"Kate thinks the interviewing styles of Today's presenters are too aggressive and thinks there aren't enough women presenters and reporters on the programme."

Not aggressive enough, I'd say. But I don't mean presenters should be rude, and I, along with many, do get annoyed when the interviewee doesn't get a chance to get a word in edgeways. The best way to assess an argument is at least to give each side a chance to expand a little before butting in. But when I say aggressive I mean probing, and not letting interviewees off the hook. I once emailed Eddie Mair of the programme at the other end of the day, PM, and, in fairness to him, he emailed back and said he didn't have chance to fire such-and-such a question at So-and-so because the producer was giving him the cutthroat signal from the other side of the glass.

But presenters should be encouraged to make interviewees who have an axe to grind (I'm not talking about the nice person from a charity here or someone on a lighter story) stand by their stance, as it were, and, if they're put in an embarrassing situation by a skilled, forensic interlocutor, then so be it. It will sort the wheat from the chaff.

Come on, people, you're often the only thing we have between us and the bozos (well, not all of them are, but many) who call themselves politicians and who are so often allowed to give an answer to which your typical listener is saying, "Hang on a minute – he can't get away with that!" and are not challenged with a supplementary question. Often they are, I know, but not enough.

This isn't a case of being rude. If politicians know what they're letting themselves in for, the parties and government departments will get used to putting the best ones up there for a grilling. There's so much mediocrity in politics, with so many of them being nothing but third-rate careerists (with or withoug a moat or a duck house), that it behoves our broadcast journalists to make 'em have it.

Sarah Montague is a great interviewer for the listener because she asks the questions, then actually listens, allows the person to answer before she pushes the point or moves on.

So many of the male interviewers on Today are aggressive in style, rather like terriers yapping around the feet of the hapless person being interviewed. Often the interviewer talks loudly over the reply, repeating the question even while the answer is being given. For the listener, there is nothing more irritating and counter productive than hearing several voices at once, each trying to outdo the other, and you end up either switching off (sometimes literally) or not understanding either the questions or the answer.

Recently, John Humphreys spent so long noisily interrupting and repeating the same question that the item was over and the listener had gained no insights whatever into the subject.

I might say the same for Andrew Marr Sunday TV programme which is so much nicer when presented by Sophie Raworth.

#1. At 2:31pm on 26 Mar 2010, AndyInWales wrote:

"Not aggressive enough, I'd say. But I don't mean presenters should be rude, and I, along with many, do get annoyed when the interviewee doesn't get a chance to get a word in edgeways."

Far from me to put words into mouths but I think the word you might have been looking for is "assertive", there is a lot of difference between being aggressive and being assertive - put it this way, when driving a car you are highly likely to be stopped and booked for aggressive driving, the only time you'll get stopped for assertive driving is to be commended!

I think the real problem is that the editors (over recent years, not just the current editor) have been attempting to package to much into the programme, the presenters are always chasing the clock rather than allowing someone to develop their replies, less can be so much more, most audiences (and certainly the Today audience) can tell for themselves when an interviewee is filibustering, we don't need it rudely pointed out...

I agree with your last point, Boiler, but it is a failing which is endemic in many BBC programmes.
My particular hates are MoneyBox Live and Any Answers.
Why, with only seconds left,does a producer feel absolutely compelled to introduce something new. Why not just relax, allow the current item to flow naturally to an end. This leaves the presenter and the audience feeling pleasantly mellow and not gasping for air.
So often I can almost hear the "Phew! Made It!" as the mic goes dead.

4. At 5:10pm on 26 Mar 2010, RCWhiting wrote:

"So often I can almost hear the "Phew! Made It!" as the mic goes dead."

...or they crash the 9am pips, and sometimes one can hear the presenters utter "Phew! Made It!". :-(