blonde poker forum

BBC Breakfast presenter, Mike Bushell, interviews Marion Bartoli live on TV. He starts the interview by hugging her.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33491632

Is this what we want? Would he do it to Roger Federer? Are we watching the news to see interviewers embracing guests? Should Geoff Shreeves start leaning in when Jose Mourinho is next bemoaning his luck, after a 2-0 win?

The reaction of the studio panel suggests they disapprove, or are at least uncomfortable.

Should the BBC be above such nonsense? Or are cultural demands nowadays make it inevitable that more familiarity between the media and the stars comes?

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/19/article-0-1B5F6EEC000005DC-948_964x829.jpg)

"Ok, but any more than three seconds and you'll see what I can do with the lid!"

Mike Bushell deserved a slap. But then, he deserves that just for being on TV anyway.
I'd have mentioned him in the "irrational dislikes" thread, but I doubt anyone would accept it as being other than rational

With apologies to Tighty, your example of how things were done back in the day is just over 52 yrs old if I'm not mistaken.
Bill Foulkes holding the FA Cup in 1963. The first FA Cup Final I sat and watched :)

She's not offended she says as she crosses her hands in a protective stance across her lady garden.

Leading the witness m'Lord.

Not offended. Just don't see the point. Wasted a question, there.

Don't see tikay doing that to Annette_15. Proper pro broadcaster.

I would like to see him try and embrace this fella.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33484631

Tikay does it to me though. But he always puts his mike in his pocket first.

Lol. I understand the words, but not that they mean when presented in that order.

Wolstenholme > Kendall > Bushell

Oh I see. Thank you.  (Ingbray the aitjacketstray)

Can you be offended by a hug?
I mean, it's not like he slapped her on the arse or anything.
I can understand it may be a little awkward for some people but there's no harm done.

Fwiw I like Mike Bushell anyway he seems a nice down to earth bloke enjoying his job and I don't think he needs a slap david1303.
I shall remember not to enfold you in a fond embace if we ever meet ;)

Aww now I'm upset.

He may well be down to earth, and enjoying his job, but it's a job he appears to be ill-equipped to perform.

;applause;

Far be it from me to suggest the unsuggestible, but I fear you may have missed the point.

;hide;

The issue isn't him hugging her (people hug. Think I even hugged someone once. Try anything once and all that).

The issue is doing it as part of the interview on live TV. Interviewers normally open with:

"Thank you, studio. I'm here with Tal J. Talington, who once won a £30 comp at the Broadway. Mr Talington..."

...and there then follows a question about folding jacks pre.

They don't normally even shake the interviewee's hand on TV. Kate Adie didn't hug any of the grieving folk in war-torn Eastern Europe and if anyone needed a hug, it was them. Paxman didn't even give Boris a chummy embrace while they each danced around answering how much a loaf of bread costs.

Do it before the camera's rolling, do it afterwards and no one minds. Why do it in the two minute slot during the news?

Tal. I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but you have to explain this reply to me because I really don't understand what you mean and I'm worried that I've inadvertently upset you.


Not offended. I didn't think that you were, and I'm not even sure that you're suggesting you were, but if not you who? I was just making a joke. Offense, given or received, was the last thing on my mind.

Just don't see the point. Who doesn't see the point of what? Again, this has completely whooshed me.

Wasted a question, there. What question, and who wasted it where, and why the comma?

Someone put me out of my misery please. I feel like I've accidentally stumbled into a cryptic crosswordville.

I would like to highlight another egregrious practice by the post match interviewer

It is common at Wimbledon. I am willing to forgive the wonderful Lee McKenzie and the excellent Garry Richardson to an extent, but Rishi Persad gets no such free pass

"So, Serena/Roger/Novak...How does it feel?"

How do you think it bloody well feels Rishi?

They have just won a match. Eventually i suppose a sportsperson is going to reply along the lines of

"Well Rishi, the match was a thorough exposition of the human soul. I looked deep into myself and saw an inner strength upon which i could draw. Simultaneously i detected some signs of weakness in my opponent and ruthlessly targetted their failings because i know they fold under pressure. Always been a quitter"

but until someone does so we are left with the usual standard reply

"it feels good" "Andy played well but i won the big points" etc etc  

Alternatively they have just lost the match

"How does it feel Rafa/Andy?" "you got beaten by a short head Frankie on an odds on favourite, how does it feel?"

One day, perhaps

"well Rishi i was fucking dreadful, played piss poor and it feels shit because i hate my opponent who has got a long way on not a lot of talent and takes drugs anyway"

but until then, mumbling "i'm disappointed Rishi, didn't do myself justice"


I think these interviewers should really re-think their opening gambits

Rishi, in so far as i can tell, has fashioned a lucrative career out of asking the banal to the banal. His questions don't so much prompt interesting responses as introduce a verbal bromide into proceedings that places his interviewee into an immediate torpor

Much worse than hugging, Rishi. I want questions that deviate from the norm slightly, and make us think

(http://tvnewsroom.org/images/news-staff/rishi-persad/rishi-persad-Image-0001.jpg)

I'm not sure that it's fair to forgive two people and not the other; the question is the same.

Anyway, asking someone a searching question immediately after a game/match seems doomed to failure and would be expecting too much of a player who has just expended maximum effort and is emotionally spent.

Post-match interviews are pointless. They certainly aren't intended to look deep into the psyche of the player. The questions are just gentle half-volleys so that the player can do what she/he is (presumably) contractually obliged to do and then go for an ice-bath which, I suspect, seems pleasurable in comparison.

The paucity of insight and talent amongst sports journalists, especially those in radio and TV, is frightening.
What happened? I'm sure it was far better 30 or 40 years ago.

Cricket seems to me to be one of the few sports that manages to maintain a decent standard. As for the generalists like Bushell, Walker, the one that won Strictly etc, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Cricket, both TV & Radio, is an absolute delight based on the general intelligence factor of the participants. Excepting a few notably good contributors who aren't ex players, generally speaking the protagonists are players of the game first, not broadcasters brought in to make 'entertainment'.

The time factor helps a great deal as well.

Hugging as well, especially, currently, with men getting all European about meeting up - yeeuch, not for me

RED-TROLL at it again, never ends

No Nooooooo.

Please don't tease me. I don't understand, honest.

I saw Tal looking at this thread earlier and he hasn't posted. Someone help me out.

lol, sorry

With you on this one Red-Dog. I tried to follow Tals train of thought and failed miserably.

Now then Mr Talington, you know as well as I do that I miss the point more frequently than Greece misses it's repayment deadlines but, I thought on this occasion you were asking if it was acceptable for an interviewer to hug an interviewee, which, in the example shown  I thought was fine.

If the question was should the BBC make hugging a mandatory part of a greeting then I think no, that would be ridiculous.

By the same token if you were asking should the BBC ban hugging I would also say no, that would be ridiculous.
Hugging is a spontaneous act, it cannot be regulated or controlled.
Spread the love sez I.

Was convinced I was being levelled.

Doesn't matter now, anyway.

By me?

I've done it. I read Tal's puzzle several times without being able to crack it, but I just got there.
If you keep at it, you'll get there too (clue - rewatching the interview helps with the first part).

Noooo. My head hurts and I'm far to worried about inadvertently giving offense to look at it objectively.

Just explain it please.

The person 'not offended' isn't Tal. It means that Bartoli wasn't offended by the hug.

Although she wasn't offended, he (Tal) doesn't see the point of whatshisname hugging her during the interview. It uses some of the limited time, which could have been used to ask another question.

Sounds good to me.


I think I agree with Tal about the hug, but the way he posed the question was liable to influence the answer.