to present Five News. BBC Views Online’s summary of Natasha’s career curiously omits her time working for John Smith and Neil Kinnock before moving to Meridian TV. Doubtless for reasons of space.
News 24: Natasha Kaplinsky leaving the BBC
Bookmark the permalink.
And the best of British luck to her!
This is great news… er…news.
I am sure her career prospects, especially financially, in the field of reading the news, will have been enhanced no end by her exposure on national TV for so long.
And of course this means another fresh and awesome opportunity arises (in every sense of the word) for the person who will fill this coveted slot, reading the news.
It only remains to be seen how the loss of such a talent for reading the news affects the ratings.
It is to be hoped little, as it is of course the news, and not how it is being read, that is really what has most value here.
So it would be a pity to find some young (more mature versions may apply I’m sure, but I doubt will get past 1st interview • there may be ethics and legislation to bear in mind, but ratings trump all) talent – appreciative of all that this position can offer them in the future (and hence of more modest remunerative aspirations) – is not selected in favour of some ‘celeb’ the management like mixing with, and who might further drain the coffers of professional news gathering in the name of presentation.
Yes, do the BBC really need to make it headline news? I really don’t care about which dopey tart is reading the biased BBC news.
Sounds like there is a vacancy for Moira
Good luck to Natasha in her new job, and long may she enjoy her newly earned anonymity. After all, large swathes of southern England cannot receive Five and hardly anyone watches it anyway.
I expect al Jazeera would never have offered her a job.
May she prove to be as ‘successful’ and ‘respected’ as the ‘great’ Kirsty Young – the Anthea Turner of news and current affairs.
Moira Stuart’s looking for a new job. Maybe she can replace Nat?
Ah, the good old days of the ‘revolving door’ between the impartial bbc and nulabour !
Huzzah! She and her sneering, simpering expression are not going to be paid for by my TV tax nor will I have to watch her unless by accident as I channel hop! Huzzah!
SO can the can of compressed air now be removed from under the sofa ?
That drove me absolutely crazy when I used to watch BBC World (and Sky News). It seemed that the reporters on the ground had been instructed to insert at least fifteen ums, ahs and ers into every minute of delivery. And they weren’t the ums that you use when you pause for thought. They were just sort of mixed into the speech. I couldn’t understand how these people carried on being employed in a medium of communication. I remember watching one jerk who appeared to put more interjections into his report than actual words.
Hell, it was almost worse than the bias.
Typical Biased-Sky too! Al-Sky don’t think to mention it either!
http://www.skypressoffice.co.uk/SkyNews/News/showarticle.asp?id=2284
In the pockets of their NuLab Masters!
Dr. Gregory, are you sure that you are in order?
David (BBC)- put in a good word for Moira, there’s a dear. 🙂
Bring back Richard Baker and his gang. Even that ITN newsreader (Reggie someone?) would be more professional and give an appearance of impartiality. Dig them up or clone younger models if you have to – zombies would be better than the current lot!
We don’t want Baker back. Just hire someone normal who can read an autocue and who doesn’t have a political barrow to push.
“Typical Biased-Sky too! Al-Sky don’t think to mention it either!
http://www.skypressoffice.co.uk/SkyNews/News/showarticle.asp?id=2284
In the pockets of their NuLab Masters!”
You’ve hit the nail on the head – who did Murdoch support in the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections?
Kids, eh?
Just had to separate my two, sit ’em down and share the notion that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Typical Biased-Sky too! Al-Sky don’t think to mention it either!
David Gregory (BBC) | 05.10.07 – 10:12 pm | #
I’m presuming this refers to the original post making note of Ms. K’s potential political affiliations. Hard not to have some unless you live and work in a vacuum, but I guess worthy of note with one who is involved with the news, though I’m not so troubled if the only skill set is reading. the. autocue and giggling coyly if you cock up.
Bit of a dilemma here. Sky is Mr. Murdoch, right? That would make it all a right-ist/zi/inger thing right? But now we have Ms. K to swing things back to the centre I guess.
