sacked, when you had already carried a quote from an England
official saying that no-one was about to be sacked is even more stupid. If
Today is to carry a sport slot then it should receive the same treatment in
terms of quality analysis as the rest of the programme and not dealt with in
a manner more suited to the 'popular' press.
>
--
Bob W.
Acorn Strongarm Risc PC.
martin
>Alec Gallagher wrote:
>
>> Is anyone else getting ever so slightly irritated with Garry Richardson's
>> habit of pressing people in the sporting world to declare their interest (or
>> otherwise) in a particular job?
>Agree, although the second interviewee, David Davies? someone who'd been in
>journalism anyway, held up well.
>
I heard the first part twice and found it extremely annoying. I think he
feels that anyone asking questions for the Today programme has to be
badgering. It is one thing, though, for a wriggling, evasive politician
to be badgered on some point of national interest, but Richardson
doesn't seem to realise that this topic was of little interest or
importance to many listeners.
After wasting time repeatedly asking whether one of the interviewees
would accept a post if offered a King's Ransom (wossat?), the
interviewee reluctantly agreed that if that were to happen, which he
considered very unlikely, then he might consider it. Richardson
triumphantly remarked: "interesting thought!"
Interesting? Mr. Richardson must have a very uninteresting life.
David Davies was a television presenter for BBC1's Northwest Tonight for
many years and was not put off by Richardson's technique, and came out
of it very well.
Come off it, Mr. Richardson, they'll never let you present the Today
programme!
--
"maz" Martin up in t' Pennines.
The lights are on but there's no-one at home.
To reply: leave out overnight.to.defrost.
Kristine Moore
>Is anyone else getting ever so slightly irritated with Garry Richardson's
>habit of pressing people in the sporting world to declare their interest (or
>morning's Today programme, of two people who might be in the frame for the
>newly vacant Chief Executive position at the FA, bordered on downright
>rudeness. One of his interviewees, who was being coy about his intentions,
>was asked, "why are you reluctant to tell us?" A less diplomatic
>interviewee might have given the truthful answer - 'because it's none of
>your b****y business'!
>
Fed up - absolutely - have wanted to wring his neck on a number of
occasions recently and shouted at the radio _leave the poor bugger
(interviewee) alone_
Three possible explanations
1.Early dementia or other illness
2.Unable to recover from a vv sharp comment Anna Ford made to him
recently - fogotten wot - early dementia perhaps?
3. Wants a job with that nice Talk Radio Station
? worth starting a "calm down Gary" petition.
Kristine
P.S. What happened to that nice Winifred Robinson woman?
--
Kristine Moore
London SW11
martin
>
>P.S. What happened to that nice Winifred Robinson woman?
>
on BBC1 (also Nick Clarke). Shame that all the good presenters from this
programme move on to "better things."
Winifred still presents Today sometimes (not sure which days) and can
regularly be heard on World Service.
Dan Scorpio
long, speculative and or/leading questions. So what? The people he genrelly
interviews deserve it. Why do they have 'Sport' as a daily feature in a
supposedly serious current affairs programme anyway: why not have 'cooking'?
Tim Hall
<m...@gobsmack.overnight.to.defrost.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<nip>
>After wasting time repeatedly asking whether one of the interviewees
>would accept a post if offered a King's Ransom (wossat?), the
King's Ransom is a new quiz show, to be broadcast at 6:30 on
Thursdays.
Sorry.
Tim
Charles York
<zen...@globalnet.co.uk> writes
>Richardson is persistently rude and aggressive, talks in cliches and asks
>long, speculative and or/leading questions.
Thus fits perfectly into the Today format.
> So what? The people he genrelly
>interviews deserve it.
I agree, Sport has it's own 'politico powers' and they should be treated
as such. Just because they are not household names should not qualify
them for 'kid gloves'.
> Why do they have 'Sport' as a daily feature in a
>supposedly serious current affairs programme anyway: why not have 'cooking'?
Wow! yesterday's cooking results? chef transfers? the WI Jam league? the
World Curry Plate? the Pickle Jar Open? the E-number controversy, the
Apron v Pinny debate? the GM scandal? etc.. What a wonderfully weird
concept!! However the plain fact is that cooking/food is already covered
extensively (in all the media) and on a daily basis!
Anyway getting back to reality - 'Today's' hourly sporty offering. It's
hardly a wide 'Sport' slot, more of a short sharp focus on any
top/popular result (99% - soccer, cricket and rugby) or
controversy/scandal/shock (schlock) from the world of sport. Basically
whatever is the top story/result on the day - 'tis all. That's the remit
I would have thought.
