Laura Kuenssberg to take over Marr Slot

[Andrew]

Previously he’s said he didn’t want it, probably because at the moment he has a very varied role across TV and radio, presenting and reporting including doing Breakfast. The Political Editor role involves mostly just hanging around and doing pieces to camera from either Westminster or Downing Street night after night.

Also being slightly down the pecking order avoids him most of the hate the main political editor gets on social media. He’s too nice a guy to have to be subject to all that.

[Spencer]

Not sure his style is right to be honest. Great at what he does, but he’s quite intellectual / nerdy (that’s not a bad thing!) and I think they need someone a bit more relatable to a wider audience. Sophy Ridge still gets my vote.

Not sure about that. I think he’s got quite an individual style which makes him stand out in the same way as Andrew Marr and Nick Robinson did in the role, and Peston does at ITV. I also think someone who’s a bit less heavily styled and looks less like a conventional rugged reporter makes him a lot more relatable. And there are a lot of geeks out there. :lol:

Not entirely sure you can say someone has an individual style, before comparing him with 2 of the previous 3 holders of the post and the current ITV political editor…

I’m not saying they all have the same individual style, rather that each is unique and distinctive in very different ways, making each of them stand out from the crowd.

[FrancisC]

[Rolling News]

If no one wanted the job, what would happen?

[Spencer]

I guess they’d have to give it to someone. But I don’t think it’s a surprise, after the huge amount of abuse Laurel Kuenssberg has faced during her time in the job, that not everyone has jumped at the opportunity to apply. It seems like a bit of a poisoned chalice.

[Ash101]

Chris always describes issues like an excited university lecturer would - an outsider who’s fascinated by politics, and wants you to be too.

Superb post. You’ve put it better than I ever could have.

Chris would be great in the role, but it’s understandable why he wouldn’t be interested. Obviously they’ll find someone, but if it ever became impossible surely they deputy - in this case Vicki Young - would be expected to step up by default?

[msim]

Frankly whoever they appoint, management need to urge a focus on more traditional reporting and analysis rather than letting the top political reporter of the country being a reamplifying mouthpiece for misleading statements (from all sides) and asking gotcha type questions for social media clips.

[m_in_m]

Chris always describes issues like an excited university lecturer would - an outsider who’s fascinated by politics, and wants you to be too.

Superb post. You’ve put it better than I ever could have.

Chris would be great in the role, but it’s understandable why he wouldn’t be interested. Obviously they’ll find someone, but if it ever became impossible surely they deputy - in this case Vicki Young - would be expected to step up by default?

I'm not sure you could force someone to step up - that could just result in that person leaving. One option would be to spread the role around a number of individuals so different political correspondents focusing on various bulletins. That would also make it a less intense role.

[Ash101]

Chris always describes issues like an excited university lecturer would - an outsider who’s fascinated by politics, and wants you to be too.

Superb post. You’ve put it better than I ever could have.

Chris would be great in the role, but it’s understandable why he wouldn’t be interested. Obviously they’ll find someone, but if it ever became impossible surely they deputy - in this case Vicki Young - would be expected to step up by default?

I'm not sure you could force someone to step up - that could just result in that person leaving. One option would be to spread the role around a number of individuals so different political correspondents focusing on various bulletins. That would also make it a less intense role.

That’s true, but apart from splitting it for TV and Radio I don’t quite know how you do it cleanly?

Newsnight already have their own political editor, are there any others?

[m_in_m]

Superb post. You’ve put it better than I ever could have.

Chris would be great in the role, but it’s understandable why he wouldn’t be interested. Obviously they’ll find someone, but if it ever became impossible surely they deputy - in this case Vicki Young - would be expected to step up by default?

I'm not sure you could force someone to step up - that could just result in that person leaving. One option would be to spread the role around a number of individuals so different political correspondents focusing on various bulletins. That would also make it a less intense role.

That’s true, but apart from splitting it for TV and Radio I don’t quite know how you do it cleanly?

Newsnight already have their own political editor, are there any others?

You could have the post job shared - not sure if any of the editor roles have done that before.

