to Wish the journalists were not part of the daily briefing

[9millioncansofbeans]

Am I being unreasonable ?
I feel like, In general, the scientists give a very sound reasonable explanation of any updates and plans and why they won’t announce plans.
And then every day the journalists ask questions which have been covered. And actually today’s really annoyed me, as one journalist said people are worried the reasons you won’t discuss how we will come out of lockdown is because it’s going to go on for 18 months... well I was not worried about that but now I am!!
I wish they We’re not part of the daily briefing.

What questions do you all want answered? Genuinely interested

Restrict press scrutiny? I don't even know where to start with this one.

Op you are naive. Journalists hold the state to account. You might not agree with their questions but you would sure miss them if they weren’t allowed. It’s like some people on here have no awareness at all of how far we have come as a country in terms of our civil liberties. And you’re so willing to give them all up without challenge or question. The state is only curtailing our civil rights now to try to address the infectious disease. But it is still a careful balancing act between our other liberties. And it should only be temporary. They should not be driving the country to complete ruin in the interest of keeping the virus at bay. And at the moment the state does not appear to be considering this. They keep saying the science will inform when to lift restrictions - but it should also be about weighing it against the economic and social costs too. We can’t emerge from this pandemic with the country so crippled that it does not raise enough in taxes to fund the NHS. That so many become unemployed and homeless that they in turn become a further strain on whatever NHS is left. That the resulting problems in economy mean that there is no money to pay for the pensions of the elderly, or their social care. Sadly so many people just don’t see the bigger picture. Or appreciate that things really could get that bad if this crisis is not managed carefully. That’s why journalists are important OP. They are the ones who will ask the state to answer these important questions and issues before it is too late.

I agree but I think its a case of poor questions by the journalists rather than the presence of journalists generally.

We need better journalists basically, who’re able to ask intelligent questions.

Questions I would like answered (I haven't watched all briefings, so sorry if some of these have been asked) -
Will parents who are shielding have an option to keep children home with remote learning? Until a vaccine is found.
Have patients been tested for vitamin D deficiency? If not, why not? If yes, what were the results?
How soon will hospitals be able to treat other illnesses again? How do they plan to get to that stage?
Does the government plan to close the borders?

Which airlines have requested bailouts and will the government look at recouping recent dividend payouts to shareholders before handing over any tax payer money?

I absolutely in favour of journalists asking questions but I think we just seem to have substandard journalists. It’s embarrassingly bad.

I just turn over.

I like the journos but it would be better if they got together and agreed questions so as not to keep repeating the same thing. Also there is no point in asking anything too awkward as the politicians just squirm out of it, did you lie about having enough PPE is a waste of time. The factual questions to the experts are more helpful, I do think people want to understand what is planned and things like clarifying the rules.

Those are decent questions Diana.
I do think though that without the journalists the scandal on PPE wouldn’t have got as much attention (who gives a voice to all those doctors and nurses without the press?), there wouldn’t have been as many questions asked on testing (a main way out of lockdown), or so much attention given to care homes. I agree the questions on lockdown are repetitive though

The question section is like a whining child asking ‘are we nearly there yet’ on repeat. I am sure they could come up with some better questions.

I think the problem that it is the political journalists and what they really care about is catching out a minister rather than getting useful information. It would work far better if it were the science correspondents asking questions.

I don't see why it's just journalists who get to ask questions. I'd like to see hospital managers, local councillors, headteachers' union etc have a chance to ask questions on what's important from their perspective.

I think it's a missed opportunity as some journalists are using it for their own profile and kudos.

They are just looking for tomorrows headline, nothing to do with useful challenge, many people I know switch off when they start, robert peston in particular

YANBU. Lots of stupid same questions again and again every day. Some long speeches and questions with headlines on their mind. There should be opportunities for journalist questions, but not such substandard ones, please. They have to review the daily briefings. It has become painful to watch.

I would like to know how sensitive and specific the antibody tests are?
Who would they test?

How are the food parcel deliveries going?

This virus will not go away anytime soon so what plans are in place long term

No way - we need somebody questioning the science and decisions made by the Government here.

