Edition 527

Good morning, it’s Monday 2nd March.

If I had 50p for every time I’ve heard someone say “I prefer radio as I can take my notes in” I’d have enough to retire to a cottage with absolutely no wifi on the Northumberland coast with the dogs.

But have a listen to this testy exchange between Nick Robinson and Heidi Alexander in the hours after the Gorton and Denton by-election result.

I get it. She’s the cabinet minister tasked with explaining away a disastrous result. The on air dynamics are already unique, however it reinforces my view that – whoever you are – presenters hate it when interviewees rock up armed with a tight page of talking points, and adjust the tone they take with you accordingly.

Monday: Closing statements in ‘Dieselgate’ trial over VW emissions tests

Tuesday: Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivers Spring forecast

Vigil marks five years since Sarah Everard was abducted

Wednesday: Andy Burnham delivers speech on ‘Manchesterism’


Thursday: China’s National People’s Congress plenary session opens


Friday: Public funeral for civil rights activist Jesse Jackson


Sunday: ICC Men’s T20 World Cup final

The lead up to a live interview…

1) Beware of careless chatter with the producer on the way to the studio

It can often be a fairly long walk from reception to studio. Keep the conversation banal. Don’t reveal confidential information, doubts about the veracity of your evidence, or whether you are the right person to be doing the interview. I’ve heard all of these over the years.


2) Expect to be kept waiting

It’s always worth checking as soon as you arrive whether the running order is on schedule. Accept (within limits) that a delay is inevitable in live broadcasting – if you let it get to you, you’ll invariably be in the wrong headspace when the interview finally takes place.


3) Assume every microphone is open and every camera is live

The internet is littered with examples of those whose reputation has been undermined by an ill-thought and off-the-cuff remark meant for closed doors but broadcast to the world.


4) Expect to be ignored by presenters in the lead-up to your interview

Particularly if you are part of a live sequence, programme junctions used to bring guests in and out of studios are often crucial opportunities for presenters to clarify urgent issues with the gallery. Their last priority is to make sure you are feeling at ease in the moments before the red light goes on.


5) Remember what you had for breakfast

This sounds ridiculous but it’s the sort of information you are often asked for by sound engineers who want to gauge the level on your voice. Say more than “toast”. Even if that’s all you had. Make something up – engineers normally need at least a sentence, and in the breakfast context we reckon that means describing the Full English.

Footnotes:

“Artificial Intelligence is fundamentally reshaping how content is created, distributed, discovered and monetised. We believe we need to come together to protect original journalism and secure the long-term sustainability of our industry.”

The threat to journalism from AI: read the open letter with signatories including the BBC, Sky, the FT and The Guardian.

On This Day: The supersonic airliner Concorde made a “faultless” maiden flight on this day in 1969.

For the third week in a row we’re back in Milton Keynes. And London.

The Mutt Photo:

Be part of the MMB. Thoughts on this week’s content, or interviews you’ve seen, heard, or (best of all) done, please let us know.

We’re taking a break next Monday to go and see the mighty Divine Comedy live in Porto.

Have a super fortnight.

All at Inside Edge

Edition 526

Good morning, it’s Monday 23rd February.

The inside track from Reuters on how their photographer captured history.

…The Off Air Briefing 

This short telephone chat with a producer in the lead-up to going on air can be a brilliant way to control the flow of information. Here are some tips: 

1) Be proactive 
Some producers will demand off-air briefings, but many won’t. When the idea of an interview is first mooted, always request a short telephone interview with the producer assigned the story 

2) Be prepared 
A bad off-air briefing will leave the producer more confused at the end of the call than they were at the beginning. Work out the direction you want the interview to go in before you pick up the phone 

3) Don’t be too subtle 
Preface your key content with phrases like “What’s new about this is…” or “the real game-changer here is…” 

4) Ask questions 
An off-air briefing is a chance for you to build a logistical picture about the interview. Questions might include: “is the interview live or pre-recorded?” “Are other guests expected?”


Monday: Schools White Paper expected

Tuesday: Donald Trump delivers State of the Union address

Fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine

Wednesday: Ofgem announces quarterly change to energy price cap


Thursday: Gorton and Denton by-election

Hillary Clinton deposed as part of US House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein


Immigration statistics for year ending December 2025


Friday: Bill Clinton deposed as part of US House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein


Saturday: BRIT Awards

The results of You The Editor from last week:

The news the King will “stand ready to support” the police over allegations regarding his brother breaks just before you go to air. All day there has been a febrile atmosphere in Westminster – with Anas Sarwar calling on the PM to go.

