Radio news (archive)
- Peter Rippon
- 21 Sep 06, 04:28 PM
I saw a fascinating vision of the future (or do I mean the present?) on the seafront in Brighton this week.
It happened on the day Charles Kennedy addressed the Liberal Democrat party conference. Our reporter, Sean Curran, went to capture the atmosphere as Mr K walked the hundred yards from his hotel to the conference centre. He found it harder than normal because the media scrum was huge - and despite having a fine set of elbows Sean struggled to get near the man himself.
Watching the TV pictures of our man getting bumped and buffeted I realised why. The usual TV crews, snappers, scribblers and radio hacks are having to contend with a new tribe. In the scrum there was Michael White from the Guardian trying to record a few words with Charlie for .
Later in the hall there was Matthew Parris from the Times recording his own thoughts for , and bizarrely at one point the appeared to be being followed by a TV crew.
I think it was Greg Dyke who commented that when it comes to the new media world we are all eating each others' lunch. Given I am now writing this blog I guess he means me too. Bon appetit.
Peter Rippon is editor of PM and Broadcasting House
- Gary Smith
- 12 Sep 06, 12:57 PM
Should the 麻豆社’s political editor, Nick Robinson, have asked about UK politics during press conferences over the last three days given by Tony Blair with the Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese leaders?
Nick’s questions - used in his reports on TV and radio bulletins - have sparked a heated debate on his blog. Some contributors feel they were totally inappropriate - “an embarrassment to his profession.” - one says that asking about important domestic issues is valid “anywhere at any time.”
It’s a tricky issue. On foreign trips like this, a group of newspaper journalists, broadcasters and agency reporters travels with the prime minister, and - often to the bemusement of foreign leaders - takes every opportunity to pester Mr Blair about what’s going on back in the UK.
At the 麻豆社 we try to do more than this. We have huge numbers of different programmes and platforms and audiences with different interests, and we try to cater for everyone.
So yes, of course we ask about domestic politics; but we cover the diplomatic story as well, allowing editors back in London to decide which angle is the right one at a particular time for their audience.
In the Middle East over the past few days, we’ve had Nick Robinson and Five Live’s John Pienaar in place to pursue domestic politics; but we’ve also had the Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen, and correspondents based in the region such as James Reynolds, Matthew Price and Alan Johnston on the diplomatic story.
The reporting across three days has reflected different aspects of the developing stories.
So for example the 麻豆社 One Ten O’clock News on Sunday night led with Gordon Brown’s interview with Andrew Marr, and included Tony Blair’s reaction to it, which Nick Robinson then talked about from Jerusalem. But the programme also included a report by Jeremy Bowen on the substance of what the prime minister had discussed with Mahmoud Abbas.
Would it have been right for Nick Robinson NOT to have taken the opportunity to ask Mr Blair about what his Chancellor had said? Surely not – domestic politics can’t be put on hold while the prime minister travels abroad.
Political junkies will remember only too well Margaret Thatcher’s performance on the steps of the British Embassy in Paris in November 1990 after she’d failed to beat Michael Heseltine outright in the first vote for the Conservative Party leadership.
The 麻豆社’s fearless chief political correspondent, John Sergeant, pounced with his killer question: “Mrs Thatcher, could I ask you to comment?”
Her spokesman Bernard Ingham then brushed Sergeant to one side to allow Mrs Thatcher to declare her intention to fight on. Two days later, she resigned.
Who remembers now that she was actually attending a meeting about European security? I’m sure John Sergeant was right NOT to ask about that.
When the history books are written about this past weekend, will Mr Blair’s Middle East trip be remembered as a moment when negotiations restarted between the different sides in the Middle East, or as a significant staging post on Mr Blair’s way out of Downing Street. As the old reporting cliché goes, only time will tell.
But at least Nick Robinson’s questions opened up the possibilities for alternative versions of history.
Gary Smith is editor of political news
- Rod McKenzie
- 12 Sep 06, 10:36 AM
Recently, we interviewed the leaders of the three main parties on environmental policy - we called our two weeks of journalism 'The Global Challenge'. All of them talk a good game but our listeners are far from impressed with the actions that match the words.
They may have a point.
Ming Campbell, questioned by our terrier-like political reporter Rajini Vaidyanathan, told us that we should fit energy-saving light bulbs. How many in your household then, Rajini shot back. "Er, I don't have any," was the Lib Dem leader's reply. Rajini knows a jugular when she sees one, pointing out that how can he expect us to save the planet if he doesn't follow his own advice?
David Cameron's view on the subject was that if more of us cycled to work and employers fitted more showers, we'd all be better off. Not much point in doing that if you have an official car following behind with all your paperwork in though is it Mr C? That's not true, said the Tory leader, before admitting, well yes it had happened a couple of times but wouldn't again.
Tony Blair told us he'd turned down the temperature in Downing Street by one degree and enthused about the energy saving lightbulbs that Ming doesn't have… whilst clocking up more non-environmentally friendly air miles on his Caribbean holidays. But our listeners wondered why he is building more airport runways if he's so committed to the environment - and what about doing more to encourage green cars?
But to be fair - how green are the rest of us? Isn't it up to us to save the planet in little ways with a bit of recycling or switching off lights rather than expect the Government to do it for us?
Over on Radio 1's sister station 1Xtra, presenter G-Money had his home carbon energy audited - he scored a pathetic 3 out of 10. He's a big fan of power-hungry gadgets on standby - which, let's face it, doesn't help. And what's he doing about it? "Switching everything off," he told me - hmmmm, call me a sceptic but habits/lifetime/changing spring to mind.
Our reporters have travelled the world - Rajini again, to notorious high polluter India, and our US reporter Heather Alexander to check out green cars in New York - and get a 4x4 petrol head to drive one in Manhattan. We were inside the arctic circle to check on the big melt and Tulip Mazumdar went to Ireland to see how well a tax on plastic bags was working.