[Brekkie]

It's a strange one as it is the highest profile role but much of the on-screen time is being stood outside Westminster or Downing Street reeling off quotes or press releases. Also have to judge that fine line of holding politicians to account but also getting their trust and the trust of those around them too.

Reopening the process having already shortlisted it to two seems a bit odd too, especially if it's just for a couple of days. Makes it look like their has been a late applicant they are seriously considering and this is a cover to do that within the process.

[Axolotl]

It's a strange one as it is the highest profile role but much of the on-screen time is being stood outside Westminster or Downing Street reeling off quotes or press releases. Also have to judge that fine line of holding politicians to account but also getting their trust and the trust of those around them too.

Reopening the process having already shortlisted it to two seems a bit odd too, especially if it's just for a couple of days. Makes it look like their has been a late applicant they are seriously considering and this is a cover to do that within the process.

The Guardian article it says that the re-opening is to let Chris Mason (and/or possibly another candidate that they haven't mentioned) officially submit a CV and application letter.

[Jeff]

Not sure his style is right to be honest. Great at what he does, but he’s quite intellectual / nerdy (that’s not a bad thing!) and I think they need someone a bit more relatable to a wider audience. Sophy Ridge still gets my vote.

Edit: Also need to consider the optics of them getting down to a final 2 female candidates (one of which of colour), before turning them both down in favour of a white male. I don’t think they’ll do this.

I'm puzzled and stunned as to why (if The Sunday Times' reporting is correct) BBC bosses reportedly don't want either Ridge or Anushka Asthana to be the Political Editor.

Don't get me wrong, Mason would be a brilliant appointment and would probably steer the position/role back to providing analysis and insights rather than reporting anything and everything they're told like Kuenssberg has done (say that not as a criticism but rather an observation). However, both Ridge and Asthana would also be excellent in the role and bring their own unique approach to it.

[Markymark]

The Sunday Times reporting today that Chris Mason is back in the running for Political Editor.

Would definitely be a good appointment.

I agree, he’d be a great appointment, he’s one of the BBC’s real talents.

I agree he's excellent on screen, and off. (He's a bit of a radio anorak too, if you follow him on Twitter) I really like him, but I'm not sure about him becoming Political Editor, he's sort of too good where his is now, if you get my drift?

[House]

Not sure his style is right to be honest. Great at what he does, but he’s quite intellectual / nerdy (that’s not a bad thing!) and I think they need someone a bit more relatable to a wider audience. Sophy Ridge still gets my vote.

Edit: Also need to consider the optics of them getting down to a final 2 female candidates (one of which of colour), before turning them both down in favour of a white male. I don’t think they’ll do this.

I'm puzzled and stunned as to why (if The Sunday Times' reporting is correct) BBC bosses reportedly don't want either Ridge or Anushka Asthana to be the Political Editor.

Don't get me wrong, Mason would be a brilliant appointment and would probably steer the position/role back to providing analysis and insights rather than reporting anything and everything they're told like Kuenssberg has done (say that not as a criticism but rather an observation). However, both Ridge and Asthana would also be excellent in the role and bring their own unique approach to it.

If they were simply hiring based on reputation and an existing body of work, they wouldn’t bother to interview candidates. Perhaps they were unsatisfied with candidates’ answers about their approach to reporting or editorial stance, or maybe they didn’t feel that either had a sufficiently balanced group of contacts within politics, or maybe they sought to appoint one of them and found their salary requirements would be too large to publicly justify. Or maybe they felt Sophie Ridge was too inexperienced a beat reporter (having moved to a presenting role relatively quickly), or that Anushka didn’t have a strong enough track record for breaking stories or something. Impossible to know from the outside, but there are many conceivable reasons they haven’t felt comfortable making a high-profile, long-term appointment yet.

It’s also possible, given the BBC initially only invited internal applicants, that they looked at the shortlisted (external) candidates and simply felt they weren’t better than those who would be working under them. If reports that Chris Mason has been aggressively courted by rival broadcasters is true, perhaps they considered that a BBC politics unit with Chris Mason in it was stronger than one with Sophie or Anushka instead.

Lots of perfectly valid reasons. And, optically, it’s a really good reason to try to avoid all-female (or any other demographic) shortlists - they give you little room to go a different direction if those candidates turn out not to be the right ones.