麻豆社

Several years ago when I was controller of Radio 4, I commissioned the Reith Lectures from the philosopher and ethicist, Onora O鈥橬eill. She took as her subject the issue of trust and argued that the so-called 鈥渞evolution in accountability鈥� of the last decade, with its ever increasing micro-performance measures, had singularly failed. This revolution had not reduced mistrust in institutions. Rather, she argued, it had actually reinforced a culture of suspicion and disappointment.

Onora O鈥橬eill鈥檚 lectures struck a nerve with a huge number of listeners as well as The Sun which ran a glowing editorial on them 鈥� definitely a first for the Reith Lectures!

We have a lot of performance measures at the 麻豆社 and I daresay we can look forward to more. Many of them are valuable 鈥� they connect us with the attitudes of our audiences for example and give us insight into our weaknesses. But as the events of the summer demonstrated with horrible clarity, you need a lot more than performance measures to build trust between your organisation and the people who use your services.

The that some of our competitions had been codded and some of our winners didn鈥檛 actually exist was a shock to many inside and outside the 麻豆社. A few tried to shrug it off. Others took comfort from the fact that no-one at the 麻豆社 made a bean from these incidents - unlike some of our commercial competitors whose faked competitions made millions. But the vast majority of 麻豆社 people know that if you take the public for a ride 鈥� whatever your motivation - you will not be readily forgiven. It鈥檚 fundamentally disrespectful to the audience which pays for you.

So 2008 will be an important year for rebuilding a battered trust with our audiences. Some of it will include performance measures: everyone involved with content must do the Safeguarding Trust course for example and the 麻豆社 Trust will be counting to make sure they do. Parts of the press have depicted this training as a kind of Maoist re-education camp where we learn to tell the truth. I鈥檝e done the course and they鈥檙e wrong: it鈥檚 a rigorous seminar about artifice and truth in production techniques with lots of discussion and debate. And yes, there are some right and wrong answers and yes, people understand and accept them.

But training is only part of what we must do next year. The real challenge in 2008 is the same as it is every year. It鈥檚 about good old fashioned integrity. It鈥檚 about living up to our values on a daily basis and being confident enough to own up when we fall short. In News, that means accuracy, impartiality, independence, fairness and open mindedness remain at an absolute premium.

Recently I was talking to a group of very bright and thoughtful senior journalists at Radio 5Live. One of them said that in the current climate, people are now fearful about making mistakes. Might we be in danger of killing creativity?

I don鈥檛 think so. I want people to be imaginative and take calculated creative risks and there鈥檚 absolutely no sign of this waning in the organisation. But I think that we should be alarmed about getting things wrong and making mistakes for a very simple reason: people in overwhelming numbers believe what we tell them. We must never take that lightly. It鈥檚 a huge responsibility and privilege. Indeed, it鈥檚 what trust in 麻豆社 News is all about.

As 2008 begins, we shall endeavour to continue to earn that trust. And I know that you will keep us on our toes as we do it.

Among the things I wanted to do as guest editor of the Today programme (as well as cover table tennis and debate nuclear weapons) was to go to Africa and talk about recycling.

In the programme we featured a recycling project in Mali. I first went there about eight years ago, and it was a complete revelation to me. It was incredibly exciting; I found the place packed with passionate, beautiful, optimistic people who despite almost unimaginable problems have not lost a sense of who they are and how to relate to each other.

The scheme we featured is one which has evolved through necessity. They really do make waste metals into ploughshares. It also raises big issues for us. Whenever I get worried about my own levels of waste, I always go back in my own mind to places like it - everything seems to be precious and people wouldn't dream of throwing away something they could recycle.

It's a strange vision of the future - places like it are not backward, actually they're modern. And even though it's not a particularly palatable lesson, it's one we've got to learn as a society. You can hear more from our trip to Mali here.

In the programme we also talked a bit about the changing nature of the music industry. Chris Morrison, manager of Blur and Gorillaz, reflected on how technology and attitudes have changed since the early 70s when he was managing Thin Lizzy.

And we also thought a bit about the nature of celebrity. I strongly believe we need to dismantle significant parts of our culture and re-examine them. I think the celebrity thing sends all the wrong messages - creating a mindset that you can get something for nothing and that it's easy to acquire status and fame.

X-Factor would be the first thing I'd tackle. But never Radio Four.

My entire life has been supplemented by Radio Four, from hearing my mum tuning in to the Archers to my anxious middle-aged sleeplessness being calmed by night-time radio. I am Radio Four and Radio Four is me. And when the time comes, I want it piped into my coffin.

Every year it's the same thing. People find out you're working on Today's "guest editor" programmes and the questions start.

This year's crop are particularly illustrious so the questions are a little different. Most years we just get asked: Have you got a home number for Thom / Monica / Zac / Bono?