We did it all for journalistic reasons but we did a fair bit of polluting ourselves with all those fumes - travelling and flights. You can't win can you - so maybe politicians feel the same. But before you ask - yes, I am paying to make our reporters flights carbon neutral!
Rod McKenzie is editor of Newsbeat and 1Xtra TX
- Tim Bailey
- 1 Sep 06, 04:05 PM
The case of the Stornaway schoolgirl Molly Campbell highlighted discussion about "arranged marriages" and "forced marriages". There are very important differences between the two; they are not alternatives.
Arranged marriages have a long and successful history in this country and elsewhere. I am sure I read figures that suggested the divorce rate among couples whose marriage had been arranged by a third party (usually their families) was lower than those of couples who fended for themselves, so to speak.
Forced marriages are completely different. By their very nature they involve compulsion of at least one - if not both - of the people involved as well physical threats and intimidation. They could well be the subject of serious criminal charges, such as rape.
It is no minor matter to confuse the two.
Tim Bailey is editor of the Radio 4 Six O'Clock News
- Gavin Allen
- 21 Aug 06, 05:36 PM
Cricket is only a game! The e-mailer, complaining to us at the Today progamme that the ball tampering row was our lead item, wanted us to be crystal clear about this - as if the exclamation mark wasn't emphasis enough - and demanded we give him, and our other listeners, a break! (Two exclamation marks in one sentence is a surefire shorthand for You're Wrong!).
And this listener wasn't alone. Or, indeed, wrong himself. It IS only a game. But that doesn't mean it can't, just occasionally, qualify as general news too. Some blokes booting a ball into a German net four times 40 years ago was also only a game, but I'm assured it grabbed a few headlines at the time, and rightly so. Running orders don't always have to be solely about events that alter society for decades to come, or retain significance beyond the notoriously stunted news cycle (although Moore & Co did pretty well by that standard too, as it happens).
Sometimes, a news story is a news story - even a headline news story - because it fires passions or generates debate or is just inexplicably interesting. And that's it. The father who threw himself and his children off a balcony in Crete, killing his son and injuring his daughter, is only a bloke. But he's news. As is that Gunter Grass SS-soldier-turned-author chap. It makes us curious, makes us want to find out more, makes us ask questions and try to crawl towards some tentative answers in our humble mission to explain. Oh - and entertain.
In the case of Tampergate - yes, I know it won't catch on, but someone's going to grasp wearily for the cliche, so it may as well be me - there was no shortage of entertaining questions. How do you tamper with a ball? What does a ball do once tampered with? Why doesn't rubbing it against your groin qualify as tampering? In fact why doesn't rubbing it against your groin qualify as illegal?
But, protests another listener, it is not the most important thing that's happened in the last 24 hours. Perhaps not. But then, what was? Another military death in Afghanistan? New selection procedures that could propel more Conservative Party women and ethnic minority candidates into Parliament? Saddam Hussein's genocide trial? Well, yes to all that, which is why they were all lead items today - with Saddam occupying the main 0810 slot.
But cricket was important too. Not life-threatening, not career-enhancing, not nation-building, sure - but just good old-fashioned interesting to a swathe of listeners who wanted to know how, why and whether this was cricket's blackest day ever, whether the Pakistan team had cheated and what would happen as a result. Events were moving in our time - we interviewed a representative from cricket's world governing body, and an umpire from the ECB clarifying the rules - and even Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf was moved to ring his cricket team captain to pick up a few pointers on what was going on.
And isn't that what news should be all about - learning about something new? Something that matters - to him and her if not to you. Finding out something you didn't know before? This was the first Test match in history to be abandoned due to cheating, or at least - according to the umpires - to a reaction to being caught cheating. Why shouldn't we help our audience understand how it had all come about and what its consequences would be? Because, chorus the complainants, it's only a game. "You have ghettos for overpaid men's 'sport' at around 25 past the hour," bellowed one. "Please confine all such items to these slots."
In other words, I don't care, I don't want it and I don't care if other listeners want it. But that's the odd thing about sport - our listeners tend not to take it or leave it so much as love it or hate it. There's very little indifference. To the chuck-it-in-a-ghetto-ers, sports fans tend to be tiresome stattos forever fretting about a pig's bladder or slab of willow or ping pong thing, while many sports fans label the ghetto-ers news snobs who are out of touch with the effort and vigour and heroism that sport provides.
Snob or statto: which are you? And which is right? Luckily, it doesn't matter - both are characterised by opinionated self-confidence. As is news. It's not an art. It's certainly not a science. It's just a judgement about what matters and what interests and what bears further analysis. News, in the end, is really only a game. And, like cricket, what a beautiful maddening game it can be.
Gavin Allen is deputy editor of the Today programme
- Rod McKenzie
- 18 Aug 06, 03:06 PM
It's like picking your nose with a rubber glove on.
That was one Radio 1 listener's description of having sex wearing a condom. We've been involved in carrying out the largest ever survey into the sex lives of young Britons - more than 30,000 people took part and the findings were widely reported , on TV as well as on Newsbeat and other 麻豆社 radio programmes.
People have expressed their shock to me at the findings on underage sex, one night stands, the relationship between drink and sex and of course the dramatic rates of STI infections and unwanted teenage pregnancies - on which Britain pretty much leads the western world.
The experts tell us that the sex safe message isn't getting through like it did at the start of the HIV/AIDS era in the 80s. The figures certainly bear that out - more than a third of those who took part in the survey said they didn't wear a condom with a new partner.
But it's the anecdotes from our audience that are the most eye catching as a snapshot of sexual attitudes today.
Many young men say they hate wearing them - "it spoils the feeling" was a common sentiment - that they prefer to risk making their partner pregnant or catching an STI rather than wearing a condom. Nathan told us "condoms are for scaredy cats".
