³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I personally consider the warnings about the effects brought about by the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union to be a bit too extreme. I do not consider the issues listed by Minister Byrne as fully characterizing the Romanian or Bulgarian people behavior. It is interesting to note that from an open policy towards people coming from the new member states of the EU, Her Majesty's Government made a u-turn in relation to the people coming from Romania and Bulgaria. In this sense, I consider illustrative the statement made by Minister Reid who announced that labour restrictions will be endorsed against Romanian and Bulgarian people. This statement made by Minister Byrne comes just to add another negative perspective on the accession of Romania and Bulgaria. The United Kingdom, from a close ally of the two new member states is gradually turning into one of the fiercest opponents. I think it is a pitty and that time will prove that these decisions had been completely inadequate.

Dear Newsnight

What is damaging politics? mmmmmmmm
negative campaigning is certainly part of it but more than this it is the way elected representatives behave when they get to office.

Its more like some sort of feudal system with them presiding over us the peasants -who are allowed to have no say about anything.

Take last night. The country is crying out for an Inquiry. We wouldnt have even attacked Iraq in the first place if we were a real democracy where the Politicians listen and care about what people think.But done worthwhile things instead for the World and our Country, feeding people, healing them, not killing and maiming them.

There is no way that last night was a fair vote. How much bullying and arm-twisting went on before hand to make MPs vote against their consciencne and judgement we do not know -but it worked.

How clever you are Mr Blair!

The wishes of the people were again subjugated to the will of the executive -and their friends most of whom we know nothing about, creeping around the shadows.

We the electors would like an inquiry into Iraq to be held and the Government NOT to be allowed to choose its own judge as it did with Hutton or the timetable the Inquiry follows. Its obvious that they will choose the person they feel for whatever reason will be most compliant to their wishes. Such an Inquiry must be held quickly not stretching years into the future.

It’s clear that the Government is composed largely of self serving opportunists and that although in different parties many other Parliamentarians care only about themselves.

Which political commentator by the way included in his book the suggestion that often politics attracts second raters?

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? !!!!!!

We really must open up our democracy to ordinary [more normal people] people. By normal I mean people who are not prepared to neglect their families and careers because they feel incomplete as people without the attention that public life brings, or the power it gives them over, often more talented people. We need people who in a sense do not want to be there or do not crave attention or publicity. We need more adequate people in Parliament.

This has to be the way forward for democracy. Whatever they say many MPs do not want to see this-

I was struck by an interview two days ago with a First World War veteran who met for the first time someone he fought in the German army.

He said that ‘ordinary people do not want war, they just want to get on with each other’

How right he is. That is exactly it.

And feed the hungry of the World and give more money to the NHS

Not spend billions on weapons systems that only someone criminally insane would use-

Please!! To those looking at this site, we must reclaim our democracy and if political parties are part of the problem now and have outlived their usefulness, and in fact serve to keep ordinary people from developing a career in politics, then I suggest it is time for the Party system to go or we at least find ways to give MPs a more independent mandate when we send them to Parliament.

Best wishes

Bob Goodall

Why didnt you let the Parkinson show do the Madonna interview?

I am so sad that Newsnight has succumbed to an interview about Madonna as their lead story.

Madonna's adoption intrigue is not news. It is NOT NEWS. A celebrity adopts a baby, screws up. The end.

Why was this story deemed necessary for giving airtime to? And your talking heads offering commentary afterwards (why can't the father take a bus, or a train?) was shameful.

Can you please stick with in depth stories that no one else can be bothered to cover?

If I watch the show again, I hope to see more of those.

10.30pm, ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ2, Wednesday.

Expected Newsnight but came across a celebrity-broadcast courtesy of "Madonna" where we were educated on her new book, her new single and got to watch videos of her family.

The "interview" was novel in that it seemed to be conducted in what looked like a tent that had been hastily constructed from some old curtains. Presumably, this was because the Newsnight studio was not a place that "Madonna" was prepared to visit.

I suppose we're now on a downward spiral which ends with Jeremy Paxman live from the Big Brother house?

I can't believe you let Madonna run rings around you, another example of an interviewer giving deference to a star. It was a disgrace she was allowed to give offence to the father, run down his relationship with the child to justify her getting her way. Poor stuff, dumbing down at its worst. If its not professional dont do it she can use tabloid TV not Newsnight.

I'm interested in Madonna, so I'm glad Newsnight did an interview with her. She is an interesting person let's face it. I could see when Kirsty interviewed her she really wanted to be taken seriously away from her pop image. I don't like what celebrity culture stands for and Madonna is totally part of it - but let's be happy she has done something good for that little boy from Malawi and it will have a knock on effect and eventually David Richie will help his fellow Malawians in a way that we cannot see right now. It is all good.People are just too cynical these days, our innocence is gone. Even good things become twisted into negetivity.