This year we have a Nobel Prize-winning scientist, a former spy chief, one of Britain's most eminent historians, one of Britain's most successful musicians and this year's listener editors, a bunch of cops from Wales. So the questions are slightly higher rent.

For instance:

鈥� Is it true that Damon Albarn uses complex maths when composing his music?

鈥� Did Sir Martin Evans really have that Nobel-winning Eureka moment while listening to the Pussycat Dolls?

鈥� Has Peter Hennessy written more books than the average Today producer has read?

鈥� Did Stella Rimington kill people?

I'll give you the answers at the end. Please try not to skip ahead.

But despite the fact that they've all got brains that could boil water, this year has been the most fun we've had since the whole thing started four years ago.

Highlights so far? Damon Albarn, the uncrowned table tennis king of the pop world, playing against some of our 2012 Olympic hopefuls.

Sir Martin Evans, fresh from scooping the Nobel Prize, kicking back at a hotel made of ice with the King and Queen of Sweden.

Peter Hennessy proving that if Today falls off air Trident submarine captains assume Britain has been destroyed and so fire their weapons. (And that if 麻豆社 Three goes off air they consider it safe to return to port.)

The police team mishearing our request to hit us with a programme teaser by hitting us with a pre-programmed Tazer.

But most exciting of all is Dame Stella Rimington. Here at Today we're used to working with powerful older woman. Many of us have dealt at close quarters with the likes of Sue MacGregor and Anna Ford. Some of us have even kept our composure. But Stella is something else. There's something so, well, secret about her. She's not just hard to get... she's hard to find.

Richard Knight and Daniel Clarke are working with Dame Stella. I overheard one of Daniel's conversations with her. In fact I recorded it. I've seen Spooks. You can't be too careful. It went like this:

"Hello Daniel?"
"Yes."
"It's me"
"Who?"
"I think you know who."
"Oh I get it. Very mysterious. Are you trying to seduce me Mrs Robinson....I mean Rimington?"
"Of course not, and call me Helen. Meet me by the penguin pool at twelve hundred tomorrow." "Cool, shall I carry a copy of the Herald Tribune?"
"If you want"
"Great. And I'll wear a brown trilby and green socks and a pink buttonhole.
"Whatever floats your boat. I know what you look like."
"How come?"
"I know a lot about you. And your family and your friends and your regular visits to the Turkish Baths in Bayswater."
"Wow. You're good."

It's all gone a little better since then and you can hear the result of all the hard work on Boxing Day.

Finally, the answers to those questions we get asked: 1. Yes; 2. Of course not; 3. Probably; and 4. No but she hurt somebody's feelings once.

I took part in an interesting discussion on the Jeremy Vine Show on Radio 2 yesterday (which you can listen to here). Jim Gamble is chief executive of the . He believes the media should stop using the phrases 'child pornography' or 'child porn' but instead use phrases like 'child abuse' or 'images of the sexual abuse of children'. He believes - if I represent his views properly - that the former phrases risk trivialising or hiding the real nature of what鈥檚 going on, and that the fact that the phrase 'child porn' (an illegal activity) sounds akin to the phrase 'adult porn' (not necessarily illegal) allows perpetrators and some of the public to downplay the grim realities behind images on the web.

I was there to discuss whether 麻豆社 News should ban the phrases from our output, and I explained why I don't believe we should.

Let me be very clear. I take Mr Gamble's points very seriously and understand well the horrible impact of child abuse. But it's a very big step for 麻豆社 News to ban words - especially ones which in the case of 'child pornography' have I believe a clear, factual meaning. But I also know that editors across 麻豆社 news think very hard about the language of our reporting. And that's what I think they should continue to do, find the appropriate words to tell a story to our various audiences.

So actually, I wouldn't expect to hear the phrase 'child porn' in a Radio 2 or Radio 4 summary - it's rather too casual for those networks for one thing. But my colleagues writing web headlines, with a very tightly restricted number of characters, might use the phrase as shorthand. Listeners to Newsbeat on Radio 1 might hear the phrase on the network - but those same listeners text and e-mail in after reports of child abuse or internet child pornography, making very clear they understand exactly the awfulness of what has happened.

If you go beyond headlines you will find our reports - on radio, television and online - use a variety of phrases - 'downloading images of the sexual abuse of children', 'images created by paedophile networks' and so on. Rather than focus on a headline or two I'd prefer to look at our coverage as a whole. Our careful reporting of for instance over a long period (a series of raids in 2002 targeting people who download sexual images of children) from the police explaining that every such image on the web is not just 'an image' but a picture of a crime scene - that crime being abuse. Our job is to be accurate, specific and provide relevant detail which informs the audience - so that you can make up your own minds.

