´óÏó´«Ã½

Its tabloid gossip and not what you would expect from the ´óÏó´«Ã½. Moreover, the facts are still not clear!

I am surprised and disappointed that the editor of a ´óÏó´«Ã½ flagship news programme should believe that a story which, at this stage, is nothing other than a piece of showbiz gossip should "rightly have a prominent place on the news agenda".

Sorry, but I think you went way over the top on this story. If I want to read showbiz tittle-tattle, there are plenty of tabloid newspapers I can buy. I watch ´óÏó´«Ã½ news in the hope of hearing about more important matters.

By all means mention the story if you must, but surely 20 seconds or so should be enough.

I didn't see the news last night so I'm just going on what is in this article.

You say that there are a lot more important things going on in the world than this story. I would agree with that. So why put it so high in the scheduling?

I don't think it matters how famous the person is, they don't deserve high billing unless they've done something really special.

And of course there is the intrusion into privacy issue.

I agree with Adam's comment - this is not the sort of journalism in which a supposedly serious news programme should indulge.

The only reason there is interest in this story is the characters and the amount of money involved. It is not like the McFarlane case where a legal principle was at stake. It is also worth bearing in mind that the welfare of a small child is involved.

The divorce may be messy but I would have expected the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to know better.

If I want to read about celebrities and their private lives, I would buy a red top newspaper!

It's not a the kind of subject I expect to see on the ´óÏó´«Ã½s evening news; tabloids trying to fill space or sell papers, yes, ´óÏó´«Ã½ evening news, not really.

I have to side with the couple and their family. This is a private matter, regardless of professional successes.

On the topic of their case possibly setting a new record in UK divorce settlements, that remains a possibility, not something that's actually happened and doesn't need to be backed up by the nitty-gritty of their relationship, divorce, and 'alleged' details before the case has even been settled.

have you not realised that The whole point of such revelations is to create publicity and help engineer some sympathy for one party or the other - who edits the news? Max Clifford?

I wasn't surprised by the story being on the 10 o'clock news. I would have been more surprised had it not appeared. But rather than being a sign of quality, this is due to a general deterioration in what ´óÏó´«Ã½ news considers important in its coverage. You are right - there were more important events around the world. It just happens that these could and should have filled the whole of the Ten o'clock news, without resorting to this story. Those people who were interested had probably already read or heard about it. It's a shame that ´óÏó´«Ã½ news can't set the pace rather than follow others' lead.

To add my voice to the previous comments: this is not the sort of thing the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should be covering. Yes, McCartney is famous, but he hasn't done anything that's made him famous for several years now. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ should resist prying into the private lives of these two individuals, particularly when invasion of privacy was quoted in the reason for their split. Leave stories like this to ITV - it's what their viewers want. There are so many other more important or interesting things for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to report on (as you identify). So get reporting on them!

Should the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Report on the McCartney divorce? In a word NO!

An easy rule of thumb would be - would we report on a divorce case featuring an alleged violent husband, if the husband wasn't famous. If the answer is no, then don't report this tabloid fuelled rubbish.

The news is dumbed down enough without trawling the pages of the Sun for stories. If people want to hear about this stuff there are plenty other places this drivel can be dredged up.

This is straightforward enough.
It depends on what sort of rag you want to be.

This sounds as if the Beeb is using the Kelvin MacKenzie defence.

He once claimed (in a privacy case) "it is in the public interest to report this because the public is interested". That's not what public interest means!

I'd be quite happy if I never heard another celeb story again on the main Beeb news (or any other) unless it impinged upon my life in some way. Those stories belong in cheap magazines at least until they become undisputed facts.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ does not choose what is a prominent story, the public do. Yesterday, the story that people were talking about was the McCartney divorce, and many would have tuned into the 10 O' Clock news just to see that story.

It would have been arrogant and conceited for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to ignore a story of such public interest, and they were absolutely right to give it a spot on the 10 O' Clock news. Furthermore, I am reassured to see that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ question the importance of the news they could broadcast. Clearly what is broadcast has been carefully considered and fully scrutinised.

Job well done I say.

Dreadful sanctimonious nonsense in justifying having this rubbish in a top slot. It is bad enough having this sort of tosh on the 'Six'.