48% of you would have led with the King on the BBC’s 6 o’clock bulletin, 43% of you would have led with Starmer. (For what it’s worth, Starmer edged it for me…just.)

Which means 9% voted for Something Else. I suspect you’re the naughty ones at the back trying to get a rise out of teacher, but I honestly can’t fathom what on earth you would have led with if not one of these two.

(By the way, nearly 400 of you took the trouble to vote which is amazing – thanks.)

I suspected last week’s reader view on the Washington Post-Bezos saga wouldn’t be the last word…

Here’s a very different take from reader Dennis:

Well, that’s an interesting response to last week’s comment on Bezos and the Washington Post. To my mind, the difference in perspective comes from regarding journalism either as a commercial venture or as a public service. In many ways, it is both. The former perspective gives rise to arguments about the need to sell newspapers and give readers what they want, the latter gives rise to concerns about the rich and powerful interfering in the independence and viability of the paper. 

The quotation in your newsletter doesn’t say what it is that readers want. I’m not a reader of the Washington Post, but I want journalists reporting with integrity. Academia and journalism have in common that they can, and in my view should, speak truth to power. When Bezos ruled that the paper’s opinion pages would promote free markets and individual liberties and nothing else (an intervention so notorious that it now appears on the Wikipedia page for the Washington Post), this was not about speaking truth to power, and probably had more to do with what Jeff Bezos wants than with what readers want. Firing Lizzie Johnson while she is reporting from Ukraine, as you and The Guardian both report, also seems unlikely to be something that readers want. 

I think I lean more towards the journalism-as-public-service perspective. I’m not convinced that the foremost aim of journalism should be to provide what readers want. But I am convinced that the foremost aim of journalism should not be to reflect what owners want. 

Any more for any more?

Footnotes: 


Radio listening figures. Top Lines from last week: 


The LBC Brand overall saw a record reach of 3.4 million weekly listeners (up 2% year on year and month on month).


BBC Radio 4’s Today breakfast news programme saw weekly reach fall 5% year on year to 5.5 million listeners.


BBC Radio 5 Live’s breakfast show grew 5% year on year to 1.5 million weekly listeners.

(source: Press Gazette)

On This Day: The US flag was raised over Iwo Jima on this day in 1945.

We’re back in Milton Keynes for a chunk of this week, via London on Monday.

The Mutt Photo: 

From last Sunday afternoon, as the rain teemed down outside. Best mates and without a care in the world…

Be part of the MMB. Thoughts on this week’s content, or interviews you’ve seen, heard, or (best of all) done, please let us know.

Back next Monday. Have a super week.

All at Inside Edge

Edition 525

Morning, it’s Monday 16th February.

Housekeeping from last week. 
The votes are in for what you’d all do in this situation…

“A journalist from a national newspaper has asked for an interview on a topic I know well. I’ve read their coverage and the framing often feels selective, sometimes sensational, and never aligned with how I’d explain the issue. That said, the paper reaches people I rarely get access to.”

I’ve told a version of this story in a previous Briefing, but it’s relevant to the choice that I would make in that situation…


Monday: Covid-19 inquiry: Module 10 hearings begin


Tuesday: UK Labour Market Statistics

Wednesday: California social media addiction lawsuit: trial continues; Mark Zuckerberg testimony possible


Thursday: Global Summit on Artificial Intelligence: India hosts heads of state summit

Trump-led Board of Peace – inaugural meeting


Friday: Paramount hostile bid for Warner Bros. Discovery – latest shareholders deadline


Sunday: The BAFTAS

You The Editor

Go back to last Monday. Imagine you’re the editor of the BBC 6.

The news the King will “stand ready to support” the police over allegations regarding his brother breaks just before you go to air. All day there has been a febrile atmosphere in Westminster – at midday Anas Sarwar called on the PM to go.

An entertaining profile of the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen in this weekend’s FT:

I loved the section on Bowen’s disastrous stint as presenter on BBC Breakfast, which he hated doing. Writer Henry Mance quotes a reviewer at the time who likened his style to “an absent-minded badger who’s eaten his earpiece.” 
Killer line.

A reader takes me to task following last week’s Bezos rant:

I was very surprised by your coverage of the Washington Post layoffs.

The fact of the matter is that that newspaper has been burning money for years, and as far as I can tell, literally no one in the editorial team (800 staff? my goodness, what have they been doing?) proposed a plan to reform their coverage to actually serve what their readers want. It seems to me that they were just a bunch of petulant and entitled children who wanted the rich guy to keep giving them money to write increasingly irrelevant nonsense.