Many young women told us they hate them, too - we heard how when men produce condoms, their lovers snatch them and throw them away - and this came from the girls by the way.
So those infection and pregnancy rates shouldn't surprise us - however much they might depress you or worry doctors.
We found politicians largely unwilling to get involved in this issue - the dangers of prying into people's sex lives and preaching show the political risks are as real for them as the sexual risks are for young lovers.
So what are the tips for those wanting to protect their health at the moment of truth in the bedroom?
Our audience came up with some sharp 'condom comebacks' to help those struggling with the dilemma of a partner reluctant to "strap up". Kate says, "if there's no rubber I ain't your lover" while Jess prefers, "it looks like I'm dealing with one baby, I don't want to have to deal with two". LouLou says simply, "no balloons, no party" but the favourite one is this simple, yet direct approach - "sorry, no glove, no love!"
Rod McKenzie is editor of Newsbeat and 1Xtra TX
- Alistair Burnett
- 16 Aug 06, 04:48 PM
As you may have heard, about 150 MPs have called for Parliament to be recalled from its summer break to debate the crisis in the Middle East and last week's security alert at British airports.
In a letter to the leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, they said: "There is huge concern in the country about the current Middle East crisis, and fear that the early failure to insist that Israel and Hizbullah observe an immediate ceasefire has cost many innocent lives."
Number 10 has rejected this call and said earlier this week that with the ceasefire in Lebanon, the situation has changed significantly since that letter was sent - and so there are no plans to recall Parliament at present.
So we decided The World Tonight should step in instead to give MPs an opportunity to have their say. We've tried to organize it so it resembles as closely as possible a Parliamentary debate - and so far about a dozen MPs from all sides have agreed to come back to London to take part (with Robin Lustig in the role of 'Mr Speaker').
The debate will begin on our sister programme, PM (which will carry the start), and then there'll be an hour long special on Radio 4 at 9pm before we get reaction to the debate on The World Tonight.
The idea is to hear what our elected representatives think about what has been going on in the Middle East and for them to debate what British policy should be.
Organising something like this takes a lot of time and patience - it requires an awful lot of what our journalists refer to unfondly as 'phone-bashing' - ringing lots of people trying to see if they will take part, and to their credit some MPs are making a serious effort to join us - cancelling constituency business or coming to London from Scotland for the day.
Some MPs turned us down because they are unable to break constituency engagements, many are on holiday but some have told us they feel we in the 麻豆社 are too cynical and critical of the government. Even the reassurance that they will not be interviewed in the traditonal format but will be debating with each other was not enough to assuage them - which is a pity and doesn't reflect well on the state of relations between some politicians and the media, but that's a debate for another day.
If you get a chance to listen - it will be carried live on the R4 website.
Alistair Burnett is editor of the World Tonight
- Colin Hancock
- 15 Aug 06, 12:15 PM
...to everyone who's emailed us welcoming Nick Clarke back to The World at One. The emails started after Shaun Ley announced Nick's return at the end of Friday's programme... continued through the weekend... then surged after Nick trailed the programme on air at 1230 yesterday.
Another flurry after the headlines and then a steady stream as soon as the programme (listen to it here) ended - with listeners in Canada, Dublin, France and Lesotho among those quickest off the block.
It was particularly pleasing to have so many adding praise for Shaun to their comments... and quite a few saying incredibly nice things about the show in general (please don't feel a need to redress the balance...).
The team marked the occasion with a quick burst of applause as Nick came out of the studio and by demolishing a beautifully-iced cake baked and decorated by two of our studio managers.
For the time being Nick will present on Mondays and Tuesdays and Shaun will continue Wednesday to Friday, as well as presenting The World This Weekend.
For now, though, the final word should rest with a listener who, 'midst the torrent of praise, emailed to admonish Nick for his one anachronistic reference to "the British Airports Authority" rather than BAA. "Sloppy journalism", the email concluded.
Nine months away or not, good to be reminded that no-one expects mistakes from Nick and WATO.
Colin Hancock is the editor of The World at One and The World This Weekend
- Alistair Burnett
- 9 Aug 06, 05:10 PM
More aid workers were killed in July in the troubled Sudanese region of Darfur than in the entire preceding three years - that was the stark statement from the UN and aid agencies this week.
There has also been the killing of 17 aid workers in Sri Lanka - both of these have received a lot less attention from the world's media than would have been the case if attention wasn't focussed on the Middle East crisis.
My colleague, Craig Oliver of the ten o'clock TV news, blogged recently to explain why the Middle East got more attention than Congo and Iraq in his programme. I could have written the same for The World Tonight.
But there is a danger in this - which came up in a conversation I was having with an MP the other day - which is that while the world's attention is focussed on the Middle East, others may take advantage to get up to no good in the hope no-one will notice much.
Apart from Darfur and Sri Lanka - both of which have seen more violence in the past few weeks, other former hot spots are getting warmer again. In East Timor, the Australian-led peacekeepers have still to restore complete order and 150,000 people (more then 10% of the entire population) remain in camps living in very poor conditions.
And closer to home in Kosovo, there are growing fears that there could be a return to violence because it looks like the international community is going to make the province independent and oblige the Serbs in the north of the province - where they remain a majority - to leave the country they were born in and want to continue living in.
On the World Tonight, we made space for the latter last Thursday (listen to it here) but not yet made space for the former. Why? Because we've been giving so much space to the Middle East.
Alistair Burnett is editor of the World Tonight
- Peter Rippon
- 9 Aug 06, 11:15 AM
One of the programmes I edit, Broadcasting House, really irritates some listeners. There is a small but vocal section of Radio Four devotees who just do not accept the fundamental proposition - that you can have fun as well as do serious news on the same programme.
