Dimbleby on sexism and ageism

However, I'd look at it from the other way. I'd say it is better to have presenters present stuff for a shorter time period so that more people get exposure. How many people has Dimbleby frozen out over the years, and why? Presumably he's getting paid loads just for being there a while, but all he really does is sit down and read stuff off a card/autocue/screen, and stay up all night once in a while (and he conducts some interviews). He doesn't offer many (any?) insights of his own.

In direct opposition to what I've suggested. I didn't watch the thing, so can't comment too much, but from what I read and watched later most of the complaints were about misuse of titles (HRH instead of HM) and crappy filler material. The former is clearly wrong, but easily fixed by simply informing them (and I imagine the error would not have occurred had they been reading what to say like Dimbleby does), but the latter I think is an unfair criticism. The presenters would not have decided what filler to do, and actually, there was bound to be a lot of it because of the monotonous and dreary nature of a bunch of boats drifting down a river in the rain. In the sun it would have been easy to just have loads of wide angle shots with someone reading the Queen's wikipedia page, similar to what they do on Remembrance Sunday, but I don't think that could be considered the presenters' youth's fault. Plus, what exactly could Dimbleby have done?

That's because he's a presenter. He's been trained and brought up on proper TV etiquette and knows the limits. He doesn't offer insight or personal opinion because that's not his job and because his own views are irrelevant to the job at hand. When you want credible opinion and information brought in, you bring in a subject matter expert. I categorically do not want to start following the very Americanised line of believing something just because I've been informed by a 'celebrity'.

No, disagree. Dimbleby might have a form of cheat sheet in front of him, but his intelligence far outstrips those of the 'younger contemporaries' of television presenting you cock it up royally on their own. Whether it's the training at the BBC or the education they receive externally, they just don't know what they're talking about, but Dimbleby does. Hes been doing it for long enough, knows when to talk and when to shut up. Far too many of the 'new age' of presenters simply think them talking is good enough when that patently isn't the case. It's not a matter of merely reading a wikipedia page, it's knowing what information is relevant and pertinent to a specific bit of footage, having the intelligence to realise the thing you thought you were going to see and talk about isn't what's on the screen, so you find the bit of information that is relevant. Far far too many of the younger presenters don't have that.

That's true, but still, what is his talent? He's not talentless, of course, but the talent required for what he does isn't exactly rare. We needn't get celebrities in (in fact, I think I'm arguing against that by saying we should have new people flowing through), and I disagree with the "Sky News with [name]" being named as such even when [name] isn't there, and especially the pretentious "Boulton & Co.", but given that all the best have to start somewhere, why not try out a bunch of potentials rather than waiting for them to leave a rival?

This is more a criticism of the training than youth, isn't it? There's no reason why youngsters can't be taught to shush, and when else are they going to learn if not actually doing it? There's probably even an element of the older lot contributing to poor training of the young by doing it all themselves.

I can see the benefits of keeping the best in their positions, but there has to be some consideration given to who comes next. Of course newbies are generally not going to be as good as the pros, but they could be, and we won't know.

Would you keep things the way they are, then? With the hiring of women changed to match that of men?

It's in being a live tv presenter. It's a fine and subtle thing. Some have it, some don't. And I'd say it is rare, there aren't many who make proficient live tv hosts with the ability to work without script or autocue.


Hire the best people for the job. End of story. Don't care whether they're young, old, white, green or have 17 legs.
There are always other ways for people to gain that experience, other TV channels, lesser programmes.

Why does your poll not mention gender, since it's in the title of your thread?