More of this 'News you can use' absurdity on the 'Ten' and you can kiss goodbye to being thought of as a serious news channel.

I've just finished reading John Simpson's book subtitled 'Taking the Hard Road to Baghdad' - I wonder what he would make of your 'justification' for this decision ?

Personally, my view is that the story fails the 'public interest' test - although, clearly, not the 'public might be interested' test !

Once the case goes to court the situation changes rather dramtically since the functioning of the country's justice system IS in the public interest.

However, publication and dissemination of claim/counter claim prior to proceedings is not, I would contend, something that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should entertain.

I think the difficulty with the News at 10 and also the 6.00 o clock news as well is that there is a noticiable "dumbing down" or "Celebing Up" of the news agenda. We have seen it with the ´óÏó´«Ã½ "news" coverage of sporting events such as England cricket wins or ball tampering and an utter failure to cover voices which are not part of the establishment. I'm afraid I just find it too painful (from the cringe point of view) sometimes to watch. The other major failure, which I am sure has been raied before, has been the lack continued anglo centric coverage of supposedly "domestic" issues such as health and education which for Wales, Scotland and NI have no relevance at all. Border TV have accomodated this by having a news opt out have way through. Its still Border TV news but Scottish Borders viewers are not then subjected to Carlisle stories and vice versa. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ coverage of the McCartney divorse for me just represents a far larger problem for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and there is a need to use that utter polluted phrase to get "back to basics" and understand what really is a news story and cover it... I would strongly recommend ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists read "The Universal Journalist" which sets out the high standards they and other journos should be trying to reach. ps I have no connection to the author or publisher or any financial interest in it, but it would be a good starting point for you.

I think it's important to define what "public interest" means with this.

It's not in the public interest in the context of it is information that directly concerns or affects them - it's in the public interest in the context of the public's unseemly penchant to want to pry into the private lives of famous people.

In that respect, I think it's a clear intrusion of privacy by the media, further sensationalism in an attempt to garner ratings with things that are not in the public interest, they're just interesting to the public.

The stated reason for the breakup to begin with was the pressure of media attention - Has the media considered the ethical implications that by giving the situation such a high profile they are potentially directly contributing to the issue?

Hmm, I just used "media" and "ethical" in the same sentence. Silly me.

Is the issue news? Certainly. Does it affect people's lives? Not in the slightest. Did it deserve to be given such a profile by in a news program? No.

People need to stop paying so much attention to the foibles and follies of the famous, and pay more attention to the things that matter. The media needs to go back to reporting on the things that matter, it's not like the world is providing slow news days any more.

While I also don't much care what happens to a pop star whose greatest days (and greatest music) are long behind him, and I'd just as soon never hear another word about it, I do take the point made by the editor.

If this is indeed going to be one of the most significant divorce settlements in history, then we need to not get hung up on the detail, and not get hung up on the fame, but the way in which it is handled bears examination.

To the extent that the press is being manipulated, used or leveraged in the trial, a dispassionate examination of who reported what, when, is interesting. If the ´óÏó´«Ã½ manages to elegantly sidestep the grimy details of the case itself and focus on the wider issues, it is an issue worthy of coverage.

I think the reaction of many previous posters has been, "I don't want to know because they're famous". If this was exactly the same divorce case but between to extremely wealthy but unknown people, it would merit interest due to the reasons above - they don't deserve additional privacy just because they're famous, and not all reporting that involves celebrities has to be shallow.

Yes, you should have been remiss and skipped this. You have only given excuses and not reasons for running it. The consequences of "being remiss" are negligible compared to the damage to your public respect and self-respect - you made the wrong comparison there. The real issue appears to be that nobody at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ had the courage to not run the story.

I think its true to say we have tabloids for this kind of stuff. We don't need it on the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

Besdies which does anyone really care? I mean honestly? Peoples most private information laid bare for us all to see?

Why do people want to see this stuff? Are we perverts?

Darren Hutchinson (4)
There are not more important things going on in the world. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Al Qaeda, the Taleban, Darfur, global warming, all pale in comparison to the breakup of Paul McCartney's marriage. The others are only potentially World War III, this IS World War III and the public wants to hear about it.

R. Stewart (7)
It's exactly the kind of story ´óÏó´«Ã½ reports best. Have you paid close attention to their other reports lately?