Thankfully the show's healthy audience figures convince me that such views are a minority. So recently Mark Doyle has exposed child labour in the mines of the Democratic Republic of Congo (listen here), but at the same time we've made a theatrical arrest (listen here).
Getting the balance and tone right is hard. In fact it is one of the hardest things we do. It regularly dominates our editorial discussions and we get it wrong sometimes. In fact, if you want to see the blood drain from any reporter's face you do not need to send them off to doorstep the relatives of the victim of some terrible tragedy. As they leave the building on a story just say "have some fun with it!" and watch them wilt.
It may be hard but I believe passionately we must continue to do it. Radio Four is often criticised for being too stuffy, too aloof and too elitist. Humour is a crucial weapon in countering such perceptions.
Peter Rippon is editor of PM and Broadcasting House
- Tim Bailey
- 2 Aug 06, 03:48 PM
A correspondent filed a piece on the reopening of the Bath Spa after a series of delays. She opened her dispatch with this sentence - "Many Bath residents will be having a sense of déjà vu". She went on to explain that there had been a ceremony to reopen the Baths three years ago. At the last minute the decision had been taken not allow the public in. Until now.
The correspondent used the word déjà vu to mean that the people of Bath would be reliving something they had already experienced.
However, according to the dictionary, déjà vu does not mean that at all; in fact rather the reverse. It means the experience of thinking you are reliving some event or feeling when you have not; you are experiencing it for the first time.
But this raises the question - when does a word change its meaning? Words are for conveying understanding, never more so than in radio reports when the audience has only one chance to hear what is being said. So if most people use a word to mean one thing, does that become its true meaning?
Tim Bailey is editor of the Radio 4 Six O'Clock News
- Liliane Landor
- 2 Aug 06, 12:13 PM
This war has all been about semantics and the failure to read the small print.
As I write, our reporter in Brussels is filing on the EU foreign ministers meeting that's just ended - the gist of her report is that the ministers agreed not to call for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon. Instead, they're calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities.
The difference between ceasefire and cessation of hostilities? A cynic would say none. Just a way around various political sensitivities.
But it’s not just the Europeans that have a taste for linguistic fineries. The Israelis and Lebanese can also play at that game. Here's two quick examples.
Example 1 - early Monday morning Israel announces it's agreed to a suspension of air activity for 48 hours to investigate the Qana incident - we duly register. It’s the lead of our news bulletins and breakfast programmes.
A few hours later, Dan Damon on World Update interviews a Lebanese minister who insists aerial bombardment was still going on, and claims the Israeli airforce had just attacked a Lebanese military post near Tyre. Clearly the story's moving fast but we need to confirm and get this right. If the minister's claims are correct, we can’t possibly keep leading on "a cessation of aerial hostilities".
The programme's editor decides to turn to Jim Muir in the South of Lebanon who confirms artillery was hitting, but most likely it's naval he says. Jim adds he could hear planes flying but did not think they were dropping bombs. The editor decides to get it from the horse's mouth - the always-accommodating IDF spokesperson. No joy there. It's finally Richard Miron, in Metulla on the Israeli/Lebanese border who sheds some light over the elusive aerial "pause"...
He explains that Israeli jets had been operating in the area and quoted the Israeli army saying, "it reserves the right to strike Hezbollah targets where it believe its forces and civilians are under imminent threat". Hot of the press, he then confirmed the Air Force was indeed assisting ground operation. Ceasefire meant in this instance that the Israeli airforce was not carrying on with its timetabled operation - simply responding.
Riddle solved. We changed our headline.
Example 2 - from the other side of the border. It is well known there is no love lost between Hezbollah and the Lebanese PM Fuad Siniora. Mr Siniora is anti-Syrian, a good friend of Condoleeza Rice, and certainly not a fan of Syed Hassan Nasrallah.
Yet in an emotional speech after the Israeli strike on Qana, the prime minister praised Hezbollah, calling them resistance fighters, protectors of Lebanon and the Lebanese - you could say he "re-named" Hezbollah.
Mere semantics or a more profound shift in internal Lebanese alignments? Time will tell.
Liliane Landor is editor of World Service news and current affairs
- Fran Unsworth
- 1 Aug 06, 10:30 AM
You would have had to have been in hibernation for the past few years to have missed the ascent of the environment up the news agenda. We have been suffering a heat wave this week that many people have found unpleasant, the south east is crippled with drought and the UK apparently now produces award-winning wine because we can grow vines successfully in this country.
Many are questioning whether climate change is responsible for all this; others argue these events are cyclical.
There is a huge responsibility on us to be a trusted and reliable source of information. But to report the subject properly we have to look not only at the science, but also the impact of environmental issues on economics, business and politics. Like all journalistic organisations we tend to have difficulty doing joined-up reporting.
That's why we have decided to appoint an environment analyst to try to pull together some of these threads. Roger Harrabin has covered the environment for two decades, largely for radio where he has reported the story as it appears through energy, transport, housing and politics.
In his new post he will spread this approach across a wider range of 麻豆社 outlets offering original stories and new perspectives, and tackling such subjects as...
• What is a safe level of climate change?
• Can technology provide the solution?
• How much would we need to spend to stabilise the world's climate?
• Can we adapt to climate change?
Hopefully through his work (such as this report on last night's Ten O'Clock News), audiences will be armed with more information to help better understand controversial and complex issues surrounding the subject.
Fran Unsworth is head of Newsgathering
- Rod McKenzie
- 25 Jul 06, 01:16 PM
Andy is a bathroom fitter. He's young - a keen Radio 1 listener with a wife and two small children. I spent some time with him recently - not because he's doing my bathroom - but because I went to talk to him while he was doing a job near Basingstoke and I wanted to get his thoughts on what we do journalistically.