The Jeremy Vine discussion provoked a fair number of listener texts and e-mails - some sympathetic to Mr Gamble's point of view, some worried about 'political correctness'. I'll be interested in what readers of this post make of the debate.

The magazine publisher - on his generally rather good blog - has at last night's Newsnight send-up of the Lib Dem leadership contest as the X Factor. He asks, "have they done some research that indicates that people are more likely to tune into a current affairs programme if all the items are tricked up like student skits?".

The answer to that is no, but perhaps you can send us some ad hoc feedback below. In general, I'm not a big fan of the pastiche, which in fact was far more prevalent on Newsnight in years gone by than it is these days, but I think the complaint is a bit po-faced. It's rather like saying that quality newspapers shouldn't include cartoons.

Radio 1's from the classic Fairytale of New York by the Pogues has triggered the most one-sided audience reaction of any story since I've been editor of Newsbeat. Many hundreds of texts, e-mails and online comments have come in - berating the network for "political correctness". Radio 1 originally defended its decision by pointing out that it is a word "members of our audience find offensive鈥濃�� and then by late afternoon on Tuesday, controller Andy Parfitt overturned the ban - admitting the edit had been wrong, while praising his music team for being "vigilant" about possible offence from lyrics.

You'll have your own views on all this and Newsbeat is not here to attack or support its parent network - but simply to report the news for its millions of listeners.

It raises some interesting dilemmas for us though: without Radio 1's 10 million plus audience Newsbeat wouldn't exist. But what happens when the station itself IS the news? Does this cramp our journalistic vigour or make us feel we shouldn't take on "the mother ship鈥�? I don't think it does - nor should it ever do so. If we argue that our job is to report the news without fair or favour for other organisations, why should Radio 1 be exempt from that rule? I think pulling our punches would be failing our listeners - Radio 1's listeners. That's just my view.

But - some texters pointed out - if Radio 1 has banned the word "faggot" why are you, Newsbeat, using it? In fact, the word has been used more times in our news coverage of the story than it would have been in the handful of plays the track would have got between now and Christmas. They've got a good point: but we can't tell the story or inform the debate on it all - unless we do use the word.

There's another issue: did Newsbeat's prominent coverage of the story effectively pressurize the network into making the U-turn - and is that right or wrong? We would argue we covered the story in an impartial way, not as a campaign - the audience responded angrily and in volume and we reflected that on our coverage鈥� but if we hadn't covered it in the first place, would it all have blown over? If Radio 1 had defended their original position earlier in public (they didn't - allowing opponents a free hit), would some of the critics have been won over and would the row have fizzled out? It is the job of 麻豆社 journalists to harry the networks that give them airtime?

There's a larger story too: the pressure that regulators are, rightly or wrongly, putting on broadcasters to avoid offensive words and phrases in music and the greater public scrutiny that broadcasters are under. There's a big debate going on about violence, lyrical content and sexism in hip-hop lyrics and homophobia in reggae dancehall. Again, it's for you to decide whether this scrutiny is right or wrong - an infringement of artistic creativity or a justified defence of minority interests - or perhaps just meddling by journalists? That's a debate for another day but this debate is helping to shape the landscape of modern music broadcasting.

And is the boss of Radio 1, Andy Parfitt, still talking to me? Amazingly鈥� yes, he is! I think鈥�

My first duty as a 麻豆社 TV journalist is straightforward - to tell viewers the most significant news from Britain and around the world. At its simplest, we cover events and announcements as they happen and offer additional context and intelligent analysis. But there are also important trends that have the power to change the way we live - but which are not yet marked as news "events".

How much time should a news programme give to covering these big themes?

Four or five years ago, climate change was something talked about by environmentalists and climate scientists - it was not part of the main news agenda. But we were in at the beginning with our reports on its impact across the globe. Now there's an emerging debate about a complex but related subject - . Can we continue to consume food - refrigerated and transported from around the globe at a time when we should be reducing our carbon emissions? And what about the impact of using corn to produce bio-fuel? It is directly leading to an increase in the price of food here and potentially could lead to food shortages in other countries.

Two weeks ago, in the first of our 'Mad about Food' series, Jeremy Cooke gave a graphic visual account of the when he watched buckets of prime cod being thrown dead back into the sea because the quotas for this particular fish were exhausted. Ministers here and in the European Union agreed the rules needed to change.

This week the British consumer will spend a record amount on food in the run up to Christmas and we'll be carrying a series of reports exploring emerging issues around food sustainability.

Supermarkets deliver huge choice, convenience and often low prices - it's where the majority of us choose to buy our food. We'll be reporting on some of the local food initiatives but also the overall environmental impact of the sourcing, transportation and refrigeration of the food industry. But we won't ignore the positive results of the international trade for emerging markets like Kenya - where deals with British supermarkets lead to employment and economic development.