Duncan Ballentine is famous for what? His attitudes towards Malawian orphans and the Banda case are shockingly prehistoric, economic racism at best. Madonna has done more to highlight the impact of AIDS than most. She should be admired for the personal committment and involvement shown, and not sneered at by a person who represents the type of naked unbridled capitalism that has Africa where it is today.

The report from Burma is another reminder of a population under threat. Whilst the USA feasts on inwardly focused bar-room electioneering brawling led by Bush himself, and the UK is whipping up a storm over immigration and uncontrollable teenagers, many countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan face hunger, misery and poverty for years.

On Romania and Bulgaria, how much worse are their criminals likely to be than our own? The news read out by Jeremy included a story of a man released on parole after three years following a conviction for manslaughter, who went on to kill 4 innocents. If Britain had a quarter of the societal and family values found in either of Romania or Bulgaria, it would be a far richer country, with far fewer social and crime problems to contend with.

Savage

As Newsnight interviews go, Kirty's with Madonna was about as fawning as you can get. Why wasn't Madonna pressed on any of the points - some of which were ridiculous - that she raised?

Madonna claimed that she received no special treatment while in Malawi. Yet it escaped the attention of Britain's media that in fact she had a meeting with Malawi's president, Bingu was Mutharika, on October 10 (see ). The details of the meeting were not released, but it is extremely unlikely that the subject of her adoption was ignored. Moreover, she was meant to receive an official welcome on her arrival from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Natural Resources. Are meetings with Malawi's president and an official greeting from a cabinet minister prerogatives granted to all prospective adoptive parents? Amazingly enough, no. Maybe, just maybe, Madonna's status as one of the world's most famous women had something to do with her unique experience in this regard.

Madonna also said that Malawi's adoption laws should be changed "because when the whole of your adult population has been wiped out" you [the Malawian government] need to help speed things up. This is an absurd, disingenuous and patronising comment. It is completely false and presents a wholly bigoted and negative view of the country. Even more significantly, if carried to its logical conclusion, Madonna's statement suggests the adoption abroad of all Malawi's one million orphans - virtually none of which would return to contribute to the country. Malawi has few natural resources. Its people, its population, are its most valuable resource. Without its people - especially its children - Malawi has no future. Mooting the mass adoption of its children is tantamount to advocating the eventual deterioration of the country.

As Newsnight interviews go, Kirty's with Madonna was about as fawning as you can get. Why wasn't Madonna pressed on any of the points - some of which were ridiculous - that she raised?

Madonna claimed that she received no special treatment while in Malawi. Yet it escaped the attention of Britain's media that in fact she had a meeting with Malawi's president, Bingu was Mutharika, on October 10 (see ). The details of the meeting were not released, but it is extremely unlikely that the subject of her adoption was ignored. Moreover, she was meant to receive an official welcome on her arrival from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Natural Resources. Are meetings with Malawi's president and an official greeting from a cabinet minister prerogatives granted to all prospective adoptive parents? Amazingly enough, no. Maybe, just maybe, Madonna's status as one of the world's most famous women had something to do with her unique experience in this regard.

Madonna also said that Malawi's adoption laws should be changed "because when the whole of your adult population has been wiped out" you [the Malawian government] need to help speed things up. This is an absurd, disingenuous and patronising comment. It is completely false and presents a wholly bigoted and negative view of the country. Even more significantly, if carried to its logical conclusion, Madonna's statement suggests the adoption abroad of all Malawi's one million orphans - virtually none of which would return to contribute to the country. Malawi has few natural resources. Its people, its population, are its most valuable resource. Without its people - especially its children - Malawi has no future. Mooting the mass adoption of its children is tantamount to advocating the eventual deterioration of the country.

You have wasted license payers money interviewing Madonna.
Please don't do this again.

A once great programme now devotes it self to puff pieces on celebrities. I've been a consistant viewer of your broadcast for many years, todays show hits a new low. Newsnight was once a place where one could escape from this form of worthless tripe! Whatever credibility this show clung to in recent times is now lost. Mrs Wark's star-struck display served only to embarrass herself and discredit your broadcast.

That kitsch "candle-lit" set was presumably dictated by Madonna - not Newsnight taste surely?

And why didn't Kirsty ask about Madonna's intervention in Malawi promoting Kaballah?

Her 'Raising Malawi' orphanage project includes indoctrinating the kids.

Madonna must be in shock at here appears to be a consensus that a it is better to live in the deepest povertry and dying at half the age of the tender hearted in daily celebration of diversity amid prosperity. A epithanous moment where the toutings and posturings of idealogical compassion is confronted by the authentic essence of the genuine article.