You see, we editors do occasionally come down from our ivory towers.
Broadly, he's a fan, but one thing does make him very angry.
Your editorial line - he said, accusingly - is promoting sex. "You are always going on about STI's, condoms and safe sex... and giving the impression everyone's doing it with multiple partners. But you don't talk about monogamy or abstinence!"
This got me thinking: sex is one of the Radio 1's audience key concerns; with the western world's highest rates of teen pregnancies, huge rises in STI's and spiralling depression - often caused by relationship or self image issues - it's hardly surprising we get more listener interaction on these issues than any other. The appetite for these stories is huge.
So am I some sort of latter-day Paul Raymond - presiding over a sleazy world of promiscuity and porn, surrounded by page 3 wannabes whilst signing up kiss-and-tell stories to shame the News of the World? No, clearly not. That never has been or will be, part of the brief (no pun intended).
But what we are providing is public service information in any area where many young people feel they are seriously uninformed. The reality is that for many of our audience, sex - often risky, sometimes disastrous - is a regular part of their lives.
It's not our job, I believe, to preach, to stand in judgement or to make moral judgements. It's not a role I seek or am qualified to do - nor would my staff want to. It is our job to make the best information available to our young listeners aged in their late teens and early twenties so they can make informed choices if they wish to. We even have a specialist youth health reporter, Helen Neill, to help us to address this editorial area with real focus.
I said this to Andy - he thought for a bit and said, smiling, "but you could tell them about abstinence and being faithful to one person couldn't you? There are some young people like that, you know".
Maybe he's got a point.
(PS: Click here to find out more about Radio 1's 'Bare All' campaign.)
Rod McKenzie is editor of Newsbeat and 1Xtra TX
- Adrian Van-Klaveren
- 20 Jul 06, 04:29 PM
So we at the 麻豆社 have had one of those “organisational moments”, making substantial changes to how we run ourselves.
included an emphasis on 麻豆社 Journalism as one of the main planks of what the 麻豆社 does – alongside Audio & Music and 麻豆社 Vision. The idea at the heart of 麻豆社 Journalism builds on what we’ve been doing over the last few years. We’ve worked hard to create stronger links between the 麻豆社’s journalistic output, locally, nationally and internationally. Sport now joins the mix as well.
Our aim is to ensure we fully achieve our mission of delivering the world’s best journalism and that what we do is available to as many people as possible across all appropriate platforms.
Of course this only really matters if it makes a difference to audiences. I think it will. It should help us be more ambitious in what we do across the big themes of our time – climate change, energy supply, China, global security and many more.
When all of the 麻豆社’s journalists work together we can give audiences an unrivalled insight into major issues. The expertise of the World Service, the innovation of our interactive teams, the grass roots understanding from our teams across the UK can all combine to strengthen our coverage of subjects ranging from immigration to the environment.
Of course it’s happened in the past but we know we can and should do more.
Secondly it’s vital that all areas of the 麻豆社’s journalism work together as we adapt to the changing technological world. Finding the right ways of offering content and the best technology to support that content needs to be thought about across the 麻豆社 – not just in individual areas.
What we provide in terms of news services to mobiles for example is likely to cuts across boundaries of local, national and international.
In a world where greater personalisation will be one of the key themes, audiences will be in control rather than our traditional boundaries and demarcations. There will be people who regularly want a diet of news which ranges from the local to the global and we need to make sure our way of doing things supports, rather than gets in the way of, providing this.
Journalism is at the heart of why the 麻豆社 exists. The changes to the organisation reflect this and I think can only encourage anyone who wants the 麻豆社 to continue to offer the best in on-the-spot reporting, analysis and explanation, robust interviewing and original story finding.
Adrian Van-Klaveren is deputy director of 麻豆社 News
- Mark Wray
- 20 Jul 06, 02:56 PM
It's always great to get a scoop - and even nicer to get two for the price of one.
So, last week, when Anita Anand managed to convince Sir Gulam Noon to respond to (about the curry tycoon having been told by Lord Levy not to reveal his ?250k loan to the Labour Party), I was pretty chuffed.
Using her own contacts and some good old-fashioned persuasion Anita encouraged a pretty reluctant Noon to put his side of the story (hear the interview here). He refused to implicate his Lordship directly but did go as far as is decent for a Knight of the Realm in venting his not inconsiderable displeasure with the whole farrago.
We're not great at blowing our own trumpets on these occasions. But I did alert the Press Association newsdesk, other 麻豆社 programmes and the 麻豆社 press office.
The world and his dog started chasing Sir Gulam to see if he would throw them a bone too but he'd said his piece. So Anita's was the only interview they had to go on and there was great pick up in the papers the next day. Some mentioning Anita and her programme, others mentioning Five Live, some just the 麻豆社 and others, well, giving no credit at all (it's annoying when that happens but which of us can hold our hands up and say we haven't used others' storylines without a proper plug?).
The icing on the top of the Levy/Noon cake was hearing Sarah Montague introduce Anita's interview, in full, on the following morning's Today programme. At the end of the interview she gave Anita another name-check.
There was a time, not too long ago, when internal rivalries meant that if a 麻豆社 programme used material from other 麻豆社 outlets, an interview like this would have been filleted for the best clips, cutting out the 'rival' talent. And on those rare occasions when a credit was given it would have been barely audible as it was spat out through the presenter's gritted teeth.
We're not quite One 麻豆社 yet, but we are getting there.
Mark Wray is editor of the Anita Anand programme on Five Live
- Alistair Burnett
- 17 Jul 06, 10:11 AM
The World Tonight has been covering the crisis in the Middle East, along with the rest of the media, in recent days. And as usual when we cover this story, we get a lot of audience comment on our coverage - a lot of it critical. Here are two examples from the past week:
• "Does the fact that the missiles fired by Palestinians into Israel are "primitive" (as you allege) make those acts more or less grave? Does the fact that Sderot is the home town of the Israeli defence minister make it more or less appropriate that Israel defend herself. Or are these bits of spin just part of the 麻豆社's stance against Israel?"