A report from AC Neilson today says consumers here are increasingly concerned about where their food comes from and how far it has travelled. The supermarkets we have spoken to tell us they are well aware of the trend, and some of the biggest have given us unique access to the work they are doing to ensure they find the most sustainable sources of food.

We'll be carrying a range of reports from around Britain on the work being done to grow food efficiently and ensure it travels as short a distance as possible from field to plate.

Further afield we'll be reporting from Chile on how the demand from fresh cherries all year round has led to the growth of a new food chain and we'll be finding out why a major fish producer says it makes economic sense to send prawns on a journey around the world before they return to be sold in supermarkets a few miles from where they were caught.

The Daily Telegraph's Charles Moore criticising Newsnight for our coverage of the Policy Exchange story. Today the paper has published our account of what happened - you can read an unedited version here.

---

Charles Moore's attack on Newsnight's investigation into a report by Policy Exchange is a distortion of the truth and does him no credit. Newsnight has regularly investigated Islamic extremism in Britain. In October we planned to broadcast the findings of the report entitled "The Hijacking of British Islam" which said that hate literature was available for sale in 26 of the 100 British mosques they surveyed. Policy Exchange offered the report to Newsnight and to corroborate their claims provided a bundle of receipts proving where the books had been bought.

On the planned day of broadcast our reporter Richard Watson told me he had approached one of the accused mosques and shown them the receipt. They denied selling the literature and said the receipt was not genuine. I asked to see all the receipts and we quickly identified five or six which looked suspicious - not "one or two" as Mr Moore suggests. They appeared to have been created and printed on a PC, they included mistakes such as incorrect addresses, and two of them - purportedly from different mosques - appeared to have been filled in with the same handwriting.

Mr Moore says the right thing to have done at this point would have been to "broadcast Policy Exchange's findings at once, allowing the mosques to have their say". I disagree. I concluded it would be wholly wrong to give such prominence to the report without resolving these doubts.

That day we tried to clear up the discrepancies. I spoke, in a conference call with Policy Exchange, to one (not two) of the researchers involved in gathering the receipts. I also spoke to the project coordinator. It has not subsequently been possible to speak to any of the researchers. The conversation did not reassure me, nor have Policy Exchange's subsequent explanations for how the discrepancies might have occurred.

Mr Moore is misleadingly selective about the forensic analyst's findings. Her clear conclusion is that there is "strong evidence" that two receipts from separate mosques were written by the same person and that "the possibility of more than one person being responsible is unlikely."

Mr Moore accuses us of chasing a "small story" and says we chose, in effect, to side with extremists. Newsnight does not side with anyone. We simply took care to check the evidence Policy Exchange gave us to support their report's very serious accusations. Our report acknowledged that extreme literature is available in some of the mosques. But Newsnight checked five receipts and in all five there were serious doubts about authenticity. In my book that's a story.

Mr Moore blusters, but barely deals with the question of authenticity. Will he answer this? Given that Policy Exchange's report was based on the testimony of the researchers who provided the receipts, does he, and Policy Exchange, think all of the receipts are genuine?

Peter Barron
Editor, Newsnight

Today was the funeral of Mike Donkin, the 麻豆社 News correspondent who died of cancer last week at the age of 56.

There have been many paid to Mike, who was not just a great reporter but a lovely man as well.

I worked with him many times as a television producer on the Six and Nine O鈥機lock news in the 1980s and 90s. Later, when I was running Newsgathering, Mike was providing radio and television reports of the highest quality from a huge variety of locations 鈥� he was always someone you could rely on absolutely to get the best from an assignment or story.

In tribute to Mike we have assembled a collection of some of his memorable reports. In 2002 he defied Robert Mugabe鈥檚 ban on 麻豆社 journalists entering Zimbabwe with some graphic reporting on conditions in the country. You can watch some of the results here.

Iraq was a country Mike visited at various points in its recent troubled history. What Mike always tried to do was to make his stories come alive by telling the story of ordinary people and that is particularly true in this piece.

One of the great things about Mike was the range of subjects he could cover. He was not a war specialist or someone who could only comfortably deal with softer features. His , as the world prepared for the new millennium, showed one of his defining characteristics - his power with the English language.

Libya is not an easy place to gain people鈥檚 trust and openness but .

And in one of his final assignments Mike explored a theme of our age 鈥� the impact of migration across Europe. Being Mike, he found a fresh angle and produced a vivid report, again based around the accounts of the people directly affected.

On this day more than any other, I think it鈥檚 right we allow Mike鈥檚 reporting to speak for him. His death has left a sense of loss and shock for all those who knew him in 麻豆社 News. We often talk about the values we stand for; Mike was a great embodiment of them.