--
Cheers Chaz
Alec Gallagher
Dan Scorpio wrote in message <76uea9$ndi$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
Why do they have 'Sport' as a daily feature in a
>supposedly serious current affairs programme anyway
>
people make their livings from it, still more pursue it as a recreation, any
more still (me included) enjo watching it. Hence its prominence in
important news programmes. Big sport = big news. The enjoyment is
heightened when matters of national pride are involved (no wisecracks about
the England cricket team please!). I do find myself wondering sometimes
whether those who moan on about the amount of sport on the radio and TV are
exhibiting a form of inverted snobbery....?
: why not have 'cooking'?
Because it is not a competitive pursuit.
But I think we would agree about the nature of Richardson's questions
yesterday - apart from his rather rude manner, the fact was that whether his
interviewee was interested in the vacant position was really of no interest
to the listener - if the interviewee had just been appointed, that would
have been of interest. I would have liked to have heard the interviewee
turn it around, thus:
Interviewee: Just tell us...are you interested in the position of DG of the
BBC, Garry?
GR: I have every faith in Mr Birt.
Interviewee: So you're not ruling it out then?
etc etc etc
Alec
David Mummery
There is absolutely no need for so-called "Sport" on R4. I listen to R4
partly in order to avoid the poisonous torrents of sports waffling which
afflict most other channels. Its bad enough having to endure the insertion
of sports "news" on the "Today" programme, without the puerile "Late Tackle"
on Friday nights. The most irritating aspect of this insinuation of
unwanted sport into R4 is the dreaded Test Match Special. When the horse
trading over wavelengths was in full cry some years ago, we were promised
that R5 would be the channel for all sport. Why then must we suffer the
inanities of TMS on LW, the one wavelength which many hundreds of thousands
of R4 listeners prefer?
Whilst on the subject, what do the NG listeners think of the pathetic way in
which presenters, interviewees, commentators etc feel that they will enhance
their "street cred" by making almost obligatory references to one or another
football team? In an arts programme, a political discussion, etc I have no
interest in learning which soccer game the participants care to attend.
David Mummery
Dan Scorpio wrote in message <76uea9$ndi$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
>Richardson is persistently rude and aggressive, talks in cliches and asks
>long, speculative and or/leading questions. So what? The people he genrelly
>interviews deserve it. Why do they have 'Sport' as a daily feature in a
>supposedly serious current affairs programme anyway: why not have
'cooking'?
>
>
Kristine Moore
<ch...@obelisksystems.demon.co.uk> writes
>Anyway getting back to reality - 'Today's' hourly sporty offering. It's
>hardly a wide 'Sport' slot, more of a short sharp focus on any
>top/popular result (99% - soccer, cricket and rugby) or
>controversy/scandal/shock (schlock) from the world of sport. Basically
>whatever is the top story/result on the day - 'tis all. That's the remit
>I would have thought.
short sharp focus
Repeated & sad questioning syndrome - as dispalyed by GR hardly fits
into this definition then.
Kristine
Danny Thompson
<bo...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>The overall quality of the Today programme is regularly marred by the
>contributions of Gary Richardson, one of your sport correspondents.
I faxed Today about three years ago when irritation at Richardson
boiled over (my only written "complaint" in years of listening).
There was a quite-well-put-together report on the assimiliation of
Irish emigrees in Britain, and the kinds of problems they and their
offspring sometimes face. Examples were given of various levels of
racism, stereotyping etc.
Immediately the report finished we went over the Richardson for a sports
report, in which he talked about a golfer who was "that rare thing -
an Irish teetotaller" (GR obviously never heard of the Pioneers).
I had an answerphone message from Roger Mosey agreeing that this
kind of thing wasn't up to the high standards we should expect etc.
If Gazza Richardson was Irish he'd be Father Dougal.
--
Danny Thompson
Tim Hall
erylewis.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>How I agree with Dan Scorpio!
Since you ask for opinions, here they are, bit by bit.
>There is absolutely no need for so-called "Sport" on R4.
Say you. Thank you for your opinion.
> I listen to R4
>partly in order to avoid the poisonous
"Poisonous" is very poetic, but sport covers a multitude of sins: I'm
sure there are plenty of Radio 4 listeners who don't necessarily like
football, cricket or rugby but would be interested in curling, bowls or
golf, which I'd struggle to imagine as "poisonous".
> torrents of sports waffling which
>afflict most other channels. Its bad enough having to endure the insertion
>of sports "news"
Why the inverted commas? Is a Test match result not news? It's more
news-worthy than a lot of political events which are spun onto what we
call "news".