Alfredo (8)
Violence, alcohol, drugs (and promiscuous sex), this is what he and the other three bedbugs wrote about, sang about, glorified (well maybe not violence so much.) They made billions and therefore were knighted. Who would have thought in bygone centuries that one day mere minstrels would receive knighthood from the Crown of England just for selling their songs and making a lot of money?

´óÏó´«Ã½, you've finally found your true calling :>)

Darren Hutchinson (4)
There are not more important things going on in the world. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Al Qaeda, the Taleban, Darfur, global warming, all pale in comparison to the breakup of Paul McCartney's marriage. The others are only potentially World War III, this IS World War III and the public wants to hear about it.

R. Stewart (7)
It's exactly the kind of story ´óÏó´«Ã½ reports best. Have you paid close attention to their other reports lately?

Alfredo (8)
Violence, alcohol, drugs (and promiscuous sex), this is what he and the other three bedbugs wrote about, sang about, glorified (well maybe not violence so much.) They made billions and therefore were knighted. Who would have thought in bygone centuries that one day mere minstrels would receive knighthood from the Crown of England just for selling their songs and making a lot of money?

´óÏó´«Ã½, you've finally found your true calling :>)

It isn't news - it's gossip and tittle-tattle. And to be perfectly frank it is of no interest to me whatsoever.

For goodness sake concentrate on the real issues of the day.

For me, the question is what story got dropped or cut to make room?

If you'd feel even a little bit touchy about telling us that, then running this story in the ten o'clock news was the wrong decision.

One of the main points has been missed here. Irrespective of the nature of the story, tabloid or not, there are major questions as to how the information relating to the MCartney divorce became public. Never mind the ethics. Much of the discussions in newsrooms about whether to run the story will have been about the legal right of media sources to quote from what should have been confidential documents. Even now that does not seem to be clear. Most newspapers, but not all, decided that the juiciness of the story overrode any potential legal risks. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ must have had the same discussions and decided that the procedures put in place after the Hutton report could be ignored on this occasion. Remember all that guff about accuracy before speed in news reporting. Sad to see the ´óÏó´«Ã½ losing its nerve again and going for sensational rather than measured journalism.

"Paul McCartney is one the most famous people on earth.." On earth? Good heavens! Where on earth are you spending your time Craig Oliver?Perhaps you would be better suited to editing a tabloid newspaper or "Hello" magazine, rather than the ´óÏó´«Ã½ news. Yet another example of the rapid slide in standards of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, unfortunately.

Let's not beat around the bush here - this so-called "news agenda" (that the editor claims the Beeb shouldn't ignore) is actually an agenda increasingly driven by the moronic tabloid press. I've seen that happening year on year, whether it's the prominence awarded stories on Heather and Paul or the prominence given to negative "Muslim stories" - a favourite boogeyman of the popular right-leaning press.

The people that this tabloid-driven agenda appeals to are, let's be honest, far more likely to be interested in Paul and Heather's marriage shenanigans than in the latest developments in Darfur.

In my experience, this represents a significant portion of the country, if not a majority. And it pains me to say that. The popular press aren't called the "popular" press for no reason.

The dilemma the ´óÏó´«Ã½ faces, as always, is how to appeal to a nation of largely celebrity-obsessed voyeuristic and dumbed down news consumers without facing the charge that it itself is dumbing down.

If it goes the other way, it can just as easily be charged with being elitist and not in touch with the very public that's funding it.

It's a vicious circle, but I feel that we desperately need people and organisations to lead by example and not succumb to the downward pull of tabloid values.

If Newsnight can send an 'ethical' reporter to Jamaica to hand out lightbulbs I'd say the governors will let you do just about anything you like.

Whether the people that pay your wages will be happy though is anything thing.

And while I'm on Newsnight they're pushing their environment bandwagon so hard you may as well push the sensationalism of celebrity.

Who needs news on the news anyway.

Guess that's why you're asking us.

It's interesting to see that almost everyone who has replied to this post agrees that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ were wrong to give so much coverage to such a trivial story.

I look forward to reading a future "Editor's Blog" on the lessons the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has learnt from this.