Last night on Newsnight, Dean Godson of the think tank accused me personally (watch it here) of making a "disastrous editorial misjudgement" and of "appalling stewardship of Newsnight". I think I should respond to that.

Mr Godson was responding to Richard Watson's investigation (watch it here) into Policy Exchange's recent report - entitled "" - which accused several leading mosques of selling extremist literature.

In October Newsnight had been due to run an exclusive report on the findings and Policy Exchange had given us the receipts to corroborate their claim that a quarter of the 100 mosques their researchers had visited were selling hate literature.

On the planned day of broadcast our reporter Richard Watson came to me and said he had a problem. He had put the claim and shown a receipt to one of the mosques mentioned in the report - The in London. They had immediately denied selling the book and said the receipt was not theirs.

We decided to look at the rest of the receipts and quickly identified five of the 25 which looked suspicious. They appeared to have been created on a home computer, rather than printed professionally as you would expect. The printed names and addresses of some of the mosques contained simple errors and two of the receipts purportedly from different mosques appeared to have been written by the same hand.

I spoke to Policy Exchange to try to clear up these discrepancies but in the end I decided not to run the report. This is not because I "bottled" it as Mr Godson suggests, but because I did not have the necessary level of confidence in the evidence presented.

In the days that followed we focused further on the five receipts about which we had concerns and eventually asked a forensic scientist to analyse them. This is what we found.

1. In all five cases the mosques involved said the receipts did not belong to them.

2. The expert analysis showed that all five had been printed on an inkjet printer - suggesting they were created on a PC.

3. The analysis found "strong evidence" that two of the receipts were written by the same person.

4. The analysis found that one of the receipts had been written out while resting on another receipt said to be from a mosque 40 miles away.

Mr Godson says he stands by his report 100%. I also stand by our report 100%. I don't think we can both be right.

As part of the celebrations to mark the tenth anniversary of www.bbc.co.uk, Mike Smartt, founding editor of the 麻豆社 News website, writes here on the 麻豆社 Internet blog about some of the background to the site.

What to do about Kosovo? The Serbian province that is populated overwhelmingly by Albanians who want nothing to do with Serbia, but which Serbs regard as the heartland of their culture and nationhood.

This is a question that we have been tracking on The World Tonight for the past two years (most recently this Monday which you can listen to here) since international efforts to push for a solution intensified. It is also a question that is now preoccupying the European Union - as it periodically preoccupied the Great Powers in the last two centuries along with Serbians and Albanians as well as the Ottoman Turks, of course, who ruled the place for several hundred years.

UN-sponsored talks between the Serbian government and Albanian leaders earlier this week and Kosovo is now saying it will go ahead and declare independence anyway. This presents a problem for the European Union because the EU is divided over whether to recognise the independence of Kosovo if that is not sanctioned by the UN Security Council - and that is unlikely given Russia is opposed to any solution to the Kosovo problem that is not agreed to by both the Serbs and the Albanians. As the Serbs are offering wide autonomy and the Albanians - backed by the United States - are demanded nothing but independence, a solution sanctioned by the Security Council that satisfies international law doesn't seem possible at this stage.

EU foreign ministers met again earlier this week in another attempt to agree a common approach. Ahead of the meeting, several ministers were making very optimistic noises that they were basically all agreed - except for Cyprus - that a unilateral Kosovo declaration of independence should be recognised despite Serbian and Russian opposition. The briefings to journalists ahead of the meeting were that the last countries which were unhappy with this policy - Spain, Greece, Romania and Slovakia - had come round because they were putting EU unity in the face of Russian pressure ahead of their objections to independence for Kosovo which are largely based on the precedent it could set for their own minority regions who may want to follow suit.

This seemed a bit odd given that both Slovakian and Romanian ministers, for example, have been quoted over recent days saying they would probably not be able to recognise Kosovo. So we've been asking for interviews with the foreign ministers from these countries, but to no avail, not one would come to the microphone. We also waited for a statement from the EU foreign ministers after their meeting. One arrived in my inbox on the situation in Lebanon and another on the Middle East peace process, but nothing on Kosovo.

Now we are being told EU leaders will discuss the issue at their summit starting today in Brussels. Maybe they will announce an agreement, but we are not holding our breath as it seems they are further away from an agreed position than they are suggesting.

So what should we report to listeners? When ministers and officials won't do interviews it makes for far less interesting radio and so we have the choice of getting one of our correspondents to do an interview in which they tell the audience what they are being told behind the scenes and then assess how reliable this is - in other words to describe the spin - which in my view is a technique subject to the law of diminishing returns - or we don't do the story at all at that moment. It would be interesting to know what you think the best approach is.

In the meantime, our reporter, Ray Furlong will be in Brussels trying to get that interview. Wish him luck.