Just to come back to this blog about Madonna; the argument about her wealth being a reason why adoption is a phony option for her is ridiculous! The Queen of England could probably take ALL the kids of Malawi out of poverty with her wealth. No one accuses her of turning a blind eye to everything. (which she does). The world is corrupt. Of course the candles were ridiculous in the Madonna interview, I am sure she is a control freak. However, that boy David is now out of a horrible life of poverty. Every kid should get that chance. Take a look at inner city Britain! Tony Blair is a total idiot. He blows up half of Iraq with his foreign policy and yet he can't even address the problems of social inequality in his OWN country. No one speaks the truth anymore. Madonna's adoption is the LEAST of our problems.

Can someone tell me who decided Newsnight should turn itself into "Starf****rs"? Audience chasing is the road to ruin.

Why does Newsnight want to turn into Hello magazine?

I don't want to see so called 'news' featuring celebrities.

It´s just amazing that the most powerful men and women in the world are voted in to power on the basis of such nonsense in America.

God bless David Cameron for making political headway in opposition with something useful like climate change and the environment, he may be arrogant, he may be clever, he may even be a flip-flopper but at least he has some sense of morals and doesn´t totally pull the wool over people´s eyes.

It seems highly dubious that American soldiers are said to be dying for the freedom of others when the Americans are making a mockery of their own democracy, if I was an Iraqi I´d think that was almost a motivation to fight against rather than with the allies. American democracy is no longer healthy, it´s psychotic!

Madonna was the right interview to get but why was it run in the Newsnight slot when subjects are usually given a hard time with secondary follow up questions by a well-briefed presenter.
Kirsty looked absolutely lovely in her silver frock and silver shoes which matched the lace drapes and candles but to put this celebrity documentary series interview in the Newsnight slot was awfully compromising.
Well done for having a go at this weird but inportant story - well done for not being a bully or a snob about it - but yuk, that was so soft focus you had to get someone on afterwards to suggest that there may be a critical approach to what she had done.

Madonna's interview was boring, too long and not a real news item.
By all means use the story as an intro to discuss current orphan issues but remember what makes Newsnight a good programme and why your audience watches.

As with regards to Madonna. Being a singer is hard enough, I´ve tried it myself, you have to stand an awful lot of criticism from the music industry and other professionals to get where you want to be.

Then, when you get there, you have to deal with the media, so much so that if you even fart in the wrong key it´s all over the front pages and now, being the Angel that she´s been over the years (for a rock star) she decides to do something which I´m sure she herself and her husband saw as the morally correct thing to do and she gets torn apart for it. I think that it´s great that she´s decided to even show any interest at all in people less fortune than herself, that much at least has to be applauded.

Madonna is the way she is partly becuase of her lifestyle and the media have done a lot in shaping that personality. So, as long as she acts as a rich tart who doesn´t care about anyone, no-one cares because she´s a "typical celebrity" when she wants to do something good, she´s just using people she can´t win and maybe she starts feeling depressed or trapped becuase she was actually being nice. I think it´s an appauling misuse of the press and such things encourage celebrities to be bastards.

Leave her alone!!!!

Ref: Bob Goodall #2

If scientists could discover a method of converting your generosity of spirit into fuel for transport and power stations, we might not need to worry so much about climate change.

I couldn't agree more about the mediocrity of much of what passes for the workings of democracy at Westminster. This may be middle-aged nostalgia kicking in, but I believe the ratio of independent-minded parliamentarians to pliable servants of power has never been, in my lifetime, as dispiriting as it is now.

It's interesting that over the years some of the best parliamentarians have been those derided for their extremism, like Enoch Powell and Tony Benn. The much execrated Powell, for instance, was able (as far as I'm aware) to combine personal probity with parliamentary integrity in a way that seems well beyond the capabilities (or even the ambition) of many of today's MPs.

I've argued elsewhere that decisions regarding significant deployments of British troops are too important to be left to those who've proved incapable of exercising their judgments on these matters with the necessary degree of intelligence or honesty. In future, such decisions should be made directly by electors through a referendum. However, this is clearly not a feasible alternative when it comes to the ordinary business of government.

So what's the answer? I'm not sure; but we certainly need a debate.

The Madonna piece, with the discussion afterwards, was better than I had been expecting. I agreed with much of what Oona King said. The firebrand who sat opposite proved more contentious than Madonna, in the event. Unlike her, he appeared uncaring and incoherent.

So it looks like the right decision to air it, then explore the issues the interview raised. It definitely needed both - or the criticisms which have been levelled of "fawning" would have been wholly justified. It was, thankfully, not like the Pete Doherty 2 interview!
No doubt Madonna's appearance attracted new viewers, which has to be a major consideration; even if only a few of them return, it will have been worthwhile.

