Emma Barnett

[Redyellowpink]

What do you think of her interview style on woman's hour?

I like her and I feel like she does a good job of holding people to account...but I also think that she can be unnessecarily combative, to the point where she doesn't listen to her interviewees. I'm trying to work out why she feels she has to do that?

Maybe I just miss Jane

There's a thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4276144-I-miss-the-old-R4-Womans-Hour-I-dont-tune-in-anymore?msgid=108384942

I think there's also another, shorter thread that seems more positive.

OP I'm not a regular listener to WH, but I was listening to the first 20 minutes or so this morning and I had thoughts about her so I'll chuck 'em in, for what they're worth. I've watched her a fair bit on TV and seen other discussions on her WH style so I know what the issues are. It was the miscarriage discussion and I listened fairly closely. She was - as you would expect - sympathetic and respectful - BUT I felt there was an edge of impatience in her responses that she was trying really hard to rein in. I think her natural mode is combative, and that's valuable in many cases, but I think she's uncomfortable with anything else and that's a drawback to her being an all rounder such as a programme like WH needs. However, I think she's aware of it, and she may possibly develop a wider repertoire of responses. Whether real empathy will ever find its way in is another matter.

Thanks, that thread was interesting. It seemed to focus more on the content rather than EBs style though. I'm wondering if they'll try and rein her in...they have to right? She's obviously quite unpopular

I really like Emma Barnet, but I agree that she does seem combative. WH is essentially a magazine programme where they are trying to get interesting stories and perspectives from their guests. it rarely warrants a combative approach. I hope that gile is right and that she is trying to sort it out - her professional background though, could make that difficult.

I think there are a number of women at the BBC who have thought the only way to get ahead is to do a sort of Jeremy Paxman

I think this is why EB got to be on newsnight (prior to taking over WH).

newsnight is all about interupting those being interviewed before thay even answer the quesiton. It is all about goading them into to saying something that will then become a click bait moment to post on twitter. (newsnight no longer bothers with facebook where they had quite critical feedback, they just do quick superficial tweets).

On newsnight it means that some of the other women presenters who have been round for a while seem to think it is now a competition and are trying to out do EB's rudeness. Kirsty Warkjust ends up looking flustered.

Strangely the newer male presenters on newsnight are quite laid back.

So I think this is a BBC race to the bottom style of reporting.

I enjoyed EB on 5 live. My view there was her combative style lessened as her confidence grew.

Jane Garvey is a tough one to follow. She had a self deprecating , humorous approach at times that was a real positive. EB is a different kind of interviewer and presenter. WH needed a shake up, I hope Emma is the one to do that

I feel for her. She's stepping into a very popular programme with hugely popular presenters. I think we need to give her a chance.

I listened to yesterday’s and it stared ok then it had a male Goldman Sachs MD explaining how men could help all the genders. I find it hard to separate the presenters from the producers, and the advertised desire to include more males…

I don't think she is the right person for a show like Woman's Hour - she seems more suited to interviewing politicians. I feel she lacks the interest in women's issues for a start and always seems ready for a scrap.

I feel she lacks the interest in women's issues for a start

That's a really good point and I hadn't thought about it until you mentioned it. It's not that she doesn't care but she doesn't seem to have the same passion and knowledge that prev presenters did. However, she is quite good on issues which affect her- endometriosis, to name just one. I think her sharing her own experiences brings something.

I have also noticed a shift towards including more male voices- the ex domestic violence perpetrator last week was an interesting one.

I have a feeling that had her pegged for the role since she did that infamous Jeremy Corbyn interview a few years ago when standing in for Jane/Jeni

Did anyone listen to her interviewing the women rangers today?

She was doing quite well after the miscarriage talk.... then bam

Do you hate men? What about the men? Why are there female rangers ?

Bam... honestly it was utterly ridiculous 🙄🙄🙄

Not sure about her lacking interesting in women's issues. I'm hotly awaiting her book on periods to land on my door mat in the next few days.

She does have quite a particular style that's different to previous presenters. She seems to be challenging on topics that would traditionally be handled ' sensitively' eg today's discussion on (trigger warning) miscarriage /baby loss cards which was robust and didnt really pull any punches. But then you get the more irreverent side eg discussion on whether you wear pants under pyjamas.

I like her presenting style.

@OneEpisode

I listened to yesterday’s and it stared ok then it had a male Goldman Sachs MD explaining how men could help all the genders. I find it hard to separate the presenters from the producers, and the advertised desire to include more males…

Oh this one had me crawling on the floor for my eyeballs.

Oh this one had me crawling on the floor for my eyeballs

Hahaha it had me yelling at the radio, that's for sure. Even he didn't sound like he knew what he was on about

@Forestdweller11

Not sure about her lacking interesting in women's issues. I'm hotly awaiting her book on periods to land on my door mat in the next few days.

She does have quite a particular style that's different to previous presenters. She seems to be challenging on topics that would traditionally be handled ' sensitively' eg today's discussion on (trigger warning) miscarriage /baby loss cards which was robust and didnt really pull any punches. But then you get the more irreverent side eg discussion on whether you wear pants under pyjamas.

I like her presenting style.

Ah wasn't aware of her book so yes, I could be wrong but it was my overall impression from listening to her. I hear she did very well in the sports related interview today so perhaps she is suited to harder hitting interviews where people attempt to avoid the questions. I think that is a great skill in an interviewer but not one suited to all topics and it personally feels like she isn't suited to Women's Hour, in previous topics I didn't really feel she was engaged with the issues. She isn't for me in that role but it is possible she will settle into it.

Would be interested to hear what the book is like if you have time for a quick review on here once you have read it?

She did well today, interviewing Joanna Harper. Polite, but didn't back down and held her interviewee to account firmly.

Was excellent today in "fairness in female sport" interview. Well prepared and refused to allow her interviewee to get away with denying their own research and pretending that there was scientific evidence to support the inclusion of non female athlete in female elite sport.

crosspost, 334!

I haven't really been listening to WH much as I tend to listen in the car and haven't been anywhere! Did make the effort today though and thought she was very good. Yes, she is a bit combative, but I liked the way she had a handle on the subject and kept her guest on track and pushed to have points answered.
Maybe WH needs a steely edge. It made me inclined to listen again.

I'm not sure about EB, but in definitely getting annoyed at the focus on Male voices. The domestic violence perpetrator should never have been included.

I think she's brilliant and that's she's improved the programme since joining. She's increased the length of the show to an actual hour for a start and she isn't scared to tackle really difficult issues and interviewees. I think that she can be quite blunt at times when it isn't needed and a more empathic approach could be taken at times, but I think in general she gets the tone right. I feel that her general approach demonstrates how seriously issues that impact women should be taken especially as they are they are very often not spoken about so openly in the media. I have listened to some fantastic interviews since she started presenting, the one with Tracey Emin being a particular highlight.

I love her. I listened to her show on 5 live all the time and was sad when it ended. I wasn't sure about how she'd fit into WH but I think she had to be different as you can't really replicate the past. I do understand some comments about her being combative, I like this but I agree it's not always quite right for this show (sometimes it's perfect though) hopefully she'll find her groove soon enough... it's still quite new. I'm enjoying it overall though.

She did a good job today & didn't let Harper off the hook even when it became a bit excruciating. I 'm going to start listening to WH again & see how it goes. I've missed it.

I actually felt a little sorry for Joanna Harper. Laurel Hubbard being allowed to compete is obviously unfair, but that’s the IOC’s decision, not a transwoman medical physicist who did a study on some amateur running friends.

I think Harper said they were in the room with IOC when this was decided.

And I think Harper said there were 2 papers they was on