Seventy five years ago this week the 麻豆社's first director general, Lord Reith, launched what was then called the 麻豆社's Empire Service with these words:

"Radio is an instrument of almost incalculable importance in the social and political life of the community. Its influence will more and more be felt in the daily life of the individual, in almost every sphere of human activity, in affairs national and international鈥� It has been our resolve that the great possibilities and influences of the medium should be exploited to the highest human advantage鈥� The service as a whole is dedicated to the best interests of mankind."

When he spoke, radio was a relatively new technology, much as the internet is today. In the 75 years since, 麻豆社 World Service, as it is now called, has attempted to live up to the high aspirations behind its launch.

It is no longer focused on Empire or Commonwealth of course. Its purpose today is to connect Britain and the world with a modern, genuinely international, service of high quality news and information. Global broadcasting is undergoing unprecedented growth with new international channels opening almost every month - , , , from Iran and many more.

So it is an achievement that today more than 180 million people each week listen to the World Service - the highest audiences there have ever been - and tell us it is still the most trusted international news service anywhere.

That's testament to the extent the service has developed during its lifetime. During World War II, "London Calling" was the iconic station identification - highly valued by audiences across Europe. Today, we have interactive discussion programmes like World Have Your Say, taking calls, texts, e-mails and letters from people in regions as disparate as Chennai and California, Kampala and Kuala Lumpur. Globalisation and international issues from terrorism to climate change, from failed states to economics and trade, to sport and entertainment link countries and cultures more than ever before.

The programmes are available in 33 languages including English, on traditional short wave, re-broadcast on FM stations around the world, on the internet, with sites in all 33 languages, and from 2008, on television in Arabic and Farsi.

To mark the 75th anniversary, there is a season of programmes about free speech debating the principles behind freedom of speech, looking at how news is produced, and discussing how international media can connect people around the world.

A , released today, shows that opinion around the world is divided on free speech. While an average of 56% across all countries think that freedom of the press is important to ensure a free society, 40% believe that controlling what is reported may sometimes be necessary for the greater good. Of the countries where press freedom is most highly valued, Western developed countries are more critical of how honestly and accurately the news is reported. This suggests that the broadcasting of news and information around the world is as important - and contentious - today as it has ever been.

Tonight we're launching a new news summary on 麻豆社 One at 8pm (which I first wrote about here back in May). There'll be a UK section presented by Kate Silverton and a local section from each of the 麻豆社 Nations and Regions.

The reason why it was commissioned is simple: audience research revealed that while 麻豆社 News remains extremely popular, it could do more to attract younger audiences and what the Americans call "blue collar workers". We discovered many people in these groups found traditional news programmes didn't speak to them and would prefer a different approach.

Before it's even been broadcast, the summary has already attracted a substantial number of column inches - even making the front page of (though I'm not na茂ve enough to think this was more about the fine points of 麻豆社 editorial policy, than the large image of Kate Silverton).

Many of the articles have claimed this is an example of the 麻豆社 "dumbing down" - I believe this is wrong for a number of reasons:

1) The summary is an extra offering from 麻豆社 News. It won't replace anything - the Six and Ten O'Clock News, News 24 and Newsnight will still continue to offer a broad range of stories, analysis and debate.

2) It won't ignore the key stories of the day, but will tell them in an accessible way.

3) Encouraging as many people as possible to be interested in the news is surely a good thing, and one of the primary reasons why the 麻豆社 exists.

Many people rightly have very strong feelings about how 麻豆社 News is presented - I hope they will understand that different groups have different needs and tastes, and the 麻豆社 should aim to inform as many of them as it can.

We often write on this blog about how we've covered something - after we've done it. I thought for a change it would be worth letting you know how we're preparing for a story - namely the Bali climate talks this week and next.

It's a high-level meeting, organised by the (UNFCCC), which is trying to deliver a new global agreement on how to cut rising greenhouse gas emissions.

We've sent three environment correspondents - Roger Harrabin, Matt McGrath, David Shukman - and on the website we've already published a "" on the talks, outlining what they are about and how they fit into the ongoing global political negotiations on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Our correspondents at the talks are going to have their work cut out filing for all 麻豆社 outlets, and on occasions like this the website newsdesk in London usually writes some of the stories here, drawing on the reporting from our correspondents at the event.

On this occasion Richard Black, the website environment correspondent is not, for once, going to the talks himself, but he's helped us prepare for them with a few tips and things to watch for in this complex story. Specialist briefings like this ahead of a major story are extremely useful for the newsdesk. Here's what he sent us.

---

By Richard Black.

There are some issues that we sometimes do not get completely right in reporting the anoraky end of climate change, and which are pertinent to the UN climate talks in Bali that run this week and next.

1. The does not expire in 2012. What does expire in 2012 is the first set of targets that the Protocol contains for emissions reductions.

