Early starts
I rarely come away from presenting the Today programme without some sense of regret. There is always some question that I should have asked, or some point that I should have made.
This is annoying but not surprising. Perfection is hard to achieve in a three hour live programme.
And it's even harder to achieve that before breakfast time. Even though disciplined sleeping habits and the adrenalin of live radio ensures that we are very awake while on duty, there is evidence of a phenomenon called circadian desynchronosis which causes one's brain to function slowly at those times of day when it thinks it should be asleep, regardless how wide awake the body is.
In fact, after a perilous near-disaster by a China Airlines flight in 1985, it's recognised as a potential danger on aeroplanes piloted by jet-lagged crews.
So, given the circumstances I don't beat myself up about imperfections in presentation. I simply remain grateful that the consequences of our mistakes are relatively small compared to those of some other professions.
But that doesn't change the fact that I come out of the programme with a little more to say about the issues we've discussed, than I have managed to say on air.
At nine a.m. I also find myself glancing at the Today programme inbox, to see whether any listeners shared my view of my mistakes.
It thus makes ample sense to jot down some thoughts on the programme, just after it has gone out. I can let those of you who are interested know "what on earth it was that I was thinking or not thinking at some point in the programme".
That's what this blog will do (clearly a slightly different premise to my old blog). It won't be every day by any means, and it won't be comprehensive.
But think of it as a second chance to straighten out thoughts that were mangled on air. Or to follow-up things that were said on the programme, with a few comments and interpretations that didn't get an outing.
We'll see how it goes.
I'm and I'm one of the presenters of the 
Comment number 1.
At 8th Jun 2008, Marktoday wrote:Love the new website and think Evan Davis' blog is a great idea. I think he is a asset to the programme, a good team member and a worthy presenter in a team of greats. Thank you for making my mornings.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 9th Jun 2008, pfgpowell wrote:I mean this is the nicest way possible, but how come the others don't get a blog? Didn't they want one? The other question I have always wanted to ask is, given that working as the Beeb's economics correspondent must have been very interesting, what decided you to switch to presenting Today?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 9th Jun 2008, danny1309 wrote:Hi Evan. Glad you joined the program and have the forsight to take on board listeners comments. Any chance you can get Tony Blair back on to discuss the "45 minutes to lauch an attack on the UK" statement. I would be fasinated to hear Tony justify this in light of the facts as we now understand them. Great show - thanks.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 9th Jun 2008, AndrewAuto wrote:Welcome - but it seems to me that subconsiously, you're suddenly the 'good cop'. Some middle ground would be good from all of you. Objectivity and incisive conciseness is the ticket?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 9th Jun 2008, Andy Loughran wrote:Hi Evan,
I'm looking forward to hearing more of you on Today. I do find I enjoy an economist's perspective on most things - so you'll be a good pairing,
Best of luck, and I'll be sure you keep up to date with the blog.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 9th Jun 2008, lionFreebird wrote:Evan,
Great idea to do the blog. My thought at the moment is one that you may care to ruminate on. Your style is great and you are often briming over with enthusiasm to get your point across, which is part of your persona. However there are times when the people you are interviewing actually have something to say and we are waiting for them to say it, but..... woooof they get taken out by another Evan question and the moment is gone.... I really appreciate the enthusiasm Evan, that's what youre good at, but a bit more sensitivity for your interviewees will on occasion yield more that we the audience are waiting for.... fair comment?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 9th Jun 2008, Muninn wrote:I suggest you move the studio to a location where the Today programme goes out at a less unreasonable hour. Like the Seychelles.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 9th Jun 2008, Writethetalk wrote:Evan, I assume that the Today programme's guests are similarly afflicted by circadian desynchronosis, explaining their frequent inability to string together sensibly more than a few words. Come to think of it, this explains the "quality" of much breakfast time broadcasting. Looking forward to more insights.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 9th Jun 2008, Otter wrote:Hello Evan.
Nice to see the arrival of a blog for the 'Today' programme.
I like the look of the new website as well.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 10th Jun 2008, Ian_Dudley wrote:Hi Evan, great to hear you on the Today programme. You have always been an entertaining and clear reporter for the news, your previous blog was very interesting and its nice to see them making more of your talents.
My only complaint is that there is no one left to fill the vacuum behind you! I'm not sure who is the new economics editor, but the person who seems to be cropping up most often in stories you used to cover (e.g. house prices or credit crunch) is Robert Peston.