• "I felt your report in the World Tonight this evening on events in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon was completely unbalanced. Yes you had an Oxford based academic criticise Israeli policy but your interviewer did not challenge any representatives of the Israeli government in their interviews about violation of Geneva conventions and international law. Why do you not hold them to any account? If you can’t do a serious interview don’t give them airtime."
The curious thing is that they were both written to us in response to the same item (hear it here). There is an old adage in journalism that if you're getting complaints from both sides in a polarised debate such as that over the Middle East conflict, you must be doing something right. But in case you think we take a flippant attitude, we take complaints more seriously than this adage may suggest.
The 麻豆社 Governors recently commissioned an independent report into the 麻豆社's coverage of the Middle East which concluded there was no intentional bias, although we could give more context to events - which is why we are now telling listeners and viewers about the , as well as taking other measures to improve our coverage, such as appointing a West Bank correspondent.
But even before this report we have always spent a lot of time carefully considering how we cover this story and the language we use. Central to our journalistic ethos is our duty to report and analyse all sides to a story, so our audience can make sense of what is going on the world.
Alistair Burnett is editor of the World Tonight
- Tim Bailey
- 14 Jul 06, 11:36 AM
Many listeners are concerned about the graphic content of some our radio reports. This is an example of editing on the grounds of taste. The original report came from our correspondent in Baghdad, and dealt with a video that showed the mutilated bodies of American servicemen. The soldiers had apparently been killed in retaliation for the death of an Iraqi girl.
The first paragraph of the original report included this phrase: "The camera lingers over the bodies of two American soldiers. Their torsos are terribly mutilated, one is headless, the head is swung in front of the camera. Now and then a foot appears to prod a lifeless corpse."
This was cut as I thought it was too strong for a teatime audience (although it is only fair to say not everyone here agreed). And this is what was broadcast: "The camera lingers over the bodies of two American soldiers. Their torsos are terribly mutilated; one is headless."
My own view was that conveyed a sufficiently powerful image.
Tim Bailey is editor of the Radio 4 Six O'Clock News
- Husain Husaini
- 14 Jul 06, 10:01 AM
As head of news at the Asian Network, I work out of three offices, in Leicester, London and Birmingham. Of course I wasn't in any of them when news came through about the bombs in Mumbai. The first I heard of it was when I idly looked at my mobile phone - which was on silent during the meeting I was in. "Four missed calls". There was also a text from a colleague at 麻豆社 World Service asking if I was "sending" to Mumbai. "Sending" is the journalist jargon for getting a reporter to a location.
So I phone the office, find out what we know so far and start telling people to do things. But it becomes clear that the team writing our news bulletins in Leicester and the one making the Adil Ray Drive programme in Birmingham are way ahead of me. They are doing a textbook job in breaking news. Adil himself is relatively new to this kind of story but I think anyone listening would agree he performed superbly: always calm, always trying to find out more and always clear about what we really know and what only think has happened.
That leaves me with the problem of whether to "send". My instinct is of course "yes". But the Asian Network is not a huge station and doesn't have that much money for big trips. We have already spent a fair amount this month sending a reporter to Pakistan to cover the case of - a Leeds man on death row in Islamabad. A "send" to Mumbai will also mean that I have less to spend on what I think is our core business: covering the lives and concerns of British Asians. The Asian Network can also use all the other 麻豆社 reporters who are rushing to the scene too. Even so, I take the view that for the Asian network to cover this story as well as our listeners will expect, we need to be there.
It was a bit of a scramble. We decide to send Dil Neiyyar (our London reporter) and Rifat Jawaid (our languages editor). Dil spends the afternoon getting a visa from the Indian High Commission and his equipment together. Rifat rushes to Heathrow from Birmingham. We start compiling the appropriate hazard assessment forms. Safety is crucial. As well as the possibility of more bombs, there is the fear of communal violence and more mundanely the intense heat. Both Rifat and Dil have done the 麻豆社's "hostile environment" course. Mumbai isn't a war zone, but this intense training really helps reporters assess the risks on the ground.
Eight thirty in the evening and a nightmare call comes. Visa delays mean they've missed the flight. More money needed for another one. Got to do it now, just hope we get a refund for the first flight.
They arrive early the next day and are on air almost immediately. Between them they work for our morning programmes, our lunchtime news programme "The Wrap" and for Adil's show again. Rifat appears on our languages shows through the evening. They head off around Mumbai and get some terrific material: voices of real Mumbai citizens responding to this terrifying attack. I'm left with a strong impression of a defiant city refusing to stop living their lives and refusing to blame the many Muslims in their city. And the good news is we did get our first flights refunded. So more money in the pot for next time.
Husain Husaini is head of news at the Asian Network
- Tim Bailey
- 10 Jul 06, 09:41 AM
I approach this subject with a fair degree of trepidation. But a number of people have asked about the relationship between correct English grammar and 麻豆社 radio news scripts; in other words how important is correct usage of language for a news broadcaster?
The first thing to acknowledge is that for a section of the radio audience (primarily listeners to Radio Three and Radio Four, but not exclusively) the dictionary use of words is of vital importance; these listeners get very annoyed at errors or at sloppiness and they write in making their views know with what is known as great vigour. It is a foolish and arrogant broadcaster who ignores these people and their views. I most certainly don't.
Of course, most broadcasters are not foolish and they make every effort to use words correctly and to acknowledge the basic rules of grammar. And my own experience is that correspondents are keen to be told they have made a mistake - and equally keen not to repeat it. I have not come across a correspondent saying this sort of stuff is not worthy of attention.
