How to devalue a conversation- Woman's Hour

At the risk of repeating myself, Grantanow
There are ways of being correct and preventing court cases etc without doing it this way and sounding so dismissive.
It is new with this presenter.
That's all.

It's essential for the BBC (1) to maintain a neutral stance as a public service broadcaster (not required of commercial TV or the press), and (2) to fend off libel suits (which would, if successful, have be paid from the licence fee). Applies also to Channel 4 though they are funded by advertising revenue.

I don’t listen to the radio but have some sympathies, NotSpagetti. It’s that lazy repetition of the same phrase! Maddening! I said the same here about gardening helping with mental health issues - it wasn’t the activity that irritates but the overuse of the phrase, a short-cut term for lazy presenters. My post was received as a comment on gardening. Probably me…

Yes, I feel it's exactly that sort of thing Doodledog

I think you've made it clear that you understand why it's happening, NS, and are reacting to the manner in which it's done.

I tend to only hear Weekend WH these days, but will listen out for it on Saturday. I can see why it would be annoying though - I find it irritating when people interject with 'in your opinion', as though that doesn't go without saying, and this sounds as though it will be the same sort of thing.

I'm obviously out on a limb here

I'll admit I haven't heard her, I was just explaining why she might keep saying it.
🙂

*else - not rose 🙄

I know this.

There are ways of being correct without doing it this way.
That's all.

I'm obviously out on a limb here.
No one rose seems to have noticed this style of being legally accurate.

This is obviously a non-issue for most of you! [Grin]

It is used in discussions in the media because to state something as an unproven fact could prejudice any possible prosecution and court case.

I know why they do it (and have done it for years) but it's the way This person does it that I find rather disrespectful to be honest.

Maybe I am the only one who feels this - or even has noticed.

It is for legal reasons. To avoid a defamation action.

I agree it's a legal thing - BEEB covering its back.

i'm sure it's what they have been told to ensure, for legal reasons, by the bbc.
also the bbc has to always be balanced, and its presenters are meant to be neutral, in a way that commercial stations don't have to be.
see how many presenters who left bbc, enjoy saying what they really feel about a subject once they have moved to a commercial station.
so i understand your point, but i don't blame this presenter, and i much prefer her to the abrasive person, ? bennet/ barrett ?