TV and radio programmes can sometimes be of superb quality. There is nothing more revealing, informative and even entertaining than an interview with a well known or expert pundit on such media. There is only one thing wrong. It is the presenters or interviewers.

In order to introduce a guest and the programme content, one very inexpert interviewer laboured over a lengthy verbose statement peppered with copious amounts of clichéd phrases accompanied by stuttered gropings for the right words. These are common standards on our visual and audio media in this respect. That is not the worst of it either. When will these amateur interviewers learn that viewers and listeners are not interested in what the incompetent "interviewer" wants to say? They must understand that they are mere conduits and that it is the guest who is the real star of the "show".

Why do they also commit the major sin of interrupting the speaker? I was listening (or trying to) to the Assistant Commissioner of Police's attempt to expound on the more technical aspects of illegal emigration but unfortunately he hardly finished a sentence due to constant interruptions by the amateur interviewer. A most interesting topical programme was ruined by someone who has no right to aspire to nothing higher than a studio assistant.

There are a few golden rules for presenters and interviewers. They should research their subject thoroughly, rehearse their "speech", avoiding irritating clichés and, above all, when interviewing, to ask their question and then keep their trap shut until the interviewee answers in full.

TV and radio bosses should note that bad presenters make for a bad programme. Indeed, some programmes are impossible to watch and to listen to due to these amateurs.