2. The Protocol covers a group of six greenhouse gases, not just carbon dioxide. As they are the six major ones involved in modern-day warming, it is acceptable shorthand to say "greenhouse gases".

3. The conference contains two major "tracks", one relating to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992, and the other to the Kyoto Protocol. The US is involved in the first, but not the second. Some of the news coming out over the next couple of weeks will relate to one, and some to the other.

4. Australia has not just signed the Kyoto Protocol - it did so in 1998 - it has just . The US has also signed the protocol, but has not ratified. Both have signed and ratified the UNFCCC.

5. The Protocol does include developing nations - but it does not set them targets for reducing emissions.

6. The key difference between the EU and the US positions is whether targets should be global and mandatory, or whether they should be national and voluntary. Sometimes we say the US approach is based on technology - that isn't entirely correct - everyone wants clean technology, it is a question of a) what approach you use to stimulate its development, and b) whether you rely on technology alone with no implied lifestyle changes.

7. The Kyoto Protocol is about far more than emissions targets - it includes measures to spread technology to developing countries, for carbon offsetting, and funds to help developing countries "climate-proof" their economies and societies. This is a key difference between the UN process and the kind of voluntary approach proposed by the US.

8. The subject of Indonesia's own emissions will inevitably come up during the Bali meeting, and we will see the country labelled as the world's third-biggest emitter. Whether that is true or not depends on how you measure it; my feeling is we should not as a short-hand call Indonesia the third-biggest emitter, but just one of the world's major emitters.

This week I leave Millbank (the 麻豆社's political news HQ) after nearly 10 years, to take over as UK news editor at . There was a time when I thought I might depart before Tony Blair, but in the end he managed to slip out of SW1 a few months ahead of me.

When I arrived at the beginning of 1998, Prime Minister Blair had just declared himself a 鈥減retty straight sort of guy,鈥� after getting caught up in the row over a million pound donation to Labour from the Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone.

I leave as Prime Minister Brown battles to limit the damage from big donations given to Labour through intermediaries by the property developer David Abrahams.

Plus 莽a change?

Actually a whole lot has changed. Not only has Downing St welcomed a new PM, the Tories - under William Hague in 1998 - are on to their fourth leader (the others being Howard, IDS, and Cameron, of course); and the Lib Dems - firmly in the grip of Paddy Ashdown when I started - are also soon to choose their fourth leader (the others, of course, Kennedy, Campbell, and from just before Christmas, either Clegg or Huhne). So a touch of the Steve McLarens in Tory and Lib Dem circles...

Westminster has seen two general elections (and nearly a third this autumn); the government has sent British forces into action five times; devolved government has taken shape in different forms across the UK; and there have been countless scandals and resignations.

But what haven鈥檛 changed much are the editorial issues that cross my desk. So I thought as a parting shot, I鈥檇 leave you a Christmas quiz on the kind of knotty problems that people have asked about, complained about, and that I鈥檝e found myself writing blogs about in the past months. Unlike most yuletide quizzes, I'm afraid there are no handy answers upside down at the bottom of the page! Here goes:

鈥� When is it ok to turn up at 0630 with a camera outside a politician鈥檚 home?

鈥� When is it legitimate to investigate a politician鈥檚 private life? For example is it right to broadcast a story about a Labour Cabinet minister sending his or her child to a private school?

鈥� On short TV reports on policy matters should we always include clips from all three main parties?

鈥� Why do the best political stories tend to break in the newspapers?

鈥� Is pre-briefing on government or party announcements a good or bad thing?

鈥� When the 麻豆社 uncovered a story from good sources that a senior politician had a serious drink problem - but the politician鈥檚 spokesperson totally denied it - should we have gone ahead and run the story?

鈥� Should political correspondents get out of London more, or is their job to report on what鈥檚 happening at Westminster?

鈥� How do you tell a political correspondent they need to brush their hair, or wear a better coat?

All these and more, I leave to my successor and to you!

Has Iran given up on ambitions to make nuclear weapons? That is the question dominating international media and American political debate today following the publication yesterday of the in Washington and led The World Tonight last night (which you can listen to here).

The NIE is the collective view of all the various intelligence agencies operated by the US government and carries considerable weight in the formulation of American foreign and security policy. The report says Iran did have a nuclear weapons programme but suspended it four years ago, though, the intelligence agencies believe, the Iranian government retains the option to restart its programme.

On The World Tonight, we have been criticised by listeners in the past for viewing the world from an American perspective - something I have blogged on before. But whether the US intelligence agencies are right or wrong about Iran - and since the failure to find evidence of a current chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programme in Iraq following the invasion of 2003 we know intelligence agencies are fallible - I believe the report is worth the attention it's getting because it feeds so directly into US policy-making.