Whilst there is an array of points that have come out of the media circus that has revolved around the Madonna/adoption news story, that are relevant and need further exploration in today’s society, I am still dismayed as to the choice of Newsnight, not only to run an interview with Madonna, but to lead with the interview.
If the positioning of this interview within the show wasn't bad enough, I am still perplexed as to why the interview was allowed as much airtime as it was, let alone the bad taste in which it was conducted aesthetically, for one moment I thought I had been transported in to a world where one of the last bastions of serious news reporting, Newsnight, had turned in to ITV's This Morning. I cannot understand why Newsnight keeps attempting to self destruct and lower it standards with such populist nonsense, I don't watch Newsnight for the weather, nor do I watch it to understand Madonna's inner turmoil over the media circus she herself has bought on. This was self indulgent on behalf of Madonna, and as previously mentioned you should have let ITV undertake this interview, and continue to use the license payers money for providing strong, thought provoking news reports and keeping your head when all others/news channels are losing theirs to the masses. Should you prevail in wanted to broadcast such interviews, can I suggest you take the lead from CNN and their interview earlier this year with Angelina Jolie.

Whilst there is an array of points that have come out of the media circus that has revolved around the Madonna/adoption news story, that are relevant and need further exploration in today’s society, I am still dismayed as to the choice of Newsnight, not only to run an interview with Madonna, but to lead with the interview.
If the positioning of this interview within the show wasn't bad enough, I am still perplexed as to why the interview was allowed as much airtime as it was, let alone the bad taste in which it was conducted aesthetically, for one moment I thought I had been transported in to a world where one of the last bastions of serious news reporting, Newsnight, had turned in to ITV's This Morning. I cannot understand why Newsnight keeps attempting to self destruct and lower it standards with such populist nonsense, I don't watch Newsnight for the weather, nor do I watch it to understand Madonna's inner turmoil over the media circus she herself has bought on. This was self indulgent on behalf of Madonna, and as previously mentioned you should have let ITV undertake this interview, and continue to use the license payers money for providing strong, thought provoking news reports and keeping your head when all others/news channels are losing theirs to the masses. Should you prevail in wanted to broadcast such interviews, can I suggest you take the lead from CNN and their interview earlier this year with Angelina Jolie or better still more of your blogs from Iraq spending time to educate your viewers on points they care about, if I want celebrity culture, there is certainly plenty to be absorbed in this obsessed country and I always thought Newsnight was the escape from it all

The author evidently did not approve my comment that was not abusive, etc... and I want to know why???? My comment meant alot to me and you should've cared enough to allow it, being that it was meant for GOOD, not EVIL! Also, I guess if it were done to CRITICIZE Madonna, for publicity reasons, you would've allowed it???? I don't know that for sure, but I am waiting for your response to explain it to me.

Why is all this fire and passion directed at the Madonna piece, and none at all generated by the ghastly junta that runs Burma? That was a much more worthwhile topic, and one which sadly seems to be set aside whenever it does get a mention in the media. We saw a woman who earned 20 pence a day - enough for a few handfuls of rice to put in her children's mouths, and were told that a wedding among the ruling set was likely to cost millions of pounds. Now there's obscenity for you! That was a proper Newsnight report, and worth sitting through the star-froth for.

Dear Newsnight

re last night's celebrity interview

Kirsty looked impressive as usual, who was the person she was with?

I think any hook is useful for a somewhere like Africa and allowed the issue to be aired again. Maybe thats a little 'simplistic' Chloe -just read your comment from the other night, ouch!

best wishes

Bob Goodall

if we reverted to called the children "children" rather than the ghastly & ubiquitous "kids", it might be a start.

What a disgrace for a normanlly interesting show to devote time to
Madonna.

I live and work in the USA and recommend newsnight webcasts and podcasts to all but I think I'll stop now.

I agree with the majority of the comments here regarding the Madonna ‘interview’ – it was sycophancy masquerading as journalism. As for the debate with the talking heads after this puff piece, I’m pretty sure that both of them were arguing the same things last week on channel 5’s morning talkshow (I start work late!). Anyway, I’m sure that the esteemed Mr.Paxman himself, was less than impressed with the Madonna infomercial – why else would the closing credits of last night’s programme give his name as ‘Jermy Paxman’??

Africa has a new friend in China and Stephanie Flandre would tell us that china is looking to secure the raw materials it needs for its ever growing demanding industry, that we know, what she would not tell us is that, all other countries that colonised it (africa)have always done the same including Britain. Please Steph, go much furhter

I just don't have anything to say , but shrug. So it goes. Not much on my mind recently. I can't be bothered with anything recently.