> on the "Today" programme, without the puerile "Late Tackle"
>on Friday nights. The most irritating aspect of this insinuation of
>unwanted sport into R4 is the dreaded Test Match Special.
Unwanted by *you*. Dreaded by *you*.
> When the horse
>trading over wavelengths was in full cry some years ago, we were promised
>that R5 would be the channel for all sport. Why then must we suffer the
>inanities of TMS on LW, the one wavelength which many hundreds of thousands
>of R4 listeners prefer?
You'd prefer it on Radio Four FM?
>Whilst on the subject, what do the NG listeners think of the pathetic way in
>which presenters, interviewees, commentators etc feel that they will enhance
>their "street cred" by making almost obligatory references to one or another
>football team? In an arts programme, a political discussion, etc I have no
>interest in learning which soccer game the participants care to attend.
I think they probably have their own interests. If you were to say
exactly where and when this habit has so offended you, I would be glad
to hear it. True, there has been a general tendency for people in the
public eye to pretend to an interest in popular sports which is more for
public consumption than anything else, but I have yet to hear Tony Blair
say at Prime Minister's Question Time "Yes, but Newcastle United have
just won 2-1, so I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the result his team
achieved last Saturday."
The biggest audience for a broadcast of any kind in 1998 in the UK was
for the penalty shoot-out of England vs Argentina at the World Cup, 26
million of them. Feel free to point out that half the population chose
not to watch it, but you can hardly dismiss the fact that nearly half of
this country's population realised there were two hours of fine drama on
offer for a rapt audience that night.
Lots of people follow sports, of all kinds. Lots of them also listen to
Radio Four. The two are not mutually exclusive, no matter what your
opinions happen to be. While I have no interest in opera, fishing, the
Church of England...(list continued page 94), I know that many other
people do, and I tend to let them get on with it, without complaining
about the "poisonous torrents" of things I don't like.
The good thing about Radio Four is that its listeners are generally
critical without being narrow-minded.
>David Mummery
>
>Dan Scorpio wrote in message <76uea9$ndi$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
>>Richardson is persistently rude and aggressive, talks in cliches and asks
>>long, speculative and or/leading questions. So what? The people he genrelly
>>interviews deserve it. Why do they have 'Sport' as a daily feature in a
>>supposedly serious current affairs programme anyway: why not have
>'cooking'?
>>
>>
>
>
--
Topical Tim
http://www.indiscreet.com/quiz
"Hermits have no peer pressure"
Bob W
>
activites in question?
>
> I listen to R4
> partly in order to avoid the poisonous torrents of sports waffling which
> afflict most other channels.
>
R5 yes, but I would be surprised if the 'poisonous torrents' you seek to
avoid are much in evidence on R2, R3, or Classic FM. If two or three mins.
of 'sports waffling' at the end of news bulletins is too much to bear why
not try these alternatives.
>
> Its bad enough having to endure the insertion
> on Friday nights.
>
Now that is bad, but I don't endure it, I turn it off. It's no worse than
'Sport on Four' hosted by the Reverend Cliff Morgan, I do not miss the
weekly deification of elderly sporting heroes in Cliff's sepulchral tones.
>
> The most irritating aspect of this insinuation of
> unwanted sport into R4 is the dreaded Test Match Special.
>
from the last bout.
Bob W
<URL:mailto:al...@colindal.globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Dan Scorpio wrote in message <76uea9$ndi$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
> >supposedly serious current affairs programme anyway
> >
> whether those who moan on about the amount of sport on the radio and TV are
> exhibiting a form of inverted snobbery....?
>
'right-way-up' snobbery.
>
> >why not have 'cooking'?
>
>
viz. the spat between the saintly Delia, and the one with the silly hair.
>
> But I think we would agree about the nature of Richardson's questions
> yesterday - apart from his rather rude manner, the fact was that whether his
> interviewee was interested in the vacant position was really of no interest
>
(short snip)
>
I don't think the interests of the listener are at the forefront of Gazza's
'thoughts', he seems to be on an ego trip of some kind. Let's hope it takes
him away from R4.
Gareth Owen
>
> In article <770g52$ok1$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>, David Mummery
> <URL:mailto:da...@mummerylewis.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > How I agree with Dan Scorpio!
> > There is absolutely no need for so-called "Sport" on R4.
> >
> Why the phrase 'so-called', surely 'sport' is the correct term for the
> activites in question?
But that is "sport", so-called "Sport" is what "sport" is called by people
who do not know where Capital Letters go in Sentences.
