´óÏó´«Ã½

I'd be interested to know if that second comment was posted by a woman or not- at first glance it seems rather patronising of the average female interest in current affairs.

It's remarkable to describe there being nothing 'newsworthy' between 6:30 and 9:00, when programmes like 'Today' are broadcast... and to compare to The One Show? I don't mean to talk down the show, it's great for what it is, but as a current affairs programme?

The mind boggles.

I'll admit the interviewing style on the Today programme could use a bit of work and Lord knows its weather reports are useless to the point of comedy, but what is this "news" to which the second writer refers that doesn't include local or international events and politics?

Or perhaps you should point this person towards Fi Glover's new Saturday morning show?

'I don't want to hear men talking for two hours'
I seem to remember hearing several women presenters on the Today program not to mention the numerous women who are interviewed

They might have a point. After all, further down your own blog, you say: "Politics is no longer the draw it used to be. Viewing figures are falling. Fewer people are voting. And most alarmingly, the average age of those who say they’re interested in politics is rising sharply. Very few people under the age of 45 take our political processes and institutions seriously."
I've been politically active for years, but I find myself turning off the radio, switching channels on the TV, avoiding newspapers and skimming by any mention of politics on the web.
Why? Because the emperor has no clothes. You can see through all the false facades to the ugly, naked truth underneath and that's completely unappealing.

On the Fishing front. Why don't you just stick to fishing.com or whatever its you read because let's be honest with each other no wants to know. I would also like to know how fishing is a team sport. (unless of course you are refering to real fisherman in the North Sea, who of course work in a team but would hate to call their jobs a 'sport')

On the "womens" front, I suggest spending the day reading the Daily Mail. Simple really.

One theme keeps coming through. There are too many people giving opinions instead of news.
Opinions by people of no particular significance or of supposed political bias are really irritating.
Young people may not be politically active because we had never had it so good – as the saying goes. If the economy goes to pot I imagine that there will be a very rapid change of attitude.

I agree with John R - what on earth does the second correspondent mean by 'news'? Despite being a woman (and young) I don't feel that the Today programme isn't 'aimed' at me, and I find it an excellent start to the morning, even if I'm occasionally laughing at rather than with it...

Perhaps the greatest untold domestic story of the last 40 years has been the changed lives of women, so that now the vast majority work outside the home, are present in the workplace, vote, and sometimes live independently of men, and want information to enable them to do all those things, and more, effectively. We listen to programmes like breakfast and drive-time ones when, decades ago, almost only men did, because we are going to work and driving at the same times. But programmes like Today have prided themselves in changing little, still providng the male posturing, confrontation and beliefs of old, contemptuous of other ways of handling stories, of different news agendas.

It makes little difference that some women are involved in the production, and indeed the management heirarchy, because, as ever, it is only when women, together with those still rare men who understand women, are the majority at all relevant levels that the organisation reliably reflects women. This has been obviously the case in journalism since the Daily Mirror was launched as a picture newspaper for women - a male proprietor's idea of a newspaper for women, with senior men contemptuous of women, and female staff trained to do as men and obey male management. It failed and was soon relaunched for a different readership.

Others learned the wrong lesson from that. Instead we got owmen's magazines. So the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s idea of stuff for women is houses, make-overs, child-raising, holidays, health, care of the elderly, and "dishy" or glamourous presenters - as if our lives haven't changed at all. And what is worst seeming to indicate the expectation, perhaps even hope that this change in our lives is only temporary and we may soon be rolled back exclusively into the home and into total dependence as happened after WWII, and as the pope, evangelical christianity and some branches of Islam, especially the Taliban, would intend - a profoundly anti-woman message.

I believe it will unfortunately be a long time before the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has news programmes that don't mostly repell women listeners and viewers. Every time there is an opportunity to use some new space for such a purpose it is seized in advance by the traditionalists - such as when Radio Five, as a news radio channel, was decided to be aimed at men by requiring all of its journalists to be male-sports experienced, and by News24 to be such a rapidly rotating news format working to the same agenda as all other news. In the meantime complaints, such the one quoted, will increase.