Thing is, I know what I’m getting from SKY, and where it might be coming from, so salt pinches can be applied to much. I don’t even bother with the news. I pay for the kids’ cartoons, music vids and some nifty space and cop stuff. If I decided to make a protest on the way the news is going, I have in my hand a piece of paper with a direct debit mandate on it… which I can cancel at a moment’s notice.
Because… I opted in to SKY, and pay for it. I’ll leave the rest to those in the BBC to figure out why some are asking some more pointed questions as all the consequences of allowing agenda to overshadow professional standards continue to unravel.
And while you are doing it, here’s a little nugget I just learned from one who was also I believe once so blessed:
“…a former BBC bureaucrat who led that mass exodus from the corporation to new Labour in the middle of the 1990s.”
Rod Liddle about Culture Sec. James Purnell.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rod_liddle/article2558164.ece
Oh, and this…
“And • get this • he was the chap who led the government’s recent assault on broadcasters who deliberately mislead the public. It is a terrible thing to mislead the public, to suggest to them things which are not quite true.”
Out of the mouths of BBCabes? (Left his post as editor of the BBC’s Today programme in 2002, after a row about impartiality in an article he wrote for The Guardian. He was formerly a speechwriter for the Labour Party.) I guess he might know about such stuff, right?
The rest of the story/comment (it’s mostly fact, I think) kinda makes various other points, I feel.
Whoops. Just noticed I jumbled SKY and Ch5 up. Sorry.
Doesn’t really matter. Who really cares? I still prefer to use my national broadcaster for my news and would like to think that it is all delivered as objectively (by policy and professionalism) as possible. There just seem to be a lot of affiliations cropping up now that I was not aware of and do find pertinent to know about those tasked to serve up my news.
Having just participated in a debate about ageism in advertising in the theoretical, new, legislated ‘ism-free’ hiring environment, it would be interesting to see just how well the chances of those from CV-verifyable ‘backgrounds of relevance’ (I’d say working for a political party counts) would turn out to be in some broadcasters.
I’m still awaiting with interest how the ad world explains that once you go past 40 you are pretty much toast, and almost no one even pretends that a CV from anyone over that age will get forwarded anyway.
It’s impossible to police short of some HR type saying, on tape, you’re not [our type]. Which rather makes it all a bit of a silly thing to have been trumpeted by the pols anyway. Would be interesting to see some %ages for the BBC on the basis above, though.
ps: I wouldn’t care too much if Heat didn’t mention much beyond her dancing abilities for that matter. I don’t expect relevant news information backed by solid research from them either.
Hi Peter. The point I was making is that the BBC didn’t mention Natasha’s past working for Labour (“Kinnock’s Girl” The Mail calls her today!) but neither did her new employers, Sky, in the press release they put out.
Sky have the contract for 5 News.
So why would Sky fess up on that? They don’t want their viewers to know that their newsreaders are themselves political animals.
The point I was making is that the BBC didn’t mention Natasha’s past working for Labour (“Kinnock’s Girl” The Mail calls her today!) but neither did her new employers, Sky, in the press release they put out.
Sky have the contract for 5 News.
So, both of the broadcasters that support NuLabour failed to mention it. However, I don’t pay Sky anything to watch Skynews – just the electricity bill and the license fee to the, er, BBC.
I notice that her resume doesn’t mention her starring role in a cheesy Health-and-Safety-at-work educational video from, er, several years ago.
We show it to our Year 11s every year before their work experience. She had dark curly hair then. But still the same smug persona.
Anonymous: Of course you pay for Sky. Either directly or because you fund ad campaigns for products through your purchase.
[The Moderator: All of which is voluntary. Which you know very well. You know David, I thought you were a better man than Reith, but this is a very cynical response.]
David Gregory (BBC):
Anonymous: Of course you pay for Sky. Either directly or because you fund ad campaigns for products through your purchase.