Bezos shouldn’t be criticised for belatedly trying to align the newspaper to a plausible theory of what customers want. He should be thanked by the “editorial staff” for burning hundreds of millions of dollars to keep them highly paid for many years, even if that money is now ending. The guy who belatedly tells the truth that customers weren’t paying for their newspaper isn’t the bad guy, the bad guy here are the editorial leaders who failed to even try to turn the ship around from the world’s most obvious shipwreck.

Final thoughts anyone before we put this one to bed?

Footnotes: 

DG Tim Davie says the BBC World Service will run out of funding in just seven weeks with no future deal with the government currently in place.

On This Day: Ministry of Defence assistant secretary Clive Ponting resigned from his post over the Belgrano affair on this day in 1985. (Scandals felt more gentle in those days.)

We’re in Milton Keynes and London this week.

The Mutt Photo: 

Be part of the MMB. Thoughts on this week’s content, or interviews you’ve seen, heard, or (best of all) done, please let us know.

Back next Monday. Have a super week.

All at Inside Edge

Edition 524

Last week Will Lewis sacked 300 of the 800 editorial staff of the Washington Post.


Yesterday he announced he was off too, saying, “difficult decisions have been taken to ensure the sustainable future of the Post.” 

I would respectfully point out Jeff Bezos purchased the paper in 2013 and since then his personal net income has risen by $224 billion.

“We’re witnessing a murder.”
Ashley Parker, a staff writer for The Atlantic and former star reporter at the Post

“This ranks among the darkest days in the history of one of the world’s greatest news organizations.”

Marty Baron, former executive editor

A very rich man content to destroy a great newspaper to appease a flawed President he hopes will make him even richer.

Shame on you Bezos.

Sorry for the rant. Morning, it’s Monday 9th February.


Monday: Jimmy Lai sentenced in Hong Kong over national security conviction.

Ghislaine Maxwell scheduled to be deposed in US congressional investigation.


Tuesday: Archbishop of Canterbury address to Church of England General Synod.

Wednesday: NASA’s SpaceX Crew 12 launch (tbc).


Thursday: UK GDP for Q4 2025.


Friday: Munich Security Conference begins.


Saturday: UK Athletics Indoor Championships.

On Mandelson and the Media…

Mic Wright’s writing regularly challenges my instinct to defend the media status quo.

On Mandelson he is laser-sharp.

Last week’s dilemma:

“At 6pm on a Saturday, a TV producer calls. There’s a developing story and they want me live via Zoom at 9pm. No fee is offered. I’m at home. The topic is relevant. But it’s also my weekend, and this isn’t the first time unpaid requests have landed out of hours. I’m thinking about precedent but also personal boundaries.”

This one divided the group. I don’t have particularly strong views, except to ask for a payment which I would definitely advise doing.

 Your verdict:

Perspectives. First up from Elaine: 

”I went for decline politely but that is going to be a personal choice. As a parent of two young children, without any family members nearby, it just wouldn’t be possible for me to drop everything for a media request at a weekend. Perhaps someone without young children, or someone with available childcare might be annoyed to do it at a weekend but would do it anyway to be part of the conversation.”

And from Ellis:

”I selected decline politely, weekends are off limits… I literally wouldn’t care if I lost my job if it tried to come between time with my family and if the producer was not understanding of that (which let’s face it they probably wouldn’t be) then I wouldn’t want to work with them anyway.”

This week’s dilemma: 

“A journalist from a national newspaper has asked for an interview on a topic I know well. I’ve read their coverage and the framing often feels selective, sometimes sensational, and never aligned with how I’d explain the issue. That said, the paper reaches people I rarely get access to. The journalist has promised to quote me accurately.”

Results next week. And as ever, email us with the reason for your choice.

A super long read in The Guardian detailing how a team of journalists covered the outbreak of the Iraq War.


(It’s impossible not to read this and contrast with Bezos’ behaviour over the last week.)

Accounts about (and by) photographer Sean Smith and embedded reporter Audrey Gillan are particularly vivid.

Footnotes: 

UK newspaper cover prices are up 10.2% since January 2025 according to Press Gazette.

I post this without comment…

Bitter-sweet viewing given the events of the last week, but the story of Woodward/Bernstein’s Watergate triumph All The President’s Men is one heck of a film. 

In the mood for a reminder of better days at the Washington Post? 

It’s available to rent from …Amazon Prime. I give up.

Finally, the Mutt Photo: In contrast to Theo’s elegance in last week’s Briefing, Stan and Leo are back, and inelegant in every way imaginable…

Be part of the MMB. Thoughts on this week’s content, or interviews you’ve seen, heard, or (best of all) done, please let us know.

Back next Monday. Have a fantastic week.

All at Inside Edge