主播大秀

I hope that your News 24 journalist Kitty Kay will not be reporting on the American elections after her clear gaffe last night.

Ms Kay made a clear statement in which she said 'thank god the Democrats have won Arkansas', she then tried to backtrack on her comment but the damage was done.

Clearly the 主播大秀 should not allow people with political bias to report on Elections or anything else to do with politics.

I note that other news media also heard her comments and have commented on it, her comments were also picked up by many blogs both in Europe and in the US.

The 主播大秀 has been dammed for it's left of centre political views and more lapses like this will hasten the demise of it's so called claims to be impartial.

Is there ever going to be a resolution in Afghanistan?

What a minefield this country is.

It was always a strategic country to have under one's wing - the Russian bear etc. But is it now?

What is the point of the interest at least some of the Western nations have in this country now? Other than to defeat the revolting Taliban?

And just WHY are some NATO nations so indifferent?

Why must he Canadians and the Australians do their work for them?

In response to comment 1- i didn't notice that last night and I have just re-watched it and didn't notice it then- was it during the first bit where gavin was talking to her?

I bet you had a lovely time putting together the maps and graphics for the US election, it's a bit like a school project.

I find your coverage superficial. If you are going to obsess over the US elctions at least you should delve a little deeper. The analysis on policy is paper thin & I've seen no hint of an investigation into where the election funds are coming from. Political journalists' first question should always be qui bono? I'm sure the abuses in future won't be so blatant that the energy companies will be invited to formulate energy policy, but I'd like to know who the candidates are allied to and how this will shape their attitudes.

Why is newsnight going ahead with a story about the childhood abuse of one individual. It might well be appropriate for the news at six on bbc one, or perhaps, Richard and Judy. Newsnight is meant to focus on and discuss news, perferably news with broad implications for the country and the world at large. If there is a shortage of news, then perhaps a feature on literature or a longer disussion of tommorow mornings newspapers; anything but the probably tragic, but politically meaningless heartache of one woman. It isn't surprising that she is going to publish her memories incidentally, as a bizzare industry seems to be clogging up waterstones with similar sob-stories. Just don't let it creep into our news programmes.

American elections are quite entertaing as well as intersting. The impact of a leader that emerges from these elections will obviously have a major affect on all Americans as well as many other nations that are looking for right leadership to resolve among other things the recent financial crisis posed by the subprime issues.

could you upload wednesdays programme please

rob

By this extract from her book (for which thank you Newsnight) and the reports, Shy Keenan is brave, tenacious, and a good judge of reality. The book should be widely bought.

But, just as she feared, on that final day of the trial, that the judge and jury would not reach the right conclusion, I fear that all such trials will not stop such abuse, except whilst perpetrators are in prison. Those who do this stuff are, as Shy's story well illustrates, so devious, so well connected, so sure of their power over others, so certain of their "right" to such power, that conventional policing can do no more than occasionally run around mopping up a few of them too long after much harm has been done. Their characters make them the most motivated to be "experts" on children and families, and social regulation, and they make sure to steer the spotlight away from anything that would stop them earlier, or more effectively, and ensure their connections, and techniques, are as widespread and useful as possible.

Consider, why does psychiatry, with hundreds of tabulated diagnoses, not have even one for people who believe they have a right to impose themselves into the lives of others, flouting their boundaries? That means that there is little chance that outsiders will step in despite that there are always signs elsewhere in behavior; abusive behaviour is never completely restricted to one part of lives. It means good people fear intervening because their motives will be suspected. It means there is no screening against such people until they have convictions on record. Probably most are too clever, or well connected, for that ever to be the case.

Why is it always made so difficult for those affected by these people to find effective help, as Shy found, before Newsnight lent its resources?

It is for this reason that Newsnight is right to cover Shy's story. Unfortunately, unless Newsnight articulates its motivation, and investigates further, it leaves the way open for those who consider such behaviour to be normal to talk in terms of Shy's being a "sob story" best left to the the sensational lesser media (as above).