Does anybody else find Jane Garvey's hectoring, impatient tone on Woman's Hour really annoying?

[NotQuitePerfect]

I was so pleased that yesterday she had to read out a listener's comment that she (Garvey) had been rude to Dionne Warwick.

I think she often has an unfortunate manner, cutting people off mid-flow, summarising what she thinks they're going to say rather than listening to them say it.

She also practically vomits every time she has to mention SAHMs .

I actually was going to post about her treatment of today's interviewee re horrendous DV- her eyes were gauged out she wad asked more than once why she stayed and then Jane said "I've heard enough, i cant hear any more!"

That sounds appalling! Haven't listened to today's yet - going to catch the podcast later.

i Missed it earlier today, but I have noticed that she is rather obsessed with making sure facts are correct, if an interviewee dares to talk about something slightly off script, they are grilled and quizzed over whether they are sure of their facts

it kind of ruins the flow of the conversation, and makes her sound domineering

She is a bit abrupt sometimes. Jenny Murray is lovely, though .

'she wad asked more than once why she stayed and then Jane said "I've heard enough, i cant hear any more!" '

Flippin' heck - and this was on Women's Hour?! Sounds like what you would expect to hear from John Humphrys!

My thoughts exactly. Poor woman

Could be but sounded live. I just think she handled it incredibly insensitively. Rather disappointing from Woman's Hour.

I agree - insensitive and disappointing. Particularly at a time when the BBC is in so much hot water re 'not wanting to hear' what victims have to say .

Also on Tuesday's WH - the lady being impatiently interviewed by Garvey about her new book on home smoking as a method of preserving food. JG could hardly contain her contempt for what this seemingly lovely lady was doing, sneering at her specialist equipment and feigning sheer horror at the cost of it. What is her problem exactly? She does this every time she speaks to anyone who cherishes anything at all to do with the domestic arena .

Jenny Murray can be a bit dour at times but at least she listens to people, and appears to respect their views/expertise.

She does this every time she speaks to anyone who cherishes anything at all to do with the domestic arena

It's not only the domestic arena. She was going on the other day and saying (I paraphrase) "Nothing is worth getting that het up about; we shouldn't take anything that seriously. I'm going to be all laid-back and blasé, in that knowing way that ex-Radio5 presenters adopt".
I thought "Yeah, right. You get to be a presenter on national radio by not fighting tooth and nail for every opportunity, by not clawing your way to the top? Pull the other one."

Bet she's lurking here somewhere! Come on out, Jane, wherever (whoever) you are!

You know what drives me mad? It's the way that one of the presenters (don't know which) claims that any food you mention gives you wind. Someone can talk about the most innocuous food on the planet and this presenter will be saying in a sickly-sweet voice, 'but of course it does have well-known effects on the bowels, doesn't it?'

She was better on Radio 5 with Peter Allen who always had a bon mot when she went too far.

The interview with the lady who was the victim of dv was awful. She was particularly clumsy when dealing with the issue of why the lady stayed in the relationship once she realised her partner was violent.
She was also huffing and puffing a lot during the fish smoking item. It's not something I could be bothered to do but the interviewee was trying to promote artisan food and was enthusiastic and knowledgeable. Jane Garvey talked to her as if she was nuts for wanting to do anything other than stick a tesco ready meal in the microwave.

Peas I couldn't agree more! She's so bloody superior & dismissive. You could sense fish-smoking lady becoming smaller & quieter as the item progressed, JG bullied her so much .

R4 I also agree heartily with you .

A couple of weeks ago there was a feature on women who had changed their careers in a very definite and sometimes surprising way. One woman's previous career had been in financial management, and JG assured her that (again, paraphrasing) 'nobody would want talk to her about that because it's so boring'!! ! ! !

Have to admit am often asleep (as I sometimes get to bed around 07:00) when WH is on, so have not heard these bits (huffing and puffing), but think it would be worth sending your comments in to 'Feedback'. If a number of people made similar points, they would likely take it up.

I had the impression Fi Glover often had an 'off' tone with interviewees (when I used to listen to 'Saturday Live' - she helped me stop listening!), and it may, as R4 suggests, be part of 'getting to the top' (or at least onto national radio such as R5) and makes them a bit more sneery, impatient, etc.

I don't think it would apply to all that many women on R4, because they've mostly not been on R5, so people like Winifred Robinson have grown with R4 and don't have the same characteristics (was going to say drive, ego, etc, but it's probably not true - bet they have all had to fight stiff competition to get to the positions they're now in).

Isn't this all a bit sexist?

Where are the threads castigating men interviewers for having an "off tone" or "hectoring tone"?
John Humphries, Jeremy Paxton for example. They seem to be praised for their directness.

I will say I didn't hear he interview with the DV victim so I can't comment on that but I usually find Jane Garvey a very intelligent interviewer.

IIRC, a few months back we shared in some detail our opinions of male interviewers (principally on the Today programme) who were keener to show off their own power than get any actual information from their interviewees, with the Today programme being memorably described as 'willy waggling' by someone. We're quite happy to moan about any radio presenter in this topic!

"They seem to be praised for their directness."

I'd never praise either of them. Paxton (Paxman, surely!) has been mocked for repeating questions over and over (perhaps it was on HIGNFY not MN).

Humphries jumps in when interviewing and makes himself look foolish in so doing. Not letting an interviewee finish a sentence doesn't score any points with me... it's plain rude.

i don't know which one it was, but there was one that was very sneery towards a woman who had lactated in order to feed an adoptive baby - this involved pumping 4 hours round the clock before the baby was even there - pretty hard work - she challenged her with something like 'well, it's not that important is it ..?'

the woman was taken aback, but said somethinglike it had taken her 7 years to get a baby, of failed IVF, etc etc etc and the effort to her was more than worth it.

that said they have very tight time slots to fill and they do need to direct flow an get the questions asked that the public want asking.

seeing as i now have a womans Hour thread to complain on - they had two articles about male carers - good, interesting articles - but what the fuck were they doing on WOMANS HOUR ??

Justine has been on WH, she could probably tell us what it is like

I can't stand Jane Garvey's sneering superior attitude. Every time she's hosting WH my heart sinks. I feel sorry for her interviewees. I can't understand why she got the job, it's tragic.

Libby Purves, on the other hand, is amazing. I want her to adopt me.

Oh I like Jane and not just because she always replies to my tweets

But I generally love Woman's Hour. They were pretty much the first media outlet to cover the Rochdale story and that was a couple of years back if I remember correctly.