To try to get the most balanced perspective we could last night we turned to the Iranian analyst, , who is now based at Stanford University in California. He pointed out that both Tehran and Washington would probably cherry-pick the report and claim it bolstered their position - this has been borne out today with statements coming from the - but he said it does neither.

Iran has denied it intends to make nuclear weapons and insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. But Professor Milani said it is probable that Iran did have a weapons programme and may well have suspended it in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq and defeated the Iraqi army which the Iranians were unable to defeat in the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s - something that could have given Tehran pause for thought.

On the American side, as recently as six weeks ago, President Bush said that anyone interested in preventing World War III should be worried about Iran's nuclear programme and senior US officials have given the impression that Iran's nuclear ambitions are an imminent threat, so this report should give policy makers in Washington pause for thought too.

The 麻豆社's North America editor, Justin Webb, has blogged on this too and he wonders whether this impression may have been what motivated the intelligence agencies in framing this report. Our presenter, Robin Lustig, has also taken a close interest in US/Iran relations on his blog.

The report - like all intelligence - will inform, but not determine, policy towards Iran. After all it's politicians who make policy, not intelligence agents.

Our sister programme, The World at One, had a go earlier at trying to find out how this report may affect British policy - Britain being one of the three EU countries (along with Germany and France) who are leading negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme. The foreign secretary, David Miliband, was cautious though. He refused to commit, saying Britain would study the report but make its own intelligence assessments, but he said the report fits into the wider strategy of negotiating, and offering carrots and threatening tougher sanctions on Iran to try to get Tehran to agree not to continue enriching uranium.

As with any story that involves intelligence as well as trying to interpret what is going on behind closed doors in Western capitals as well as Tehran, we will continue to ask questions of all sides and look at this issue from the perspectives of all sides to try to help make sense of what is going on. I hope we can shed some light.

Oh dear, a moment on Broadcasting House this weekend has upset a lot of listeners. It featured an exchange between the former Labour insider Derek Draper and the Liberal Democrat acting leader, Vince Cable, in what is supposed to be a review of the Sunday papers. They were discussing . (Click here to listen to it). Among the comments:

"I wouldn't welcome Derek Draper's boorish behaviour in my home, so please don't invite him into my home on my behalf. Debate fine, abuse no."

"There is one guest taking over the discussion and voicing his biased political opinions. There should be a briefing of guests prior to the programmes informing them of protocol and the 麻豆社's constitution."

All the responses we got were critical of Mr Draper and some blamed us for allowing it to happen. It reminded me of when on Midweek (which you can listen to here).

I agree the 麻豆社 should not be deliberately manufacturing confrontations. We did not in this case. We should also not allow bullying and intimidation. I do not think we did that either. Vince Cable is very capable of defending himself. However, I would resist the urge to avoid confrontation altogether. There should be a place for strongly held views vigorously expressed. People get angry because they care about things. Whilst it may have backfired in Mr Draper's case this time, radio should show how deeply views are held. Good programmes should not always be gentle and friendly. They need to be challenging and uncomfortable at times as well.

In 2002, when Newsround celebrated its thirtieth birthday, we invited John Craven back to co-present the show. As Newsround鈥檚 first and longest-serving presenter it seemed a fitting tribute and gave us the chance to take a nostalgic look back at three decades of news for kids - and to get our pictures taken with him, much to his bemusement.

Now we鈥檙e 35 we鈥檝e chosen to mark our latest milestone in a different way. We鈥檝e commissioned into children鈥檚 lives, attitudes and beliefs and the results are fascinating. In many ways they contradict the commonly held belief that young people today have it much harder than previous generations. Yes, they are aware of crime, terrorism and the like but most think Britain is still a great place to live and despite speculation about increased exam pressure and overly crowded classrooms 鈥� the majority say they enjoy school and describe themselves as happy.

But it鈥檚 not all good news. Dads don鈥檛 come out of the survey too well. 1 in 4 children in the UK don鈥檛 count them as immediate family and if something went wrong, only 11% would go to their fathers for help (compared to the 76% who鈥檇 turn to Mum.) We鈥檒l be bringing the survey to life all week on Newsround and will give our audience the chance to have their say on the issues that it raises.

Newsround has come a long way over the past 35 years. The show started with just three members of staff sharing two typewriters in a corner of the 麻豆社 newsroom. Now a fifty strong team produces 37 TV programmes every week and our website is staffed 365 days a year. Yet our central premise remains the same as it was back in 1972. We aim to help children make sense of the world around them and give them the chance to have their say on what is going on.

It鈥檚 impossible to predict what the broadcasting landscape will be like in 2042, but I think we have proved that children have a real appetite for news and if we can continue to bring this to them in an interesting and engaging way then hopefully Newsround will still have the same resonance and relevance in another thirty five years time.