This can be taken to extremes. I remember vividly a war correspondent filing on a phone from the battlefront with the sound of bullets and shells exploding all around him. He filed and the only response from the Radio Four desk was a producer shouting back through the sounds of war: "You have misused the word 'ironically'; you mean 'coincidentally'."
All radio broadcasters are aware that the listener usually gets only one chance to hear what they are saying; it must be clear, concise and easily understandable; there is usually not a second chance. And rules of grammar are, for the most part, agreed to ensure clarity, concision and comprehension. So there is no problem. All broadcasters should obey all the rules.
Up to a point. Radio news broadcasts are not compiled like that. They quite often deliberately break the rules. And the reason why they do so is to enhance clarity, concision and comprehension. And I think they are right. Radio news broadcasts are the illegitimate child of demotic speech and formal prose. The end - in this case informing the listeners - justifies the means: bending, if not breaking, the rules.
And of course the language changes all the time. This is a whole issue in itself. When does a word or phrase enter the mainstream; when does it become acceptable? Decisions on individual words are taken all the time. And I know a lot of people do not like the decisions. I know because they write in to tell me. The people who accept the changes, of course, don't.
So the debate goes on. As it should, and we should all take part.
Tim Bailey is editor of the Radio 4 Six O'clock News
You can send us your thoughts or queries about the language used in any of our news programmes by leaving a comment below or using the form on the right hand side of the page.
- Colin Hancock
- 8 Jul 06, 10:02 AM
As keen listeners to Radio Four will know, is easing himself back into work. An audio diary the other week (listen ), standing in for J Dimbleby on Any Questions... and then, all being well, he'll be back with us on The World At One from August 14th for an initial two days a week.
It's going to be a period of readjustment for all of us. Of course the overwhelming feeling is that we're all delighted Nick has got through such a traumatic period in such good shape and we can't wait to have him back here. But we're also conscious that we don't want to push him too hard too quickly: it's only a few weeks since he finished his long programme of chemotherapy, and within a month he's due to be anchoring three gruelling party conferences around the country.
Also, we're all very much aware how brilliantly Shaun Ley has held the role of presenter of WATO during Nick's absence. Given that I'd only just brought him in to the department as the presenter of The World This Weekend, his transition to WATO within two months says a hell of a lot about his natural skills in front of a microphone, not to mention his in-depth knowledge of politics and policy.
For the time being, Shaun will present Wednesday to Friday after Nick has kicked off the week on Mondays and Tuesdays. Mr Ley will also move back onto The World This Weekend (or TW2 as we know it)... which means 's stint on the programme comes to an end in a few weeks. Brian's been a huge asset on the programme - and many of his foreign-based editions, such as those from Jerusalem and Rome, have won a lot of praise from listeners and colleagues alike. Of course Brian has huge experience and his confident hold on TW2 won't have surprised anyone: I'm very grateful for everything he's done here to help develop TW2 over the past year.
Perhaps the most heartening aspect of the past year has been the audience's feedback. Listeners have at the same time been asking after Nick and looking forward to his return, while recognising and praising Shaun and Brian. I've been lucky to have had such strength in depth (I'm trying to steer clear of a tempting Gelsenkirchen contrast here...), not just in presenters but also with a production team which has maintained the programmes' high standards and moved them on despite the changes.
I'm sure Nick will slot back in effortlessly. Much will be familiar to him. Except perhaps a tradition introduced by Shaun: the presenter buys the first coffee-round of the morning, Nick.
Colin Hancock is the editor of The World at One and The World This Weekend
- Matt Morris
- 6 Jul 06, 09:49 AM
Couldn't you tell it was going to happen...?
The lack of penetration in spite of Wayne Rooney's bustling. The way the ball bounced off Peter Crouch, no matter how gently it was played up to him. Frank Lampard's unconvincing air of assurance as he walked up to take the first penalty. A nation was deeply upset by the success of the Portuguese; though in the Farmers' Arms in Llangennech on Saturday night, there was little sympathy for England fans among the assembled Welshmen (and they were all men, except for the woman behind the bar).
So now St George's cross is disappearing from cars, white vans and people carriers. But we on Five Live are having to give some thought to what the cross represents - or, more accurately, to whether it can be taken to represent any political party. It came about because of the contribution of a guest on Victoria Derbyshire's programme on 5 May...
Continue reading "St George's Cross"
- Peter Rippon
- 6 Jul 06, 09:29 AM
PM's experiment with playing birdsong at the end of the programme rather than the chimes of Big Ben ('the Bongs' we call them) has ended.
We played a montage of our greatest hits at the end of the programme (listen here) in an effort to placate the hundreds of listeners now arguing we should ditch the Bongs and keep the birds. I'm not sure the fabric of the universe could survive such a move but there has been some well argued comment.
• Andrew Davy - "Keep the birdsong. Big Ben now seems stuffy, grey and the sound of an Ealing-comedy kind of England. Your final contributor, the Herring gull (complete with waves rolling in behind), made me go all misty-eyed as I sat in the heatwave rush hour."
• Tim Horton - "Stuff the bongs, please keep the bird song - I've loved this educational spot. On digital, the bongs are well off time anyway. Can we have the Radio 4 UK theme back too? I'll pass on the PM theme."
• Paddy Finnegan - "I think we should find a place for the birdsong somewhere in the show. It is impossible for me to believe that the songs could not be relocated in the show without upsetting the balance. Indeed, it could be used as editorial comment. I can easily imagine a time when a senior politician has failed at the third time of asking to answer the clear question, his voice is faded gently out while a much-loved voice gently intones... 'and here, with no less to contribute to the subject than the right hon... is the song of the golden oriel...' cue birdsong."