His style is far less accessable than your own and frankly he comes over rather pompous. While I can see that he would be a good reporter for city financial reporting, I think he is very inaccessable for day to economics as experienced by most of us odinary folk, which is where you always excelled.
Without wanting to wish you back into your own job, can the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ perhaps try to find someone to take on the difficult task of following you?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 11th Jun 2008, evan_davis wrote:Thanks for your comment lionFreebird. You make a fair point - but there is always a tension between presenters wanting to interrupt and guests wanting to get their message out.
The presenters are more aware than guests or audiences about just how little time is left in an interview, and may have other things they want to talk about.
But as a new presenter, I am probably more cack-handed at mis-judging the interruptions than my colleagues...knowing when and when not to butt in is a bit of an art.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 16th Jun 2008, wwatcher wrote:Hi Evan,
I've enjoyed listening to you on the radio.
The only thing that disturbs me is that there is no place for listeners of the country's most important and influential news and current affairs programme to debate the issues raised any more.
If we want to talk about the Archers, that's fine. Their messageboard continues as before. If you want to talk about a particular brand of religious belief, there's a place for debate for that too.
How come there is no place to debate things that really matter - such as what politicians do with the power they are in control of?
I know that the official line is that the 'have your say' feature takes over, but it isn't possible to have a fruitful exchange of views with that - it's just a vox-pop sort of thing.
I know you're a new kid on the block so don't want to get into trouble with the people who were kind enough to offer you a job, but you know, it is just a *little* bit suspicious to find the state broadcaster trying to curtail specifically political debate, isn't it?
Again, my apologies if the destruction of the messageboard is a general Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ policy rather than being something specifically directed at areas which might generate uncomfortable reading for the people in charge.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 19th Jun 2008, AninSe wrote:Morning Evan
Im glad you joined the Today team - I enjoy your approach. In theory 'News' should be told in a factual and neutral way so that the broadcaster's view or reaction is not apparent. You break this rule sometimes, but somehow its OK because you appear to be genuine and not contrived. As the Today programme does more than tell news - as in introducing topics of its choice, and discussion - you certainly make it acceptable. Actually it would be awful if all presenters frequently expressed their opinions on air.
So, welcome. And I will keep my eye on your blog to see what discussions evolve. Have you any views about what David Davis is doing? !
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 3rd Aug 2008, retacademe wrote:Dear Evan
You were a brilliant economics editor. Why? 1) Because you were knowledgeable.
2) Because when you interviewed somebody you had a genuine curiosity about getting an informative answer
The danger with the Today programme presenters is that this gets lost and it becomes a battle of big egos and point scoring, with I am sure the editors encouragng this to create 'exciting' programming,
Please keep up your genuine curiosity. We your listeners also want to know the answers. These are the questions we would ask ourselves without a media ego to polish or a ratings obsessed editor to satisfy.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 7th Aug 2008, fabbrisus wrote:The item this am on NICE and the refusal by NHS to pay for certain drugs led to Mr Davis suggesting 'top-up' private insurance. I am currently paying for Avastin treatment for a retinal vein occlusion. I have private healthcare insurance. The insurance company refuse to cover my costs because 'the NHS, taking the advice of NICE,' will not pay considering the drug to be either experimental of unproven' , or so the insurers say. Insurers also do not cover 'chronic' conditions, only 'acute' ones, and they decide on the classification.
Conclusion - private healthcare insurance seems a total waste of money
By the way the treatment I am reeiving is working well and has been used by my consultant for the past three years. So I would deny that avastin is either experimental or unproven
Before the treatment started my eyesight was deteriorating badly. Reading was very difficult, I gave up driving and my outdoor persuits, walking and golf. Within three days of the treatment commening I was back on the golf course, back in my car with eyesite 'better than ever!'
AdmittedLY I was some Β£1700 worse off and this expenditure is set to continue although, hopefully, ata reduced rate, but one's sight is worth it. I do feel for those who simply cannot afford almost Β£600 a treatment.
Regards,
Fabbrisus.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 3rd Sep 2008, philsail1 wrote:I would like to pose the question - "why doesn't someone ask the chancellor, where is the money to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (currently costing 1 million pounds a day) coming from?"
Regards,
Phil Edwards (Mr) North Wales.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)