I have Freeview – I do NOT pay for Sky News. That IS free. It is the sport and movies that I do not pay for. As the moderator has pointed out, purchasing advertiser’s products is voluntary. Purchasing Lonely Planet guides is also voluntary and I will certainly not be purchasing any in the future.
I really agonised on spending much more time on the fragrant reader of news Ms. K’s move to reading the news in one place to reading it in another.
But some things were raised that I was not aware of, and lead to others that at best surprised me by way of the resumes of those who convey objective information to us in word, complemented by tone and body language (actually I have no recollection of this young lady ever doing anything more than look at the camera and read the news – and hence cropping up here before).
David, as one who has suffered greatly in trying to engage on other, much more hostile blogs out there, protected by no more than a rather transparent nickname, I have admired not only your civility here, but also your preparedness to be ‘you’ and stand up for what you believe in and fighting your corner.
But I do worry about the corporate mindset that exists to bring you to repeat what you did here:
“The point I was making is that the BBC didn’t mention Natasha’s past…
When I hoped that I’d already made perfectly clear to this point that I don’t care what other folk do. I think the BBC is… should be better than the others and feel let down when they stoop to their level of sloppiness or agenda. It would seem unlikely that, as a commercial outfit seeking to add credibility to their news offering, her new employers (thank you for the clarification) would make a point of highlighting that their new news anchor was anything less than an objective mouthpiece. Their call.
More crucially, and The Moderator has kindly made the key point again, but to yours that –
‘Of course you pay for Sky.’
– I had hoped that I had also made this distinction clear already as well:
‘I have in my hand a piece of paper with a direct debit mandate on it… which I can cancel at a moment’s notice.’
I also have a similar one from the TV Licensing guys, but it’s not quite as friendly and service orientated as the SKY one to be honest. Nor do I have the option of cancelling it without dire consequences should I feel what I am being charged for is not meeting adequate standards of delivery.
Can you really not see the difference?
I’m sensing perhaps not. Which is why, after too long, and what seemed a lonely period dealing with cynical and ineffective ‘complaints’ systems via such as Newswatch or the Trust, etc, I ended up at this site to see what might be possible to effect by way of change via rational argument.
At least I still feel for the most part here there is a sense of humour and desire to debate.
However, as as I head over to such as the Gordian Online, when things start going badly for the majority regulars there on matters of fact, it is usually a matter of when not if that words ending in ‘ist’, ‘z’i or ‘inger’ get hurled about to try and make the nasty counter-viewpoints go away (btw – I don’t like them here either, no matter from which ‘side’ they come from or are directed to, unless very good natured). In fact I’m concerned some now feel dissenters should not be allowed in ‘CiF club’ at all.
Which is a pity, as a onesided debate tends to spin on its own axis, and that’s why I do look forward to the views expressed here by those from within the BBC that allow engagement. Even if I have to challenge them on occasion.
Peter: No, you ascribe thoughts and ideas to me (as does the moderator)
The simple point I was making is that IF the BBC was biased by omission by not mentioning Natasha’s past… well so was Sky.
Perhaps the simple truth is that both organisations released press releases. At worst Mr Murdoch is as biased as the BBC in this case. At best well, it’s a biog you draw the line somewhere… as we can see her O Level results weren’t included either.
As for the point about Sky. Well I don’t deny it is a cheap point (and I do try not to indulge in rhetoric but once in a blue moon!), but it’s true too. There are adverts on Sky and part of the price of most products goes towards that.
TV of whatever colour isn’t free… it needs subscription, a licence fee, advertising revenue.
There’s no such thing as a free tv dinner.
But I really do appreciate your civil discussion. Best of luck on CiF btw… can’t STAND it myself!
As for the point about Sky. Well I don’t deny it is a cheap point (and I do try not to indulge in rhetoric but once in a blue moon!), but it’s true too. There are adverts on Sky and part of the price of most products goes towards that.
Sky News’ weather is sponsored by Qatar Airways. I promise you that I will never, ever fly with that carrier. Despite that, I still get to watch Sky News and their weather for FREE. Not the same with the BBC and its deplorable telly tax.