• Rowan Woods - "I grieved when I heard your listener's comment that he had now heard all he needed to hear of birdsong. I cannot imagine ever hearing enough of birds singing, and to sacrifice that little breath of heaven for the hammering of ponderous old bells is, I feel, a tragic metaphor for humanity's rejection of the natural world."
• Richard Evans - "Keep the birdsong. The wood pigeon made more sense than some of the members of the cabinet."
• John Pringle - "How disappointing that you're abandoning the birdsong to revert to the dreary metrocentric quarter bells. Why not adopt that wonderful recording of eider duck as your signature tune, to be played at the start and the end of each programme?"
If you've not heard the Eider... it's the one doing a Frankie Howard impression towards the end of the montage. I guess we will have to find ad hoc reasons for including Birdsong in PM in future. You'll just have to keep listening for it.
Peter Rippon is editor of PM and Broadcasting House
- Alistair Burnett
- 28 Jun 06, 03:11 PM
Last night, The World Tonight won the for radio for a series of reports we ran last year on forced evictions and forced abortions in the Chinese countryside by the 麻豆社's Beijing Correspondent, Rupert Wingfield-Hayes.
Winning awards is great for morale. It's recognition that we do more than slap each other on the back and that others - out there, outside the 麻豆社 - recognise the quality of what we do.
However, I have to admit to mixed feelings at entering for an award from a campaigning organisation because that was not what motivated me to commission the reports. This came home to me when I was giving an interview after the award presentation to Amnesty's PR people, and I felt I had to point out that we didn't run the reports in order to support any campaign, but because I felt we need to give rounded coverage of the China story.
The emergence (or in the grand sweep of history the re-emergence) of China as an economic powerhouse is more than a story of extraordinary growth statistics, gleaming skyscrapers, and Chinese investment in Africa. And while many Chinese are becoming better off, there are losers in this story and it is important to hear their voices so our listeners can make sense of the story for themselves.
Alistair Burnett is editor of the World Tonight
- Kevin Marsh
- 27 Jun 06, 11:26 AM
So this is the editors' blog. But what do we mean by "editor"?
The first thing to note is that the person who edits a particular edition of a programme - what we call "the output editor" - is not necessarily "the Editor".
So what's the difference?
As with all the best questions the honest answer is - it depends. On some programmes, there's less difference than on others - often the Editor will be the output editor on any particular day. But in broad terms, the output editor is responsible for one edition of a programme; the Editor for the programme, and the team, over time.
So what does being responsible "over time" mean ?
Every programme has a programme remit - a description of the programme, its key features and in particular the features that make it original and distinctive. Some are written down, though most programme remits are less formally set out and often agreed only verbally with Department Heads. That doesn't make them any less binding on the Editor. Recently, objectives dealing with aspects such as audience size and appreciation have supplemented or even superseded formal programme remits.
In addition to these, all Editors set themselves objectives when they get the job. The selection process demands detailed pitch which can include anything from changes in programme agenda and tone, to changes of presenters or personnel - or even what shouldn't be changed.
The tools the Editor has are limited. Money is one; you have to manage the programme budget - which includes the annual argument for more (you always end up with less) as well as making it all add up at the end of the financial year, having spent a proportion of it on things intended to achieve your objectives. Staff is another; you appoint - or supervise the appointment of - staff, appraise them, decide who does what on the programme, give them feedback and advise them on their performance.
The other tools - the really powerful ones - are less easily defined. Influence... setting the programme weather... stalking the floor... hunting down inaccuracies... generating an atmosphere where originality can flourish... spotting flair and encouraging it... spotting bad habits and discouraging them... knowing whose case you need to be on, who you can cut a bit of slack. And dealing with The Talent - the presenters, the real power-mongers in the 麻豆社.
And Editors will have influence over programme decisions, though different Editors have different approaches. Clearly, as Editor you have to make the calls on the big, risky stories. And you have to have the means in place to make sure you know all you need to know before making those big calls; and the nous to know when someone on an even higher grade than yourself should be aware of the risks you're about to take on the 麻豆社's behalf.
But you can't - and shouldn't - make every decision. Though you do have to be prepared to take the rap for decisions made in your absence or ignorance, even if you'd have made a different one based on the same facts. There are two phrases no Editor should ever use outside the programme. "It wasn't my fault" is one. "I didn't know" is the other. Both might be true in fact, but never can be in spirit; and anyway, the skill of the Editor lies in making sure they never are in any sense. It is your fault and you did know. Live with it.
And output editors? In the broadest sense, output editors are responsible for everything that happens on their watch. Which may be anything from a day to a couple of hours. They don't work in a vacuum, though - indeed, it's the Editor's job to make sure they don't. If the programme Editor has done the job properly, output editors will know as clearly as possible the direction they should be taking each edition of the programme.
They'll express that direction by a number of means; they'll choose the lead story and the running order... choose the guests... and the way stories are treated. They'll also be responsible for getting the best out of the team that day; running meetings and discussions creatively... chasing progress and keeping the story in sight. They'll stamp on inaccuracies and keep a mental note of fairness and balance; they'll brief reporters and presenters and give feedback after the programme.
They'll also know when to involve the Editor. Some output editors prefer to avoid discussing anything with the Editor until after transmission; others like to feel they've thrashed out their ideas - and their problems - beforehand. In all cases, though, having antennae for the possible consequences of decisions - consequences that may go way beyond a single edition of the programme - is a key requirement of both output editor and Editor. The first has to know when to consult, the second has to learn how to spot the signs that an apparently straightforward decision might turn out to be anything but.
Which leads to the final responsibility of the Editor; accountability. While the output editor will deal with the small rows around a particular programme - and some are inevitable - it is the Editor who has to explain why decisions were made or how - in spite of evidence to the contrary - the programme did uphold the highest standards and values.
Or if it didn't, apologise.
Kevin Marsh is editor of the 麻豆社 College of Journalism
The 麻豆社 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