Hasn't the ´óÏó´«Ã½ noticed there are other things going on in the world that are slighly more important? When the divorce is finally granted the ´óÏó´«Ã½ may report it by saying "Today Paul McCarthy and Heather Mills were granted a divorce". Some hope!

If it is to be covered, then it shouldn't be given a prominent place in the schedule. As the saga will no doubt play out very messily over the next few months, with both sides employing PR teams to maximise the use of all news channels, having some ability to not be manipulated by the story's originators should be possible.
Or perhaps the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should do what Channel 5 does and have a totally separate celeb news slot, which thus puts the trivia back into it all.

It would seem that most of the above posters are male and state that it did not need to be in the tv news.

Paul's somewhat beastly behaviour would be termed abuse in some places.

So would the story be abuse and why a woman should or should not stay or the public's purient interest of the beastly behaviour of someone they admire?

The slant of the coverage would determine the necessity.

If you want to report on individual stories, how can these allegations come before the recollections of the murder of a police woman. The news bulletins I heard yesterday were worthy of sky news - a bit of glamour horror gossip to make the rest more palatable.

Matilda: That is assuming he has done anything wrong and even if he has do you honestly think if joe bloggs down the street was in the same situation it would even get a mention on the news? No of course not this is triviel nonesnese.

If you want to read stories like this i suggest you stick to your girly magazines.

I think it's a stupid argument to say that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should cover it because it's out there in the general media. Rubbish is rubbish and you're just dumbing down. If this sort of thing wasn't spoon fed to the public the appetite for it wouldn't be growing. That kind of reportage has a similar affect on our minds as fast food does on our bodies. You're falling prey to a lower level of journalism. If that happens what will differentiate the ´óÏó´«Ã½ from everyone else?!

I'm a staunch supporter of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, but I can't see why the 10 (or any of the main news programmes) should be covering this story. One of the main question an editor should ask is 'Does this story affect the viewers'? Sir Paul's divorce doesn't.

At the point that there is a divorce settlement, then that will be hard news - and will merit a brief item.

Up until then, the PR antics of the various parties involved are not hard news. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ should not be reporting on them in its main bulletins.

LET IT BE, LET IT BE.

Please stop talking about this subject. As far as I am concerned they both deserve each other. I don't care what happened in their marriage. It is not news its gossip. Let the courts sort it out. Why not cover the impact of the war on our armed services and their families. ITV are leaving you standing.

We watch the ´óÏó´«Ã½ news programs for one reason only. To see 'the news' that has happened in the day around the world. Since the story about Sir Paul McCartney is currently tabloid heresay and rumour spread to damage and shock and to expand newspaper sales. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ dont need to do that and its not the quality of journalism we as a British public expect from their news teams.
Personally I would prefer to keep this gutter news where it belongs, in the gutter press.

Elizabeth- if you take the time to write about it, then you care about it.Don't kid yourself !

As an ex-pat living overseas I don't know how much coverage was given to this story in the mainstream press but I do know that many more important things have happened in the last week or so than this. This story is important only to the lives of the people it affects. Others which have been covered on world news have much wider impacts. They include: a bomb in Peshawar, Pakistan killing many; on-going problems in Darfur; failing peace talks in Uganda; failing crops and potential famine in Afghanistan; increasing tensions in Sri Lanka; pending elections in USA which may radically change the power in Capitol Hill; not to mention the on-going tensions in the middle East and N Korea. I can only guess how much coverage these stories got in the UK but please, each of them deserved more than some couples possible divorce papers. I expect more of the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

I don't care about them and neither should the ´óÏó´«Ã½. To use that oft repeated phrase "my licence money" shouldn't be used for you to compete with "Heat" magazine.

There's far too much trash about so called celebrities on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and nowhere near enough coverage of the intellectual life of Britain and the world.

Also, there is much too much sport. Sport is not news. In case the ´óÏó´«Ã½ hasn't noticed there exist channels covering nothing but sport. People who like that sort of thing can easily switch over to Jockstrap World.

Why should anyone be wringing thier hands about the fate of Paul McCartney and his soon-to-be-ex-wife? The guy is loaded and will still come out of this wealthier than most of us can only dream. His offspring will enjoy a far better quality of life than most of the other kids who are the victims of lesser divorces. Who cares about these two morons? Not me. Lets get on with the real issues of the world, and not the antics of self-seeking luvvies.