to think interviewers should be less intrusive

A quote from George Bernard Shaw. He doesn't seem to have held newspaper journalism in high esteem either.

We do enjoy the hushed and reverential tones in which snooker and bowls continue to be presented, and the jollity of the cricket commentaries on the radio when Henry Blofelt is on.

I've just remembered that about 20 years ago my husband was in a plane crash. It was only a little 2 seater and no great harm was done. He called me as soon as he got to a phone to let me know what had happened. Shortly after his call I was phoned by a reporter who started off with "Did you know your husband's just crashed in a plane?" Well suppose I hadn't known! As it was he was a bit put out because I showed no signs of collapsing in hysterics and told him I knew all about it. It's obviously much more satisfying if you can be the one who breaks the bad news as well as raking over the misery.

It's happening with everything vampire My enjoyment of formula 1 is being ruined by all the stupid music (To attract the yoof!) and the film trailer type voice overs trying to make it exciting ( They're driving at up to 200 mph - it is exciting!)

There are those stupid over the top trailers they do for Eastenders - it's a soap not Titus Andronicus.

And there's the all time favourite - the reporter standing by the Police barrier several haundred yards from the scene of the crime while the voice from the studio asks breathlessly " Tell us, what do you know?" Answer "sod all!"

Slightly off track but has anyone noticed that the media are trying to build today's weather into something worse than it really is. One reporter was at the coast somewhere in Ireland at high tide standing in front of a boat slipway that was covered in water and whilst he didn't actually say so the implication was that the tide threateningly high. It's a boat slipway it's supposed to be covered at high tide.

Another reporter was on a bridge over the M62 at Huddersfield commenting on how windy it was and how the traffic which was now moving quite freely had been backing up for some time before. I know this particular area. It's high on the moors and the wind blows there even on relatively calm summer days. As for the traffic, there is a massive amount of road works being done just before and after that part of the M62 with lane closures and 50mph speed limits. Of course the traffic was moving slowly earlier in the day. It does that every day on that patch of road as people go to and from work. The sheer weight of traffic is greater than the road can deal with hence the road works. They're adapting it so that the hard shoulder can be used at certain times.

Mine too papaoscar - flash away!

"treats" should read tears of course.

There seem to be no holds barred to interviewing techniques these days and I think they can often be pointless, as well as rude, abrasive and intrusive. A good interviewer should be able to get to the heart of a question without aggressive questioning, but sadly the practice is widespread these days, as are the activities of the papararazzi. While such doings are permitted and well-rewarded nothing will stop them, but I don't like them. I get particularly irritated by cocky, young reporters strutting, pontificating, and gesticulating about subjects of which they're virtually ignorant, but perhaps thats just me flashing my own prejudices again!

I was most impressed by the dignity of the Steenkamp family when they were mobbed by reporters after the sentencing of Pistorius. They were repeatedly prompted to say that the sentence was too lenient, but they just kept repeating that they were satisfied that justice had been done.

So sorry that this happened to you vampire - the press are impossible.

The questions they ask are so vacuous and inappropriate, and they press on until they get the treats that they want - it's revolting really.

Yes I am sure there are people who are seduced by the limelight, but I think journalists have a duty not to exploit their vulnerability.

The puzzle to me is that I know no-one who really wants to see or hear this stuff - who are they doing it for?

Vampirequeen . That was appalling. So sorry.

When my son died of cot death a report appeared in the local paper the next day even though they'd not even spoken to us.

The massive headline said 'Baby found dead' and it went on and on about how a baby had been found dead etc and finally at the end as a throw away comment said that the police had said there were no suspicious circumstances. It was a non story. A filler. Unfortunately because we lived in a very small street all our friends and relatives realised who it was so found out in a very brutal manner because it was printed before we could tell anyone.

The media intrude wherever and whenever they choose. If you don't agree to interview or they can't get to you they'll report it anyway.

No one is obliged to give an interview but those who give their permission are deluding themselves if they think any interviewer will not be asking intrusive questions.

There are those who also like the attention of being in the media and willingly take part regardless.

Some people do. The same people who buy magazines containing lurid first-person stories of betrayal, assault and 'my mother slept with my fiancé'-type revelations.

And those who watch the Jeremy Kyle show...

"How did you feel when you saw your entire family swept away in the forest fire/ avalanche/ tidal wave?" Well what do they expect the answer to be and why do they think we want to see this?

And one can say no comment if a microphone is shoved in one's face, or walk away. Interviewers get away with it because people let them, and then people lap up listen to the sob stories on radio or TV and complain about the interviewers.

What annsixty talks about could be refused as well.

Was the woman in a studio/at home or was she just approached out of the blue on the street. If the former, she could have refused the offer of an interview.

And to show the bereaved looking through photographs of loved ones,they must surely have asked them to do that.

Completely agree - I hate the way cameras zoom in and people are asked questions that are designed to make them break down and cry on TV. There is nothing clever about exploiting people like that.

And why do they always have to ask 'How did you feel when...(whatever tragedy, disaster or other horrific event) happened?'

To be fair, they ask that question even it's a happy event or outcome - but it's just voyeurism, as sunseeker says.

I agree, sunseeker, I was impressed when one of the injured young survivors of the avalanche in the Himalayas told the interviewer he didn't want to talk about it as he was too shocked.

Send them on their way. They're just feeding off people's misery.