--
Gareth Owen
Nuclear weapons can wipe out life on Earth, if used properly.
Barry G
I actually like Gary Richardson's reports. He has a very short space of
time allocated and invariably has to cover two or three major sports
stories. Is it any wonder he gets short tempered when sporting officials
employ tiresome, political-style question evasion techniques.
I think he squeezes the best out of his couple of minutes each day.
And yes, sport is relevant - If I can put up with the royal wedding stuff
(which I might remind readers has, depressingly, only just *started*), then
I would hope that others can put up with a bit of sport each day.
BG
David Mummery <da...@mummerylewis.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in article
<770g52$ok1$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> How I agree with Dan Scorpio!
> There is absolutely no need for so-called "Sport" on R4. I listen to R4
> partly in order to avoid the poisonous torrents of sports waffling which
> afflict most other channels. Its bad enough having to endure the
insertion
> of sports "news" on the "Today" programme, without the puerile "Late
Tackle"
> on Friday nights. The most irritating aspect of this insinuation of
> unwanted sport into R4 is the dreaded Test Match Special. When the horse
> trading over wavelengths was in full cry some years ago, we were promised
> that R5 would be the channel for all sport. Why then must we suffer the
> inanities of TMS on LW, the one wavelength which many hundreds of
thousands
> of R4 listeners prefer?
> Whilst on the subject, what do the NG listeners think of the pathetic way
in
> which presenters, interviewees, commentators etc feel that they will
enhance
> their "street cred" by making almost obligatory references to one or
another
> football team? In an arts programme, a political discussion, etc I have
no
> interest in learning which soccer game the participants care to attend.
> David Mummery
>
> Dan Scorpio wrote in message <76uea9$ndi$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
> >Richardson is persistently rude and aggressive, talks in cliches and
asks
> >long, speculative and or/leading questions. So what? The people he
genrelly
> >interviews deserve it. Why do they have 'Sport' as a daily feature in a
> >supposedly serious current affairs programme anyway: why not have
> 'cooking'?
> >
> >
>
>
>
David Mummery
posting on the Gary Richardson/sports issue. Thanks to the reponses from
Tim, Bob and Gareth I now feel that I could have been a little more
tolerant. Thank you for your helpful comments, guys. Maybe I had become a
little over-excited by the Richardson rudeness which had started up this
whole thread.
So, for the record, I acknowledge the interest that many people have for
competitive sport - although I would still prefer that it could be found
primarily on channels other than R4. Clearly I came to the NG too late for
the TMS discussion, so will not open that up again. My strong view is
already clear.
As for St Tony's "one of the boys" references in the HofC to his favourite
football team, it may not have happened yet - but I guarantee that it will
before this Parliament folds its tent.
David Mummery
Gareth Owen wrote in message ...
Gareth Owen wrote in message ...
Charles York
<kris...@york-mansions.demon.co.uk> writes
I agree - I think GR (+ support) are falling (have fell) into the 'live'
interview trap. I would be happy for him to do the interview 'his way'
and then broadcast what is 'short & sharp'.
This is mainly because, while these bods are 'sports politicos' they are
further outside of our direct control and thus have to play second
fiddle to the 'main-streamers' of whom we want to hear every response
possible. R5 journo's should be showing the 'flames n all' regarding
sport?
--
Cheers Chaz
Dan Scorpio
(imminent).
Kidney John
I abhor sport, but made a point of listening to GR this am, to see what
all the fuss (here) was about. I may be being obtuse, but as a sports
presenter, he seems pretty standard to me. But then I don't understand
any of them.
--
k...@jaf.nildramNOSPAM.co.uk
www.jaf.nildram.co.uk
new quiz @ .../quizform.htm
Kristine Moore
<k...@jaf.nildramNOSPAM.co.uk> writes
>
>I abhor sport, but made a point of listening to GR this am, to see what
>all the fuss (here) was about. I may be being obtuse, but as a sports
>presenter, he seems pretty standard to me. But then I don't understand
>any of them.
He has his good days - I admit.
Kristine Moore
<kris...@york-mansions.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <3696ba2...@goodnews.nildram.co.uk>, Kidney John
><k...@jaf.nildramNOSPAM.co.uk> writes
>>
>>I abhor sport, but made a point of listening to GR this am, to see what
>>all the fuss (here) was about. I may be being obtuse, but as a sports
>>presenter, he seems pretty standard to me. But then I don't understand
>>any of them.
>
>He has his good days - I admit.
>
and I look forward to some of the dry humor of the slot.