Laura Kuenssberg to step down as BBC Political editor

[Jimini]

I would have thought that was a sideway step. Chief political editor must be one of the top on screen jobs.
A one hour a week show seems a step down..how does the money compare?

About a £70k payrise..

**Edit** potentially up to £75k but unlikely:

Access Restricted

Laura Kuenssberg will receive a pay rise worth tens of thousands of pounds after being named as Andrew Marr's successor on the BBC's flagship Sunday political programme, The Telegraph understands.

It is understood that Ms Kuenssberg - currently earning between £260,000 and £265,000 a year - will enjoy a pay rise worth tens of thousands when she replaces Mr Marr on the BBC’s Sunday morning politics programme from September, which will be revamped and renamed for her tenure.

Mr Marr, also a former BBC political editor, left the corporation in December after earning between £335,000 and £340,000 a year at the broadcaster. It is understood Ms Kuenssberg will not receive the roughly £75,000 pay rise which would bring her to parity with her predecessor’s final salary. The BBC indicated that Mr Marr had other commitments which his successor is not taking on

Ms Kuenssberg, who has been BBC political editor for seven years, said of her appointment: “I couldn’t be more delighted. For decades, Sunday morning has been the moment to explore the events that shape us and to challenge and listen to our politicians.

 

[brad465]

Unsurprisingly, Chris Mason will succeed Laura Kuenssberg:

Chris Mason appointed new BBC political editor

He replaces Laura Kuenssberg, who is taking over from Andrew Marr on BBC One's Sunday morning show.

www.bbc.co.uk

Chris Mason has been appointed the BBC's new political editor, the corporation has announced.
The Yorkshire-born broadcaster, 41, has worked as a BBC journalist for two decades and currently hosts Radio 4's Any Questions? programme.
Mason replaces Laura Kuenssberg, who stepped down earlier this year.
"What a tremendous privilege to take on what, for me, is the most extraordinary job in British broadcasting and journalism," Mason said.
"I clamber upon the shoulders of giants like Laura, Nick [Robinson] and Andrew [Marr] with a smattering of trepidation and a shedload of excitement and enthusiasm.
"To lead the best team of journalists in the business on the best news patch of the lot is something I'd never even dared dream of. I can't wait to get started."
Mason will take up his new post in May, following the UK's local elections, and will continue to front Any Questions? until the summer.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think that's a good choice. I really like Chris Mason and think he'll do an excellent job.

 

[dosxuk]

Unsurprisingly, Chris Mason will succeed Laura Kuenssberg:

Only unsurprising if you've not been following the saga of the replacement.

He was only recently added to the shortlist of candidates after being persuaded to put his name in, after the list was reopened following a first round of interviews with only external candidates.

Most of the internal possible candidates, including Mason, publicly stated they weren't applying in the early stages - making it now look like internal management were intent on getting a new person in to the role, but then on seeing the options decided to go with what they already had in house instead.

 

[DarloRich]

I think that's a good choice. I really like Chris Mason and think he'll do an excellent job.

agreed - I like him to. Good TV journo. Northern. Started on BBC Newcastle.

BTW - whats the world coming to when a senior BBC reporter is younger than you are?!?!?!?!?

 

[nlogax]

Not sure I ever really understood the antagonism towards Laura Kuenssberg. Probably fair to say that those who took against her appeared to have way more axes to grind than Kuenssberg ever did.

Chris Mason is a solid and likeable replacement for sure. From what I've been able to gauge from his tv, radio and podcast appearances over the years he's also extremely knowledgable.

 

[DarloRich]

Not sure I ever really understood the antagonism towards Laura Kuenssberg. Probably fair to say that those who took against her appeared to have way more axes to grind than Kuenssberg ever did.

I feel she was a bit "pro regime" for me. If Labour were in charge her position would be the same in my mind. The colour of the rosette wasn't important, but the access was. I would have liked a bit more criticism, challenge and more push back but I understand that access is crucial to doing the job.

I have never understood the vitriol mind. People seem to want news to reinforce thier own position and that anyone not doing that is by definition against them.

 

[JohnMcL7]

I've no vitriol for her but I certainly never trusted a word she said after this incident:

No, Matt Hancock's Aide Was Not 'Punched' Outside A Leeds Hospital

Reports by prominent journalists on Twitter, including Robert Peston and Laura Kuenssberg, were proved to exaggerate the protest.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

At best she was extremely incompetent to post such a tweet from her position about a highly politically charged situation without checking it properly, at worst perhaps it wasn't as much a mistake as it looked. When investigated the outcome was mistakes happen even for senior political staff and not even a slap on the wrist, while she apologised later when a video appeared I did wonder would she have done so without the video?

