Brett is right. Often times it's just an easy cutaway to hide an edit.

For example, say an interviewee gives a good answer across 30 seconds which can be concisely cut down to ten seconds for a story running 1.30. A jump cut is unacceptable so a cutaway is required to cover the join and it's in the cameraman's playbook to get shots of each other to cover this. I don't know how it developed.

A show like Four Corners might resolve the same problem by doing an extremey quick disolve. Sports Tonight for example (unless they've changed their style while I've been out of the country) will cut between the two segments with a quick flash edit of white.

On the camera cutaways - to other crew or noddies or wide shots from further back - it's just to hide an edit being made to the interviewee. If you just hold on the person speaking, it's quite jolting to see them jump in position at the cut. Sometimes, such as on 4 Corners often, they'll just do a quick fade to black/fade in. It's a little more honest that way because it's declaring, "there's been an edit made here".

You can quite easily make someone talking flow on either side of a cut but you can't easily do that with vision. I'm often surprised that the switch back to the person speaking - from a noddy or crew shot - is usually right at the cut point.

But there's no favour being done for the crew - they're just being used as moving props.

Is it some camera crew deal between the networks' shooters to shoot each other in action so that the channel nine shooter gets a spot on the channel seven news and vice versa?

Another entertaining show, fellas.

With the talk about TV camera crew, what's the deal with those split-second cutaways you see during door stop interviews and occasionally press conferences, where the vision cuts to a shot of the cameraman/woman? I don't mean the interviewer doing a noddie, but an almost subliminal slice of the cameraman/woman, on the job with full video tackle. There must be a name for this? I like it, because why shouldn't the shooter get some exposure (he he he) after all! But what is this behaviour called? Is it a variety of boneheading? Jimbo, somebody, please spill the insider beans we all know you carry.

Rob Boxcutter

Another great show. These faux-Rosses are great, adding something new to the mix, insider stories, name-dropping and it seems fevered reactions from listeners. Please continue, or Welcome back Ross, whichever comes first.

Is Justin Hamilton coming back in to talk about the Lost finale?

Wilbur brought up an interesting point about breakfast radio. I don't watch, and I don't listen to much radio in the morning unless I use the car, but radio would get more coverage than tv in the morning, what with all the cars on the road.

If only... someone decided to pitch a tv/radio program in the morning, so that people could start watching at home, then take it with them in the car/bus/train/tram/ferry/unicycle. As long as the show remembered that they were speaking to listeners as well as viewers, there's no reason it wouldn't work.

If we're going that far, why not introduce an internet component, so people could log in when they get to work and continue to consume?

AND AND AND they could have live SMS portions so people with mobile phones could be included.

We've been living with all these methods of communication for far too long to not try looking at a wider immersive breakfast experience!

Because we all know that all technological achievements in the world have been solely to provide people with a better selection of entertainment during their morning commute.

One more long black methinks.

@ Westivan. Big-noting. Really? I don't get that at all. I get show-biz trooper who is constitutionally unable to not entertain. Like Shane Bourne or Burt Newton. I love hearing stories like Wilburs. I don't even care if I don't really know the people involved. I'll be like, please tell me more above Alison Durban. And then tell me who she is.

@ KMJvet1: For the record, if I drop in to see my folks when Top Gear is on, my Dad is outnumbered by women 3 to 1, all glued to the screen (although I don't find Clarkson particularly likeable either!)

@jimbo: just read your article on ninemsn "Disgrace aplenty at Fromelles". Very moving and you've inspired me to learn some more on the subject.

Josh and Brett: well done for keeping Wilbur's name dropping to a minimum this time around. His story's can sometimes be entertaining, but more often than not, strike me as an attempt to big-note himself.

Top Gear has a lot of female audience members actually. And why no, its one of the best shows on TV providing entertainment and Petrolhead-edness. Perfect.

Adam D, I dislike, or more correctly have no interest in, Top Gear because I have no interest in the topic of cars or motoring beyond a limited number of issues such as wishing more of my fellow drivers took seriously the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. I guess I'd be surprised if the show has many female fans at all?

I dislike Clarkson because there's not a shred of anything likable about him.

Really good this week guys. My dad was the former head of Cinecamera at the ABC (which was responsible for News Current Affairs and Documentaries) So that discussion struck a bit of a nostalgic nerve. The Bill Henson thing was also a good discussion. Being a photographer and someone who really likes the way Henson uses light (and someone who teaches media studies) I am glad you raised the topic with a bit of thought. All in all a good show.

Love Wilbur. Good to hear him back.

KMJvet1: Is your dislike for Top Gear due to Clarkson's political stance? I'm not casting aspersions, just curious.

Top Gear, being such a boy show, isn't considered good by all. Some of us just simply strive to achieve "couldn't care less."
Boys are entitled to have some boy shows-just don't equate that with "everyone" thinks it's good. The reason I say strive for "couldn't care less" is that I know in my heart of hearts if Clarkson wrapped a car around a pole and had to be scraped off into a body bag, I'd tune in to watch. Other than that though, couldn't care less.

Josh.....quiz questions you can answer with 10 seconds search on the internet, although potentially educational, aren't particularly any fun. Wilbur Wilde can probably come up with questions, no?

And, Wilbur...

The British generals at Fromelles were Monro and Haking.

The Australian commanding the 5th Division was General McCay. Sadly, the Germans - on the morning after the initial charge - offered a ceasefire to collect the dead and wounded. A desperate private agreed but McCay - the cunt - said no. Had he agreed, the missing men of Fromelles would've been collected and buried then and there instead of 92 years later.

Just another one of the disgracs of the Fromells campaign. If anyone wants to knwo more in detail, turn to Patrick Lindsay's book Fromelles.

Have spoken, through an intermediary, to Coxy from the Roxy. He has confirmed the Punt Road yarn in hilarious fashion! I asked him whether he ever found out the identity of his armed passenger and he replied, "No mate, we didn't want to know. We let him out at St Kilda and he went on his way." Gold!