Admittedly some of the questions are repetitive, but if it weren’t for the journalists pushing for answers regarding testing, lack of PPE and the mess that has been allowed to happen in our Care Homes, the Government would be quite happy to brush it under the carpet.

Yes it’s headline hunting because it sells but not much to report.

When information would be preferred. I like the idea of including various relevant organisations.

I don’t understand the issue with the question complained about in the OP - Neil Ferguson’s suggestion that social distancing will be needed until a vaccine is found has been widely reported, and the government’s own line is that a vaccine is 18 months off. It’s also been widely reported that there are presently no plans to exit lockdown. It’s perfectly reasonable to ask whether the government is quietly envisioning lockdown to be prolonged indefinitely. The fact that it hadn’t occurred to you doesn’t mean it isn’t a pertinent question! And yes, as others have said, asking awkward questions like this is extremely important, especially at a time when normal civil liberties are suspended.

I've come to the conclusion that journalists are stupid. They should be asking challenging and incisive questions, yet all they do is attempt to cause worry and ask the same damn question a milliion ways. It' a shame they are not keeping the Government in check. I have stopped watching the daily briefing because I'm fed up with shouting at the tv! Probably going to miss something important, but I'd rather avoid the journos. Stopped watching all news now too.

Journalists are essential. Each major media outlet sends one. If people only read or watched quality journalism, we wouldn't have to put up with tabloid style questions from the tabloids. Unfortunately it's fair enough that popular newspapers get to send someone as it means their readers are represented. It would be better if they sent someone who knew a bit about science or health. Arts graduates are massively over represented in both politics and the media. That's why we have to put up with stupid phrases such as "following the science" when any scientist knows there is no one right answer called "the science". What they mean is, "we're muddling through without any idea of what to do but we are going to blame someone else for it"

Um they are press briefings for the media. The way journalists ask questions is often to get a good soundbite for their story. They will also ask questions that the answer has already been covered in the initial statement as they do not want to just regurgitate the PR speak. Might sound silly to you but there is an art to what they do.

Could there be another way to hold them to account without journalists involved? I just feel like they basically want to stir it up and have a headline.

That is what Parliament is for. I wonder how many complaining here have been watching the select committee hearings?

Posters above are right. Repeating questions that have been poorly or not answered is part of the role of a journalist and ultimately the pressure can lead to change - I know from experience! ‘The X issue isn’t going away.... better get an update/new paper/whatever.’

There are multiple ways of holding govt to account. Press briefings are for the media; select committees are for Parliament and have much greater powers to go into detail and depth as they take their evidence.

I switch off now when it gets to the questions. Yesterday for example, after a briefing about the science regarding lockdown and how the Government cannot say when the lockdown will end - the first question from Laura Kuenssberg at the BBC was “when will the lockdown end?” Wasn’t she listening?

I’ve stopped watching it altogether now. I think we just need to wait and see for a couple of weeks. It’s frustrating as we are all so used to being in some sort of control of our own destiny but life us on hold for now until we get a clearer picture.

Any journalist who asks a 'difficult' question will be quickly kicked off the accredited list. Johnson did this to the Mirror and to other journalists during his election campaign, so the journalists at the moment are reduced to asking 'vanilla' questions that add very little to the information. Anyone asking a more searching question won't get the chance to ask again at the next conference.

Dorries thinks that the press should stop asking Ministers anything searching - leaving nobody to question someone like Hancock when he spouts fantasy figures. Where are all of the ventilators? Why did the Formula One companies waste time and money building ventilators to a government specification that the health dept. then rejected? Why did his department waste millions on tests that didn't work? Why is he denying that he said 25,000 tests would be done each day by mid-April, and predicting that 100,000 will be done each day by the end of the month when his own figures say that only 15,000 tests are being done? Why do the care home operators report significantly more deaths than he is willing to accept - and why are these deaths not included in the daily numbers? Where is the PPE? What use is a million items of PPE, or even 5 million, if the real need is for 10 million? What use are gloves if the nurses have no masks, or no aprons, or suits that do not fit, or have to re-use PPE?