 

[Phil56]

Not sure I ever really understood the antagonism towards Laura Kuenssberg. Probably fair to say that those who took against her appeared to have way more axes to grind than Kuenssberg ever did.

For me, it was the way she tried to manipulate stories to her own benefit. I.e. like the times during Boris's daily covid briefings when she'd completely ignore what had just been said/announced and would ask questions completely unrelated to that day's briefing. By "coincidence", in the evening news, she'd show pre-recorded elements that related to the question she asked, but not Boris' announcement. I was regularly amazed that Boris & Co would actually answer her - if it were me, I'd not have been so polite and would have refused to answer irrelevant questions.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Mason got the job, although he was apparently reluctant to apply.

I agree with others about him, I do not like him, but find it hard to say why. He seems to have a forced (scripted?) informality. Not the sort of radio 4 I started listening to several decades ago, grr.

 

[Busaholic]

Mason got the job, although he was apparently reluctant to apply.

I agree with others about him, I do not like him, but find it hard to say why. He seems to have a forced (scripted?) informality. Not the sort of radio 4 I started listening to several decades ago, grr.

I may be in a minority of one on here, but I can't stand Chris Mason, almost to the extent of being allergic to his face and/or voice; at least I'm consistent, having told my wife when he joined the BBC's political team that I thought he was a self-promoter wanting to be liked above all else. I've watched his rise with a sinking feeling that he was going to be the Tories' preferred choice when Kuenssberg eventually stepped down. He's changed Radio Four's Any Questions into the Chris Mason Show, hardly ever allowing any panellist the chance to develop their answer, unless it's the government apologist panellist of the week who seems to get full rein. His favourite phrase is 'he's not here to defend himself' if any criticism of e.g. Owen Patterson is made: I'm just waiting for him to say that 'Putin's not here to defend himself.' The worst BBC Political Editor choice since Robin Oakley during the Thatcher years.

 

[nlogax]

For me, it was the way she tried to manipulate stories to her own benefit. I.e. like the times during Boris's daily covid briefings when she'd completely ignore what had just been said/announced and would ask questions completely unrelated to that day's briefing.

What benefit did it bring her, exactly? Not sure I'm seeing it. Add to that I would not want a political correspondent or editor to stick to a government-approved line of questioning about an official briefing if there are bigger questions to be asked. Of which there have been plenty, especially over the last two years.

I was regularly amazed that Boris & Co would actually answer her - if it were me, I'd not have been so polite and would have refused to answer irrelevant questions.

Good thing you didn't go in for a political career then.

 

[Typhoon]

For me, it was the way she tried to manipulate stories to her own benefit. I.e. like the times during Boris's daily covid briefings when she'd completely ignore what had just been said/announced and would ask questions completely unrelated to that day's briefing. By "coincidence", in the evening news, she'd show pre-recorded elements that related to the question she asked, but not Boris' announcement. I was regularly amazed that Boris & Co would actually answer her - if it were me, I'd not have been so polite and would have refused to answer irrelevant questions.

What benefit did it bring her, exactly? Not sure I'm seeing it. Add to that I would not want a political correspondent or editor to stick to a government-approved line of questioning about an official briefing if there are bigger questions to be asked. Of which there have been plenty, especially over the last two years.

Nor am I. Surely the whole point is that Johnson was facing questions with a sizeable TV audience, so they could see if he dodged the question, like he does with regularity on PMQs; he couldn't divert the question to Whitty, Harries, Van Tam or whoever had been rolled out to accompany him; he couldn't go and hide, or refuse to answer. A shame more didn't put him on the spot. If he had refused to answer, in particular if he had done so impolitely, I suspect viewers and listeners would have responded negatively. Johnson has more sense than that.
I have no problem with Kuenssberg, she's like one of those annoying little dogs that goes for your ankles and doesn't lay off, even when the owner calls them to heel. Mason is much more measured but isn't in the same class as Evan Davis. He's too much 'well I tried to get them to answer' without putting pressure on, when a politician rolls out a prepared response. More like the owner of the dog which won't stop biting your ankles. That is no good, try the question another way, anything rather than admit defeat. I remember an Any Questions? when Farage was on, Nige took over, asking the other panelists questions - in some cases Mason picked up Nige's question. If you are in the chair, you decide what is going to be asked.